[ Trump’s earlier hopes to win based on a strong economy and
conquest of the coronavirus have faded. He needs another emotional
issue that responds to people’s need for security: public order.]
[[link removed]]

UNDERSTANDING TRUMP’S GAME PLAN IN PORTLAND COULD BE THE KEY TO
PREVENTING A COUP IN NOVEMBER   [[link removed]]

 

George Lakey
July 25, 2020
Waging Nonviolcence
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ Trump’s earlier hopes to win based on a strong economy and
conquest of the coronavirus have faded. He needs another emotional
issue that responds to people’s need for security: public order. _

PORTLAND, OR - JULY 23: Federal officers arrest a protester after she
crossed at the fence erected around the Mark O. Hatfield U.S.
Courthouse., Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images // Waging
Nonviolcence

 

While outrage was still growing in Oregon over federal agents’
intervention in Portland, President Trump on July 20 named Chicago,
New York, Detroit, Baltimore and Oakland, California as possible next
targets. Since then Albuquerque was added to the list.

Although the agents’ mission was supposedly to protect federal
buildings, they were ranging around the city, dressed in camouflage
outfits in unmarked vans, joining police in responding to
demonstrators. _The New York Times_ reported
[[link removed]] them
seizing people and locking them into a van with no explanation and
wearing no insignia.

The feds began to arrive June 27 and have ramped up in numbers
since. _The Washington Post_ reported
[[link removed]] that
a curious 53-year-old Navy vet, Christopher David, approached a
demonstration where he saw agents acting aggressively. He asked the
officers to remember their oaths to protect the Constitution. They
attacked him and broke his hand.

Agents were assembled from Customs and Border Protection,
Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. According to _The_ _New York Times_
[[link removed]], “The
tactical agents deployed by Homeland Security include officials from a
group known as BORTAC, the Border Patrol’s equivalent of a SWAT team
— a highly trained group that normally is tasked with investigating
drug smuggling organizations, as opposed to protesters in cities.”

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler called it “an attack on our democracy.”
That was before he was tear-gassed on the street in a demonstration.
Oregon Attorney Gen. Ellen Rosenblum filed a lawsuit, seeking a
restraining order.

Gov. Kate Brown, who called Trump’s intervention “a blatant abuse
of power,” said that the protests were starting to ease before
federal officers arrived. What might have prompted Trump to act? Why
Portland? How might this choice be strategic for Trump, both to
bolster his chance to win the election — and perhaps to remain in
office even if he doesn’t win? And what can activists do about it?
 

TRUMP’S “LAW AND ORDER” STRATEGY REALLY CAN HELP HIM WIN

Trump’s earlier hopes to win based on a strong economy and conquest
of the coronavirus have faded. He needs another emotional issue that
responds to people’s need for security: public order. The narrative
couldn’t be clearer. In new advertising and tweets Trump has argued
that Biden “is a harbinger of chaos and destruction.” During a
two-week period in July the Trump campaign spent nearly $14 million
to air a television spot
[[link removed]] suggesting
that police departments won’t respond to 911 calls if Biden is
elected.

Trump’s team figures that a percentage of voters who might otherwise
be ambivalent about him can be tipped toward supporting him by
appealing to their anxiety. In the 1960s, when the nonviolent civil
rights movement moved national public opinion sufficiently to pass two
landmark U.S. civil rights acts, I watched a series of riots in
Philadelphia and elsewhere, from 1965-66, break the movement’s
momentum.

To measure the impact of riots carefully scholars have examined other
examples. Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow studied the April
1968 riots
[[link removed]] following
the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. I was one of the many
outraged in the streets — although, our Philadelphia Black-led mass
protest was nonviolent.

Wasow found that the violent protests measurably helped Republican
Richard Nixon become President in 1968. (His study kicked off a recent
dialogue, including Nathan J. Robinson’s critique in _Current
Affairs_
[[link removed]].
However, Robinson admits he doesn’t challenge the fact that
right-winger Nixon did benefit from the riot.)

Another Princeton researcher, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, investigated
the outcome of the 1992 Los Angeles rebellion
[[link removed]] —
also sparked by a just cause — and found it resulted in the
Democrats moving to a “law and order” posture, mass incarceration
and increased poverty.

Clearly, the Trump team’s strategic calculation on voter behavior is
a reasonable one. But why target Oregon for this intervention?

Portland is known nationally for having some activists who try to
defend themselves against police violence in a violent way. By sending
in federal agents who will escalate violent tactics, there seemed a
good chance of getting video footage for Trump’s election campaign,
proclaiming him as “the law and order candidate.” With luck they
would get vivid pictures at the site of federal buildings that give
the feds their protective justification for being there.

A long-time white anti-racist activist and conflict studies professor
at Portland State University, Tom Hastings, told me another reason why
Portland is an obvious choice for Trump’s team: Oregon’s electoral
votes were already certain to go to Biden. It doesn’t matter for
November’s election that Oregon’s major elected officials are
protesting the federal intervention. Hastings also pointed out that
the cities on Trump’s list for more interventions have Democratic
mayors.
 

WILL ACTIVISTS PLAY TRUMP’S GAME?

One key to a winning strategy is to figure out what the opponent’s
strategy is and refuse to be manipulated — in Portland and in the
other cities on Trump’s target list.

Federal intervention in Portland has turned the previous hundreds of
late-night protesters into thousands. Nonviolent tactics include
[[link removed]] dancing,
a “Wall of Moms,” and orange-clad dads with leaf-blowers, who blow
away tear gas.

 

Mothers form the front line of a protest march toward U.S. Courthouse,
July 20, 2020 - marking 54 days of protests in Portland following the
death of George Floyd in police custody.
Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images  //  Waging Nonviolcence
 

Other activists have escalated violent tactics in response to the
escalation by the feds. According to _The New York Times_
[[link removed]],
some of the protesters used lasers while federal officers fired
projectiles into the crowd. Court papers claim that a Molotov cocktail
was thrown and one protester was charged with hitting an officer with
a hammer, while the Times reported multiple efforts by some protesters
to set alight the wood on the façade of the federal courthouse. The
fire attempt of course reinforces Trump’s dubious claim that the
feds need to be there to protect federal property.

Activists everywhere can learn from the major shift in tactics made
this year by looking at the national response to the May 25 police
killing in Minneapolis of George Floyd. Our spontaneous reactions
expressed grief and anger in multiple ways.

The mass media (as usual) gave most headlines to the rioting. That
meant, as historical research has shown, the impact of the movement
could have set back the struggle for racial justice. However, from the
start, the vast majority of people were protesting nonviolently. The
more fact-based mass media caught up with that quickly. The rioting
quickly ebbed, and the image of the movement shifted to one that is
fairly consistent in its use nonviolent action.

When police in some locations continued to act out violently against
the peaceable demonstrators, they only proved the point demonstrators
were making. Their brutality displayed on nightly TV boomeranged
against them, and more people joined the protests.

Almost all activists found far more effective ways to escalate than
using fire and projectiles: They escalated the contrast between their
behavior and that of the police.

By channeling rage and grief into nonviolent tactics, the Black Lives
Matter surge sustained itself, grew exponentially, introduced new
people to the streets and a national conversation about racial
injustice. It continues to chalk up a series of limited victories.
Bigger victories await even more focused nonviolent campaigning.

Any effective strategizing — Trump’s or ours — includes a
back-up plan, and my guess is that the Trump team has one. If Portland
activists refuse to play into Trump’s hand by adopting a nonviolent
discipline, Trump has a list of other places to try. Trump can hope
that in Chicago or Oakland activists might not see how much he wants
them to fall for his ploy.
 

A MORE SINISTER GOAL TRUMP MAY HAVE IN MIND

When announcing to the media his list of targeted cities, Trump
revealed how important this narrative is to him. His next statement
[[link removed]] was
that if Joe Biden is elected, “the whole country would go to hell.
And we’re not going to let it go to hell.”

Although Trump would undoubtedly claim voting fraud because of
mailed-in ballots, the emotionally more impactful narrative would be
“hell” in the form of violent chaos in the streets happening in
real time following the vote. He has plenty of armed Trump loyalists
ready to do their part. While the courts wrangle about voting fraud,
the chaos can serve as Trump’s immediate rationale for staying in
the White House in January.  

The “violent chaos” narrative is Trump’s growing emphasis, and
I think it’s linked to his hope that police will give a break to
Trump-followers in the streets. On July 19 on Fox News Sunday with
Chris Wallace, Trump said again that he would not agree ahead of time
to obey the results of the election. But then he added, “Biden wants
to defund the police.” As I mentioned, his campaign is already
investing millions in TV ads attacking Biden’s capacity to support
the public’s basic need for safety and security.

Even a man as reckless as Trump likely knows that initiating a
Constitutional crisis is an unusually chancy operation. He needs
preparation even to have a chance of success. By “success” I mean
at least making a deal in which he and his family would avoid the
parade of lawsuits that await him when he is no longer in office.

I see him and his team taking a number of steps to prepare. Right now
in Portland he’s trying out the narrative that justifies a refusal
to exit.

The Utah Citizens’ Alarm is only a month old, and yet it already
boasts 15,000-plus members.
Chaos is good for him. For years he’s been preparing his base to
produce an armed force of “irregulars” that can generate chaos.
Armed men are showing up in places of political tension and
conspicuously being allowed to remain there by local police. Examples
include April 30 in Lansing, Michigan
[[link removed]], June
2 in Philadelphia
[[link removed]] and July
20 at the Utah State Capitol
[[link removed]].

Trump also needs the legitimacy of a governmental force at his
command. On his home ground in Washington, D.C. he experimented with
soldiers in combat gear and military helicoptors attacking peaceful
demonstrators to clear the way for a photo-op.

That test didn’t work out well. The demonstrators didn’t turn to
violence to give him justification, so the media revealed a military
behaving disgracefully. Trump received enormous push-back from
military leaders. They clearly vetoed further use of the their forces
for his own political purposes.

Still wanting the availability of loyal government guns, in Portland
he’s testing civilian federal armed agencies that represent
governmental legitimacy. Chad Wolf, the acting head of Homeland
Security underlined his loyalty when he visited Portland on July 16.
How that works out is yet to be seen.

Since Trump does believe in the art of the deal, if a take-over
doesn’t work he needs also political enablers with some credibility
who will step in to arrange a compromise that protects Trump and his
family when they leave. He’s in good shape there. Republican leaders
have plenty of practice enabling Trump’s corruption and presumably
will be available for this service in the midst of a crisis that’s
not turning his way.
 

WHAT STRATEGY CAN DEFEND AGAINST A COUP?

Portland Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty speaks to protestors during a
candlelight vigil to support Portlanders' rights to free speech and
assembly
Photo by Mason Trinca/Getty Images  //  Waging Nonviolcence
Jo Ann Hardesty is a long-time activist and Black community leader in
Portland who became a city commissioner last year. In the midst of
this crisis she voiced the most important strategic insight that
activists need, although not an easy one to grasp.

On July 20, she called a mass protest outside the county Justice
Center downtown, saying the city would “not allow armed military
forces to attack our people.”

At the rally she gave us the key
[[link removed]]:
“Today we show the country and the world that the city of Portland,
even as much as we fight among ourselves, will come together to stand
up for our Constitutional rights.”

The key is unity — a challenging concept in a polarized time,
especially for those of us who think of ourselves as social change
activists.

A successful direct action campaign for change, after all, doesn’t
start out assuming unity with our point of view. Change activists
generally start out as a minority voice, often a tiny minority, like
the first women who asserted the right to vote or the first LGBT
people demanding freedom to be who we are.

Our initial minority typically finds allies, persuades more doubters,
and reaches the point of launching direct action, becoming what Bayard
Rustin called “angelic troublemakers” who dramatize our point of
view. Then, when we grow and achieve critical mass, we polarize the
issue in such a way that the center of gravity comes down on our side
— leading us to victory. 

Right now in Portland he’s trying out the narrative that justifies a
refusal to exit.

In Hardesty’s words, change activists in Portland (and everywhere)
assume we’ll “fight among ourselves” hoping our point of view
will someday win out. However, she calls us to learn to do more than
only one thing. She wants us to be able at one moment to fight for
change and at another moment to be able to fight for defense, to
protect something worth defending.

She believes that the city of Portland, for all its problems, is worth
defending against Trump’s attack. You likely agree that your city,
or state or country, is worth defending against a would-be dictator.

But here’s the challenge to us: Strategizing for defense is
different from strategizing for change.

When we’re on defense, we not only minimize actions that polarize,
as Hardesty says, but we also design actions that play more to the
center. The “center” is the people in your system (be it your
community or nation) who are not committed strongly one way or the
other.

The leaders in a stable system pay a lot of attention to the people in
center and also, as leaders, they see themselves as balancers who need
to hold things together in whatever system they’re leading. (The
military leadership in the United States is an example of this.) They
usually think “leadership” means at least some care for the
system’s cohesion, integrity and security.

What this means for activists gets clearer in a story about a puzzle I
watched environmental organizers solve.
 

FINDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OFFENSE AND DEFENSE

When I was consulting with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League, I saw their local organizers make sense of a confusing and
surprising phenomenon. Their issue was commercial waste companies
trying to dump toxic waste in local communities.

The organizers had been schooled in social change projects and were
therefore accustomed to entering a community, finding some sympathetic
people more on the periphery of the community (perhaps a Black
minister, a white union member, a Jewish teacher, a Unitarian
librarian) who agreed that toxics shouldn’t be dumped there. By
supporting the activism of these initial contacts and using house
meetings to follow their links in toward the power center of the
community, the organizers expected at last to rouse the leaders of the
community to join in defense against the waste haulers.

To their surprise, the organizers discovered that the leaders of the
community frequently “jumped the gun,” adopting the defense
against toxics as their own issue and even taking leadership in
organizing sit-downs in front of the trucks.

By comparing experiences, the organizers realized that community
leaders believed they needed to be seen as defending their system
against violations of its integrity and security. 

Trump enjoys being outrageous so he can watch us react — and then
waste our time moralizing.

On a national level, this is why Republican leaders are so uneasy
about Trump’s relationship with Putin and his denial of Russian
electoral attacks. Their conflict is between their loyalty to Trump
and their own responsibility to defend the system’s integrity
against attack from outside. That responsibility goes with being part
of the system’s center.

When Jo Ann Hardesty spoke at the rally, she was coaching activists to
see the difference between offense and defense. She said, “This is
not about ‘Fuck the police.’ This is not about who did what, when.
As you know, Portlanders will continue to fight once we get rid of
these federal occupying forces. But when Portland is under attack,
whether you’re Black or white, whether you’re right or left,
Portlanders come together.”

DEFEATING AN ATTEMPTED COUP – NONVIOLENTLY

When Germans overthrew would-be dictator Wolfgang Kapp in 1920, they
used a defensive strategy. It wasn’t easy. World War I left Germany
intensely polarized, much more than the United States is now. The
right wing saw an opportunity to try a coup d’etat, backed by some
of the armed forces.

Germany’s center read the attempt as an attack on the integrity and
security of the system, and responded to the left when it called for a
general strike. Along with ordinary people staying home, governmental
civil servants failed to show up for work.

Kapp found empty offices, with no one to type out a manifesto saying
he was the new ruler of Germany. He needed to bring his daughter to
the capitol the next day to do the typing!

Even an economically battered, partly destroyed, and politically
divided Germany found so many leaders and ordinary people linked to
that sense of integrity and security of the whole system that within a
week the coup was defeated by nonviolent defense.

HOW CAN INDIVIDUALS PREPARE FOR DEFENSE?

As Bill McKibben is fond of saying, “Stop being an individual.”
Recruit your activist group. Talk with others about our possible need
to use Jo Ann Hardesty’s call for an “all-in” shift from change
to defense.

On Zoom calls discuss with others cases of community and national
defense, hundreds of which are available on the Global Nonviolent
Action Database.
[[link removed]]

As you read cases, note what the strengths were that winning activists
used, and ask what you and your comrades’ strengths are. If you’ve
done only change activism up until now, build your flexibility so you
can start or join defense actions as well. With people in the center
in mind, think “unity” rather than “further polarization.”

Don’t under-rate our opponent. Just because it’s easy to deride
Trump’s limited information about things we think are important,
like the virus, is no reason to under-estimate how wily he is, how he
“reads” his opponents and goes after their (and our) weak points.

One of our weak points is that many of us would rather moralize than
strategize. Trump enjoys being outrageous so he can watch us react —
and then waste our time moralizing.

If you’re out late at night and and get attacked on the street
[[link removed]],
it’s a waste of time and brain-space to analyze the ethics of the
attacker. Similarly, we’ll do better in an attempted coup if we give
up moralizing and identify our strengths, Trump’s weaknesses and
create a strategy to win.

Acknowledge your fears, to yourself and friends. If in contemporary
America you have no fear, you simply don’t understand what’s up. I
find my teeth chattering more often these days, which is a way of
acknowledging and letting go of my fear.

Build on the strengths of previous movements that found ways to handle
threats and attacks.

One way to practice your strategy chops is to keep looking at tactical
possibilities for nonviolent noncooperation. This formula might help
you:

Ask: “What do they want me to do?” Then don’t do it.
Ask: What don’t they want me to do?” Then consider it.

The United States is a polarized country. The path of least resistance
is for each pole to become obsessed by the other: The right wing
wastes time learning about and despising us, and vice versa. That’s
the trap.

The way out is to pay attention to the center, which especially in
defense scenarios, is the prize. Learn about centrists, make friends
with them, discuss your points of agreement and disagreement. Your
growth as an activist is guaranteed.

Our own fear may urge us to “look good” to our comrades, perhaps
by doubling down on whatever campaign we’re now involved with. Our
campaigns (for racial justice, immigrant justice, stopping a pipeline,
etc.) are in one sense addressing sub-systems. That’s good, because
in ordinary times the sub-system offers concrete gains when we win.

However, if my analysis is correct, in this situation what’s in play
is the national system as a whole, which will make it more critical
for a moment — and also will make the center available in a new way.

Remind your friends that because the center is easily alarmed by
disorder and especially violence, its willingness to defend the whole
depends partly on the degree to which it sees “our side” as
nonviolent and “the threat” as violent. Because the overwhelming
majority of Portlanders have been demonstrating for Black Lives Matter
in nonviolent ways, elected officials are mobilizing against Trump’s
intervention. If the majority had been violent, Trump’s intervention
would be welcomed by the center.

Reduced to bare bones, our three-point plan in this political moment
may be: stand with the community as a whole, communicate the power of
strategic nonviolent action, and then — as Hardesty reminds us —
as soon as Trump is really out, we can return to our disagreements and
our struggle for revolutionary change!

_[George Lakey has been active in direct action campaigns for over six
decades. Recently retired from Swarthmore College, he was first
arrested in the civil rights movement and most recently in the climate
justice movement. He has facilitated 1,500 workshops on five
continents and led activist projects on local, national and
international levels. His 10 books and many articles reflect his
social research into change on community and societal levels. His
newest books are “Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians got it
right and how we can, too” (2016) and “How We Win: A Guide to
Nonviolent Direct Action Campaigning
[[link removed]]”
(2018.)]_

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]