Background:
In the aftershock of Donald Trump’s election, disbelief quickly morphed into anger on the left. Demonstrations were held in cities across the nation, from Chicago to New York to LA. Students staged “walkouts” at their high schools. And of course, many protested on social media, catapulting hashtags such as #NotMyPresident to online fame.
It’s unclear what protesters hope to accomplish. Some may have concrete goals, like pressuring politicians to fight for recounts. But there haven’t been any collective demands or stated objectives, aside from the expression of outrage.
Should they fight on?
Yes:
Protests against the Trump presidency are creating unity between marginalized groups. In a time where queer individuals, people of color, women, and other marginalized groups are fearing what may come in the next four years through a Trump administration, taking to the streets and expressing discontent for a political system that is not in their favor is an incredibly empowering movement. People who feel that they are losing their rights in a Trump administration find that in a world where politics excludes the voices of the marginalized, social demonstrations of anger are the only way to express their opinions of anger, or even fear.
The goal of a protest is not necessarily to change the results of the election. It is to object against a system deemed unjust. It shows that Trump will not be able to get away with the violent, sexist, and xenophobic rhetoric that was prevalent in his campaign in his next four years. It is a mode of resistance that tells the Trump administration that the big, flowery promises made on the campaign trail will not be met with compliance.
Protests are an effective strategy to raise awareness. Staged walkouts, protests on freeways, and in front of government buildings spread awareness about the oppressed groups under his campaign. Protests are proven to spread awareness on social issues. Things like Black Lives Matter protests and protests for Standing Rock would not have been as well known were it not for public displays of anger. Trump protests raise awareness of the fear felt as they watched more and more states turn red in his direction.
Whether or not you think these protests are effective or not, it is a person’s right to protest a government they see as corrupt. Dissent is undeniably important, and our right to speak out against something we disagree with is a right that should be used in situations like this one. We cannot let Trump’s power and rhetoric go unchallenged, and public protests is a way to challenge him in these next four years.
No:
Those who protest Donald Trump have legitimate concerns. But if you can’t accept President Trump because he won the election, accept him because refusal to do so will hurt your cause more than it will help.
Say your goal is to change the results of the election, by calling for recounts or pressuring electoral college voters to defy their constituents. First, the odds of either of these working are slim to none. Second, the danger of any attempted election reversal outweighs the tiny chance they might.
Imagine you are a Trump supporter. You are angry at a government dominated by a small cohort of elites who don’t seem to care about you. Along comes Donald Trump, with his promise to drain the swamp. You believe him, vote for him, and he wins a glorious upset against the ultimate political insider. But the “establishment,” all those politicians and coast-dwelling liberals you raged against, is in denial, and fights to reverse his win through a technicality. Are you angrier than you were before?
Any effort to unseat Mr. Trump would reinforce his supporters’ belief in a rigged system. It would sustain the anti-elite sentiment that favors Trump-like candidates over competent leaders in elections. His movement would outlive his term, and protestors would be rewarded with more politicians like him. Nice.
Even if the protest is purely symbolic, a statement of defiance rather than a call for change, protesting is damaging. “#NotMyPresident” has more serious implications than the casual Tweeter might think.
In our ultra-polarized political climate, the right and left approach each other as enemies, not as fellow citizens — or even as human beings. Whether it’s former House Speaker John Boehner rolling his eyes behind President Obama during the State of the Union Address, other GOP lawmakers refusing to shake his hand, or Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters “deplorables,” America’s dominant ideological factions are more warring clans than countrymen with different ideas for improving a shared home.
We can’t work together, so the government doesn’t work at all. The government can barely pass a budget, and the two parties battle each other into gridlock.
Now, we’ve achieved a new level of antagonism — even the democratic election of a president isn’t recognized.
As liberals, we have two choices. The first is to continue protesting, and drop the already bitter relationship between left and right to a new low.
Or, they can pass on their turn to throw a fit, and try to break the cycle of malice. It’s easy to be talk about healing in victory, but as the losing team we have the opportunity to make a profound statement. We can be dignified in defeat when others were not, and perhaps restore some unity to our democracy. We can make public discourse civil once more — a necessary step towards making government functional, which is a necessary step towards progress of any sort. But only if we get off the picket lines, and soon.