MINNEAPOLIS HAS SET THE EXAMPLE FOR RESISTANCE NATIONWIDE

The resistance to ICE by the people of Minneapolis has brought hope. With war now raging against Iran we must redouble our vigilance at home.

It was vacuous, mendacious, and hateful. Donald Trump’s State of the Union address reinforced his playbook that turns more than half of the American people into his enemies. Among others, he targeted Muslim lawmakers and the state of Minnesota, where he had recently deployed 3,000 ICE agents, essentially thugs, without accountability to manhandle and arrest immigrants. Well-publicized were the murders of two non-violent American citizens whom Trump and his cronies held responsible for their own deaths. “Operation Metro Surge” was an act of intimidation writ large that Trump has spread across the American landscape to expand his power. Amid Trump’s hate-mongering, lies, self-aggrandizement, and vulgarity worthy of an adolescent street punk, one needs to step back and ask oneself, “is this conduct commensurate with what we want or expect from a president of the United States?” “Does it reflect the dignity of the office?” “Or, have we fallen into a snake-pit of lunacy?”

In rapid order, the political landscape is moving toward autocracy. Tens of millions of Americans, caught up in the maelstrom of con-artistry, deprivation, and cruelty, have surrendered rationality, decency, and compassion for their fellow human beings. Trump’s Republican camp followers have proven themselves to be utterly craven. They have abandoned loyalty to the Constitution, democratic principles, and the rule of law.

ICE troops, who entered the state in large numbers at the end of 2005, have mostly been withdrawn. The rationale for the arrest of immigrants was fraud carried out by companies that bilked the government of funds slated for social services. Trump contended that the fraud was carried out by Somali immigrants, though 85 percent of Somalis in Minnesota are citizens or legal residents. It was on this basis that Trump had sent in the equivalent of Hitler’s brown shirts to arrest and terrorize the people of Minnesota and sow chaos as they carried on their campaigns on the streets, in homes, and in public places, including courthouses. These poorly trained agents were masked, without identification, and hence employed their aggression without accountability. Trump is now further punishing the people of Minnesota, the poorest most of all, by withholding more than 250 million dollars in Medicaid funding. It’s a vindictive measure he is planning impose on other blue states.

But the good people of Minneapolis fought back, and in their resistance, we can find a basis for hope. With temperatures dipping to nine below zero, more than 40,000 residents of Minneapolis came into the streets, day after day, to defy ICE’s invasion of their neighborhoods. They opposed the arrests of immigrants at close range. They pursued the ICE agents down the streets. They photographed them with their cell phones. They organized watch groups and used whistles to alert each other when agents were nearby. They walked beside immigrants when they needed to leave their homes. Others worked behind the scenes to organize food parcels and brought them to immigrants who were wary of leaving their homes for the store. In short, the residents of a large city came together as a tightly bound neighborhood in order to protect those most vulnerable among them. It was an exercise not only of courage but of humanity.

The resistance deployed by the citizens of Minneapolis was effective. Through relentless determination, they were successful in causing the Trump administration to back down and change course. Their resistance provides an important example of what needs to be done to stem the tide of authoritarianism and, over time, restore the functioning of American democracy.

Resistance to the Trump phenomenon is growing. Most expansive has been the organization of the “No Kings” demonstrations. The last brought an unprecedented seven million people into the streets for non-violent protest, calling for the preservation of democracy. Another demonstration is scheduled for March 28th, and the rising tide of opposition to Trump indicates that it will be even larger.

Demonstrating in the streets, especially in such large numbers, is imperative as a tool of resistance. But the protests in Minneapolis were of a different character. Beyond a street presence, the resistance was active; the people of Minneapolis confronted ICE agents head-on. They alerted each other when ICE agents were present, pursued them, photographed their abuse, confronted them verbally, and worked cooperatively in an effort to keep immigrants safe.

In this regard, a front-page article, published in “The New York Times” on February 7th, caught my attention. It reported on how the strategies employed by resistors in Minneapolis drew from earlier precedents. The article cited that the protests in Minneapolis originated from strategies created by the Black Panthers in the 1960s and the American Indian Movement, which was founded in Minneapolis. Central to these strategies was policing the police. As the article notes,

“Both the Panthers and the American Indian Movement blended uncompromising left-wing politics with ground-level community organizing, and they embraced police monitoring patrols as part of that project.” “The trainings focus on documenting ICE activities and alerting others to their presence, sometimes using tactics – such as blowing whistles – that shade into disruption. Activists’ guides in some cases link resources for more directly confrontational civil-disobedience tactics.”

The non-violent confrontations, organized by Martin Luther King, were a mainstay of the Civil Rights Movement, which took place on many fronts. While King differed from the Black Panthers over the use of violence (though short-lived, the Panthers carried guns as they surveilled the police), at the deepest level, the dynamics of confrontation employed by King and the Black Panthers bore similarities. King frequently emphasized that non-violent resistance was not passive. It was active resistance intended to heighten the tensions of conflict to change realities and create a new, more just condition.

King summarized his position in “The Letter From the Birmingham Jail,” which I have long felt was among the most eloquent examples of prose literature written in the twentieth century. The letter was directed to white clergymen who were sympathetic to civil rights but felt that King should seek redress in local and federal courts. They held that street demonstrations would exacerbate civil disturbances. In the letter, King responded as follows:

“ You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”

King drew his understanding of the need to heighten tensions from the thought of G. W. F. Hegel, whose dialectical philosophy he studied when working toward his doctorate at Boston University.

Also relevant to the present moment was King’s assessment of those sympathetic to the cause who opted to remain on the sidelines. In the “Letter From the Birmingham Jail,” King noted:

“...I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”

I opine that if we substitute democracy for justice, we have an apt analogy to the reticence of members of the Democratic Party, who need to put aside the buttoned down propriety of legislators and adopt strategies of militant resistance. And perhaps, among some Republicans, who have become sycophants to the impulses of a twisted man and demagogic leader, but who may silently harbor doubts about the abandonment of conscience, maybe even some of them can change course.

If autocracy is to be reversed and democracy to be restored, two things must occur: Donald Trump’s MAGA movement must splinter and shred. We are witnessing this beginning to happen as Trump’s popularity has significantly fallen. But at the same time, Democratic leadership needs to solidify and militantly assert itself.

Political change occurs in two directions. There is change that results from the top down in the form of laws and policies that emanate from those in positions of leadership. But there is also change that rises from the grassroots, from movements created by people on the ground in response to realities informing their immediate economic, cultural, and political circumstances.

In a democracy, when legislatures and courts fail, power ultimately rests with the people. We are witnessing that power in Minneapolis. It is a dynamic that needs to be replicated nationwide in localities everywhere. It needs to be pursued with vigor and relentlessly if democracy is to be restored.

As I publish this essay, news has broken that the United States is waging a full-scale war against Iran. We do not know the reasoning for Trump attacking Iran, especially at this moment. He may conclude that the war will provide a diversion from his failing popularity. It is also a way to rally the support of those already in his camp. And we may readily conclude that the Middle East, which has been a lucrative source of wealth for Trump, his family, and cronies, will be a source of increased riches emerging from deals with the Arab states as the power of Iran is diminished. Militarily, perhaps Trump believes that Venezuela marked a salutary prelude that can be readily repeated. These remain conjectures. What we do know is that the war will sow death and chaos throughout the Middle East and perhaps beyond. A powerful argument against war is that once nations enter onto the battlefield, the outcome is unpredictable.

This war should heighten our concern with regard to freedom and democracy domestically. A warranted apprehension emerges from the fact that Trump views reality in dichotomous terms. One is either for him or against him; one is either a loyalist or an enemy. Iran has long been an enemy, and destroying the Iranian regime can augment Trump’s narcissism and his posture as a “strong man.” But given his penchant to divide those around him into these two camps, one can fear that he will use his power to further suppress those he views as his domestic enemies. Whatever heightens Trump’s power provides a greater threat for all of us.

Resistance needs to continue.