RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 310 Rethink, Reach Out, and Resist
Episode 310 of RevolutionZ asks what drove millions of Americans to rally behind a figure as vile as Donald Trump? What attracted and held them despite so much that ought to have repulsed them? What can now stop Trump from implementing full-on fascist outcomes? Wtih Immigration policy as an example, how might activism subvert Trump's plans? And is there a way to simultaneously effectively communicate with the over half the voting electorate that supported Trump without compromising values and denying reality?
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our 310th consecutive episode. I prepared a draft starting Wednesday morning after Tuesday's election. It has two parts. The first is a commentary by me about, as the title what happened and what's next indicates, is about the election and the aftermath what's coming. The second part is a commentary by Rivera Sun that I came across on Friday. She works at Peace Voice. She has written numerous books, including the Dandelion Insurrection and the Ariara Series. She is an editor of Nonviolence News, program coordinator for campaign nonviolence and a nationwide trainer in strategy for nonviolent campaigns.
Speaker 1:First comes my reactions and urgings. It starts with a section titled what Happened. It begins got up, got out of bed. Why To start the next round? Why? Because the fight is not over. And I interject yes, it is in part from the Beatles song A Day in the Life. If you haven't heard it, it's quite worth a listen. The commentary continues Trump won a very big battle.
Speaker 1:There's no denying it. It's sickening, for sure, but it wasn't because he is stupid, it wasn't because he's an idiot. Is he the luckiest human ever to walk the planet? I don't think so. Did he have some luck, absolutely. Is he God's emissary? Some huckster pastors maybe. But God Come on, did the media again go for the quick buck, what they exist for, again offering too much Donald all the time? Yes, of course they did, but only a fraction of it said he's our guy, and one of the things Trump knows how to do is to dominate the news cycle. Did the Democrats fail to convince about the economy? Certainly, could Bernie have won. I think he could have. So. Could Harris have tacked leftward instead of rightward and won? Maybe so Are lots of people so fed up and alienated that Trump repeatedly saying that everything is crap and he will fix it all was good strategy to win. Well, yes, it would seem that it was and that he knew it Was another important factor that most of the electorate had little contact with truthful accounts or really with any accounts at all. Yes, I believe it was. Was there a rural versus urban divide? If you look at the maps and say that there wasn't, then you can't see a difference between red and blue About that divide. The maps don't lie, but urban and rural people don't have different genes and, in any event, how did Trump appeal to anyone outside his small circle of friends much less appeal so powerfully across all rural districts, and quite powerfully, indeed more powerfully than last time in many urban districts. Indeed, why did Trump do well enough in urban areas to make up for the relatively lesser population in those areas? Did Trump do as well as he did? Because of what we have a hard time even contemplating, that is, that Trump knew what he was doing.
Speaker 1:I pick door number three. He is a lying thug, rapist, fascist, despicable creature of the worst kind. But he isn't an idiot, at least not at selling things, including selling himself, and not at reading the pulse of a room, even the biggest room. So what the hell did Trump know? Well, let's put it this way how did he say the seemingly idiotically self-destructive things he said and blather as incoherently as he so often did, and yet wind up not destroying but instead elevating himself? I know exit polls show that, when coming out of the polling places and answering questions about a list of concerns, voters put economy and democracy first and immigration and foreign policy last, with gender in the middle. But just how much does that tell us? I think not too much. And since to find out what Trump knows by tunneling into Trump's mind seems impossible. Does he really believe they eat the cats? They eat the dogs? Surely not.
Speaker 1:How about if we come at this question of what Trump knew from a different direction? Draw a picture in your mind of what, who Trump is. Who is he to you? Draw what you see and feel him to be. Draw your take on him Liar, rapist, racist, bully, braggart, billionaire. Keep going with your characterization Enabler of the rich, disabler of the poor, extoler of hate, ridiculer of compassion, and so on.
Speaker 1:Now imagine you were talking informally with a random Trump voter. You were getting along well, you were being honest and open with each other. You aren't directly talking about Trump or the election. Neither of you is dismissing the other. After a while, you ask the Trump voter other things being equal, would you trust, like, want to be led by a guy with the defining features that you then describe, based on those that you see in Trump? How many such voters do you think would say yes, yes, can I have that? Can I have someone with those features, please? Very few, right? Perhaps some proud boys who, beyond them? You aren't sure? Okay, but about all or even most of trump's voters? I don't believe it. Instead, when I imagine that kind of exchange.
Speaker 1:For me, it raises a serious question why are there so many votes for what I find, what we find and what I even think many of Trump's voters would find in other circumstances so odious? What did Trump offer that outweighed or, along with Fox, made invisible to others what we rejected? What did he offer that outweighed or, along with Fox, made invisible or entertaining but not real, what a great many and I think even most of his voters would have ordinarily rejected? What's his attractive aspect that overcame and even made invisible or trivial his repulsive aspect? And if you think such an aspect cannot exist, consider Bill Clinton's voters ignoring his downside. Or, honestly, consider every presidential candidate's voters ignoring their choice's downside They've all got them. Or if you think I have a naive view of Trump's voters, okay, maybe so, but perhaps before deciding, look at a couple of dozen interviews with instances of Trump voters online. Or maybe see what those you know would say if asked the above, and then tell me you still think crediting them with humanity is naive.
Speaker 1:I think Trump's attraction has to be equality a promise, a pledge, not a specific policy. Did more than a handful of his voters read his 900-page program and say, oh man. That's what I want. I don't think actual explicit program was the attraction. Some promises sure, maybe that was part of it, like I will fix the economy, for example, or I will solve immigration, or perhaps some poorly forged assumptions about where Trump would wind up were part of it, like Trump likes people like me. But specific programs, I think they played nearly no role.
Speaker 1:Some would say the attraction is a belief that Trump will keep non-whites down, as in make racism resurgent. There are certainly some of that, to be sure. Hate the other, hurt the other. But Latino Trump voters didn't vote in significant numbers for keeping themselves down, likewise for black Trump voters. And while some whites likely did vote for explicitly hurting non-whites, I think there was much more than racism, or maybe better to say there was much beyond racism at work. Some would say Trump's attraction is a belief that he will keep women down, as in make patriarchy resurgent. Same thing. There is certainly some of that, to be sure, hate women, hurt women, but women voters didn't vote for Trump in such large numbers to keep themselves down. Some men did vote for explicitly hurting women. Yes, I believe so, but I think there was much more than sexism, or maybe better to say there was much beyond sexism at work.
Speaker 1:What about a belief that Trump will preserve some voters' familiar ways of living, a feeling that Trump cares about me? He will raise me back up. He will stop whites like me from falling. He will stop men like me from falling. He will make us men again and more. He will get me some dignity. He will get me some influence. I can be on a winning team, on our team, on my team, on a team where I matter.
Speaker 1:If I am on Trump's team, is all that just wordplay? Isn't to keep whites up the same as to keep those others down because they are inferior? Isn't to keep men up the same as to keep women down, trans down, gays down, because they are inferior? Yes, objectively it can be that. But might the essence of it for many and perhaps even for most trump voters though not for trump instead be a feeling that the other shouldn't be replacing me, the other shouldn't be changing my way of living, shouldn't be causing me to fall, couldn't it often be? I don't want to hurt the other, I want to save and help myself. I am already suffering. Incredibly, trump will stop the replacement of my ways with other ways.
Speaker 1:I think maybe Trump's attraction could in considerable part be a feeling like that. So is that formulation just a way to paper over vicious racism and vicious sexism? It could be, but what if at present, more often than not, it isn't? Then calling it viciousness could unintentionally help make people defensively vicious. Calling it viciousness could push people who have aligned with Trump for other reasons to defensively, maliciously pursue vicious racism and vicious sexism, to stay on the team.
Speaker 1:That is the tune that Nazism on the march struts to. That and passivity from its potential opponents on the sidelines are what Nazism thrives on. On the sidelines are what Nazism thrives on, and at the core of what's coming in January, I think Trump wants to play that tune and thrive on passive opponents. Okay, what about? I want to get me some dignity, get me some influence. I want to be on a winning team, our team, my team, not the elite's team, where I am barely an afterthought, but Trump's team where I feel like the main thought.
Speaker 1:I repeat, because I think that feeling is big as college-educated, empowered professionals fled the Republican Party into the Democratic Party and as non-college educated, disempowered workers fled the Democratic Party into the Republican Party, could it be that the teams kept their members but switched hats. Okay, maybe. But in that case why would the working class constituency that moved toward the Republican Party, with the economy still as a big focus, adhere to its new party's old ways, much less support billionaire boss Trump? Perhaps it was because Trump knew how to minimize their antagonism towards owners and to build on their antagonism toward their worsening plight and what I call the coordinator class and toward every other scapegoat he could blame other than himself and his allies, and thus build on workers' antagonism toward the Democrats. And perhaps it was because Trump makes himself appear to be one of the boys, albeit he puffs himself up as bigger, badder and nastier to bring folks on his march.
Speaker 1:The truth is, the election was, of course, impacted by a slew of intersecting variables. Truth is, the election was, of course, impacted by a slew of intersecting variables. Did Trump emerge on top because he was lucky or God-backed? Or was it because he handled the many variables relatively effectively? Did Trump win because he knew how to appeal to multiple preferences, even to opposite ones, all at the same time, and because the media let him do just that, and the Dems did too? Is it because he knew how to attract justifiably angry, alienated people who ought to have been repulsed by his true self so much that their repulsion faded into the background, sort of like. All candidates attract their supporters when you think about it, but in Trump's case, done better and bigger and to pursue something of his own that is way more extreme than with the other candidates. My own key takeaway from what happened in the election itself is this Many Trump voters disagree with you and with me, not so much about values some of that, of course, but not intensely much as about the facts of the matter and thus the consequences of their vote.
Speaker 1:They ask who cares about my economic circumstances and who will make changes that may help me. Is it Trump who says the economy is in the toilet, or Biden--Harris who say it is going great when I feel like it is in the toilet? Who threatens democracy and weaponizes the legal system? Is it Trump who is trying to release people like me from prison? Or is it Biden-Harris, who I see attacking their opponents mercilessly and ceaselessly from every angle? Who hears my pain at feeling displaced, demoted and dissed? Is it Trump who shrieks, like me, at failures all around, or is it Biden and Harris who celebrate what is all around? Is this confused? Yes. Is it created by a narrow range of communications? Yes, but if our disagreements with many Trump voters are very often about some facts of the matter and some consequences of choices, then isn't that precisely what organizing is meant to address, however impassioned and militant the opposed stances may be? And doesn't that tell us one big important thing about the need to relate to Trump's voters? And, for that matter, doesn't Trump's voters' outrage at what exists all around us tell us another big important thing, but in this case, about what Trump's voters might respond to?
Speaker 1:The second part of my commentary is entitled what's Next? And it begins like this People who want a better world always try to protect and improve the lot of suffering constituencies at the same time as they try to develop means and support to do still more. That is activist methodology. It has been, it is and it will also hold with Trump in the White House. But people of course have to do their activist work in different settings with different resources and with different opponents at different times. No one knows precisely what our Trumpian situation and context for fighting to protect and improve the lot of various constituencies and to expand our means to win still more gains thereafter is about to become Likely. Not even Trump knows that in any detail. Nonetheless, I suggest we can reasonably guess and I am quite confident many people are currently guessing that Trump is going to quickly begin to pursue what he has overtly and aggressively said he will pursue. So there is, as the song said, a very bad moon rising.
Speaker 1:Trump will likely go after a first round of his enemies and then after more. He will likely fire a first round of government employees, ready to then fire more. He will likely make abhorrent appointments, in particular, but not only, robert Kennedy Jr and Elon Musk, and then more. He will likely trash environmental and labor protections and start looking at and making noises about shutting down the Department of Education, fda and CDC. While he shuts down some lesser agencies first and only then moves on to the bigger targets, he will likely begin to drill baby drill pretty much as fast as he can. He will likely close the border and begin to deport undocumented immigrants, but will also likely have to keep most in the US but reduce their status even further than already starting day one.
Speaker 1:Trump gets media, so he will likely begin the process of step-by-step controlling it and eventually establishing state-run media, and he will likely appoint and chat with generals, trying to get them to agree that, if called upon, they will repress his enemies at home. All this Trump will likely pretty quickly initiate but strategically pursue only a bit at a time, taking easier steps first, not least to keep his most virulent support happy. He will likely keep whining about being mistreated and attacked, fight off his legal enemies and try to get his thin support to become more committed, and on all these various fronts he will likely seek some and then, if successful, seek some more and then more as long as he can get away with it. So our task I hope all can agree is to not let him make progress, which I hope we can all see means that to fight against fascism will mean to fight against all of Trump's agendas. But let's consider somewhat more one area that has already been central and a focus of activism, An area that may well soon come up in a much more extreme form than earlier his immigration efforts to see some of the kinds of choices that to oppose Trump may include.
Speaker 1:If we suppose Trumpism is going to pursue deporting millions of undocumented immigrants with their families, we know Trump will not seek to do it in a day, week or month. That would be impossible and in any event, very stupid. His new administration will instead seek to do it a step at a time. Do a little, that's easier. Normalize that. Then do some more, that's harder, complicating his agenda. However, although he hasn't yet acknowledged it, he will have to take account that business is not going to want rampant deportation Some deportation, sure, but very far from all. So we can expect, I think, that Trump will recognize that constraint and will accommodate it by not deporting all undocumented immigrants, but weakening, dividing, legally intimidating and restraining those who we must agree to let stay.
Speaker 1:For Trump, the immigration task will morph from his rhetoric to become a project to deport many, not least to help galvanize hostility toward and isolate and especially scare those who remain, not only lest economic chaos ensues, but also to offset economic losses for owners of many deportations by rolling back all protections for immigrant workers who remain, so they can be exploited even more than in past years. All this immigration activists know and are preparing for, no doubt. So what comes first for Trump regarding immigration? Perhaps to deport undocumented immigrants who are in jail, plus their families, as the easiest and thus the best first target to vilify. Then, after that is normalized, perhaps to deport undocumented immigrants who aren't in jail and who are not convinced of crimes, but who are claimed by police to be criminals, even though not convicted, plus their families. Finally, if that isn't enough, if Trump really is not only vile but also a moron which I don't anticipate with all that normalized he might move on to deport the rest, that is, every remaining undocumented immigrant and family, but far more likely either due to seeing the need himself or to being educated and pressured by owners from various immigrant-dependent industries to meet their needs, both to avoid chaos but also, of course, to enrich the rich. Perhaps Trump won't deport all undocumented immigrants, or even most of them, but will instead just deport a whole lot, while he further reduces immigrants' ability to fight against their super exploitation by rolling back all defenses they may currently still have and drumming up steadily more hate toward them.
Speaker 1:If even some of all that is broadly correct, what would fighting fascism likely involve? Regarding immigration, what are immigration activists already no doubt considering? If Trump's envisioned first steps begin and in response we don't resist or we even mount major protests, that is, however, overrun. Then the immigration agenda would not only move forward at tremendous human and social cost, so might Trump's support. So what is needed is not just to protest deportations, but to stop them. This will likely be activist logic regarding every pursuit that Trump undertakes the more he wins, the harder it will be to stop him. So activists will act on the need to fight Trump from the beginning and, for example, with our eyes on the whole immigrant agenda. That task will need to also include strengthening remaining immigrants by diminishing hostility toward them and protecting them, and indeed all workers, against removal of rights and defenses, while also preparing to not just defend but enlarge their rights and powers as we all endure the horror of Trump having won. This is the kind of approach I think we can expect and hope to join. This is the kind of approach I think we can expect and hope to join.
Speaker 1:Regarding immigration, to give it still more specificity, I have heard already of principals of public schools now meeting with area superintendents about what to do when Trump ordered ICE shows up at their door to take some of their students from their school. One thing we can certainly reasonably expect would be for some principals to decide to not cooperate, but also to not literally block the ICE agents. Another riskier and scarier and at first probably less frequent approach that we might anticipate would be for some principals to decide to literally block the agents. After the superintendent meets with a principal, for example, or even without that step, a principal might meet with her school's teachers and staff and they might collectively decide that they will not be party to deporting their students. We will not only not help ICE. They might decide we will literally block ICE from entering our school. They may go on to decide that they will block them very visibly and openly and as creatively as they can conceive, not only to protect their students but also to inspire other schools and workplaces to do similarly.
Speaker 1:Following that possibility, if ICE is thwarted at its first appearance but then comes back with more agents, what might happen next? The school faculty and staff might decide to continue essentially the same way they block entry again. Ice then says it will arrest the teachers. What then? Perhaps the teachers decide, okay, we will get arrested, you will have to carry us off to jail. And perhaps the teachers will also seek to get lots of parents of their students to stand with them. So then perhaps ICE says okay, you're a pain in the ass, so we will take your students off the street or we will take them from their homes, and maybe the school staff will then decide no, not from our classes you won't, but also not elsewhere. Maybe school staff decides to establish a sanctuary to protect their students from ICE. Maybe they even offer night classes and events for the community, so the school always has lots of people present and has growing and diversifying support.
Speaker 1:And then suppose, simultaneously, others decide to counter the lies and denigration aimed at immigrants to justify their mistreatment, and suppose campaigns to that effect arise. And if all that were to happen, or things equally effective but smarter than what is hypothesized here were to happen, what then best case? Maybe the teachers union sign on, and maybe the teachers' unions sign on, and then maybe the resistance spreads to many more schools and maybe some employers who hire undocumented workers day by day start to resist, and then many more related unions and industries with immigrant workers follow suit, and then maybe all unions, or perhaps earlier than all that, or even earlier than schools, maybe new places of worship start offering new sanctuaries on top of those already in place to block Trump's new deportations. And then can we perhaps imagine that something still bigger happens after weeks and months, or maybe a year, of this struggle. That of course includes various confrontations that steadily arouse more involvement, more solidarity. Perhaps, if Trump hasn't already backed down in New York City, say, the New York football giants welcome immigrants to the stadium, set up a sanctuary for them and tell the city that, until ICE backs off, no more football. Or perhaps the performers and the stagehands who work at Lincoln Center do that. Or the NBA players and stadium staffs do that with, or, more likely, against, their owners. Or Columbia University, nyu and others, compelled by their students, do that. Sanctuary cities already, of course, exist and are lining up to not aid Trump, but literal sanctuary homes to provide protection and also means to fight for better circumstances, and also venues to develop solidarity and outreach programs might make such sanctuary cities still more effective. And then perhaps to fight against Trump seeking to isolate and super-exploit all remaining immigrants. Essential to economic read. Capitalist stability would become part of opposing Trump's deportations too.
Speaker 1:And then this is all hypothetical, though. Such thinking and such efforts have been underway since 2016 and in earlier times as well, and are no doubt gearing up to address Trump's new conditions. It all may sound fanciful to some readers, but isn't it the kind of thing we will need? Isn't there now no alternative to having a real alternative. If a surge to the right toward full-blown fascism can go step by step without major, serious and successful opposition, so that Trump's growing repression and violations pick off one target and then another, won't Trump do just that? Isn't that what we are up against? The more steps Trump's agenda successfully takes, the more steps it acclimates people to, and then the bigger the next steps will be and the faster they will follow, and the faster they will follow and the harder resistance will become. If that is right and it is certainly a time-worn authoritarian pattern then doesn't it follow that we have to resist effectively right at the outset of each Trump effort? Immigration is one front, but not the only one, of course. I offer the ambitious hypothetical scenario outlined above, not for immigration activists already planning what is likely to be wiser and better, but for the rest of us who fear Trump has already won, who fear nothing can win against him. Courageous, committed teachers can become one activist participant, however they choose, of course, but not the only one, and all together can win.
Speaker 1:My point is that to ask what's next is not asking a familiar question about our usual situations. If Trump and whoever composes his administration are out to pursue their Project 2025 agenda. What we do to resist will not be movement activism in only the usual, familiar settings that seeks desirable gains by only familiar methods. Instead, movement activism will have to resist and stop Trumpian program that seeks to dismantle everything democratic and really everything civil other than corporate ownership and Trump-dominated government Isn't the only thing that will stop that type agenda. Resistance and associated solidarity, which cannot be overcome without Trump and his administration losing its support and finally losing its enforcement apparatus, tell me that that kind of resistance that broadens and deepens with every step forward is impossible, and I will tell you that I fear we are, in that case, headed for hell. In short, trump, with the support that he has and the mandate that he will claim albeit that I think his support and mandate are still rather thin and far from eager for Project 2025 type steps will take what he thinks he can easily take, and what he thinks he can easily take will then grow with each new success.
Speaker 1:To stop him therefore needs to start right away. We must prevent his agenda and the human harm it would impose right at the outset, so we don't face a much harder problem of dismantling full-blown fascism after it is in place. We know that in various situations, diverse people will talk together, plan and act in their own chosen ways, like the hypothetical school staffs mentioned above. That is no doubt already proceeding. Such first actions will make it easier for others in other situations who don't have such activist history to then begin to do similarly. Resistance will then spread. We know activists will start as early after inauguration as they can in creative ways that will not provide an excuse for violent repression, but that will be effective and inspire others to do their best in more domains and that will simultaneously start to earn wide respect and support, even from elements among Trump's voters.
Speaker 1:Is all this just wishful thinking? Trump has a program. He is not just defending a horrible system, he is hell-bent on making it much worse. He is not hiding anything and he will do what he wants unless he is stopped. It isn't going to be easy and while large rallies and demonstrations to display and grow dissent can and likely should be part of it, my guess is that active, organized, carefully conceived and planned, determined and replicable, as well as effective new modes of resistance are going to be essential Election day. They want a battle, but this war is not over. It will be difficult to stop and remove Trump and Vance too, but certainly not hopeless.
Speaker 1:Like many others, I am saddened, horrified, enraged, sickened, outraged and pummeled that the fascist but clever psychopath will be president yet again in a couple of months. I am also scared and feeling weak over what has happened. I suspect many who may hear this or read it in Z are feeling more or less similarly Muddled too. Even getting out of bed isn't easy. Comedies on Netflix beckon For some. Blaming others fills time but accomplishes little.
Speaker 1:The truth is, we cannot surrender A brief break to replenish, yes, but with a timeline in hand and a constant eye to return. Some will, without any doubt, start to fight first. Sometimes it will be their situation that makes it easier for them or that prods them harder earlier, sometimes their more prepared personal inclination from their ongoing activist involvements that will move them. Whatever, but, honestly, the really important group upon which everything may hinge may be those who join next. Will there be enough? Will they merge in seamlessly, bringing their own ingenuity, courage and energy?
Speaker 1:You who read this or other formulations in other places that are like this, with all your knowledge of what is wrong with society, with all your awareness of the implications of Trumpian events, with all your experience. You, we need to be in one of those two initial groups addressing one or another component of Trump's agenda. Component of Trump's agenda. If we all are, trump will go berserk. But he will also lose because, having gotten that far, more of us will join and then more, and then even his voters will start to dissent. It may take a year or two, but it can be done and it must be done. Trump is relying on what in my past became known to me as the sounds of silence. If we watch his agenda unfold and we are horrified but silent, angry but inactive silence will rule. It is time to make some very effective, very big noise. So ends my commentary, and please now hear from Rivera's son, via me, reading her not overly long but brilliantly expressed piece titled we have a Sacred Duty, all of Us. I think it presents one worthy way of interacting with Trump voters Not the only worthy way, but one.
Speaker 1:It starts on election night in my small town. I sat around a folding table with four election clerks, sworn in by the election warden and doing my civic duty to count every vote. The polls had closed, darkness pressed heavily against the windows, as it does this time of year in northern Maine. Rain hushed down on the empty parking lot, the playground and the bandstand. It was sacred. Secular, yes, but sacred. It is through the ballot, not the bullet, that we choose our leaders. We came so close to losing our right to democratic transitions four years ago. The threat still looms over us today, each side claiming a different concern about the election and aftermath.
Speaker 1:My fellow election clerks and I came from different political perspectives, but we shared a common respect for the democratic process. We checked our opinions at the door that night. They had no place in the room. We were there to serve our country in a role that should be as honored as our soldiers and veterans. We had been entrusted to count with absolute fairness and unfaltering accuracy, and that's what we did. The head of one of the political parties bore witness, silently, sitting to the side, as we recorded the results of each candidate write-ins and referendum choices. I counted with profound care, not rushing even as the night wore on. I held in my hands the hopes, dreams and aspirations of my community.
Speaker 1:There were fewer than 500 people in our small town. 231 of them came out to vote. People cared deeply about this election and what it meant for them, their families and our nation. Their vote for Trump broke my heart. When the majority vote for Trump and all the other results were tallied and recorded, I took a deep breath, bid goodnight to the other clerks and worked out into the somber darkness of that rainy night. No longer bound by my sworn oath or my sense of duty to uphold non-partisanship, I wept in shuddering breaths as a citizen, as a human, as a woman.
Speaker 1:The choice of my neighbors to vote for this man shattered my trust in them. It is difficult to admit this. My neighbors are good people, decent people. I've known them since I was a teenager. Our small town is noteworthy for the way it cares for people and community life. We hold senior lunches once a week in the old elementary school. When a young farmer was in a car accident or a local carpenter had a heart attack, we packed the cafeteria for pasta fundraisers to help with medical costs. We hold bonfires at the ballpark, a bottle drive for 4th of July fireworks and organize welcome wagons for new residents. It's a place where you'll never hear a swear word in public and people of all genders hold the door for elders at the post office.
Speaker 1:How can such decent people vote for a sexist, woman-groping, threat-making, hate-spewing person like Trump. He hinted at not leaving office when his term ends. He threatened journalists. He is guilty of 34 felonies for paying hush money to his sex worker. He incited his supporters to storm the US Capitol building. This is not merely my opinion. It is fact. It is documented. It is inexcusable. His behavior reflects poorly on my neighbors, as does their choice to condone it with a vote.
Speaker 1:I want to say to my community I look at you differently. Your reputation for decency no longer holds in my eyes. I look at your faces and see bigotry behind your smile. When we chat about the weather at the post office, I hear your leader's abject denialism of the climate crisis. When I walk past you, I know you supported a man who routinely demeans and disrespects women. When I see your yard signs for Trump, I add you to my mental map of places where minorities and marginalized groups are no longer safe.
Speaker 1:Your reputation is crumbling because of Trump's actions and it will continue to do so for four years, for each day that you silently or actively support this man, when you nod along at his discriminatory policies, when you look away from the way he dismantles the institutions that serve this country, when you do nothing as he flouts the law and breaks the rules and undermines democracy at every turn. When you fail to apply critical thinking to the lies and stereotypes he churns out so fast we can cover city blocks with them you erode the respect with which you hope others see you. You cannot claim to be good, decent people and continue to support Trump. You cannot have both. Your values of respect, caring and decency are not represented in him and you should not let his actions represent you.
Speaker 1:If you voted for Trump for economic reasons but did not support his discriminatory behaviors or policies, you need to take a public, visible and tangible stand against them. Many of us left and right spend an election year making excuses for certain behaviors and policies, promising ourselves that we will push our candidate to change once they're in office. It is time to do so Now, not on January 6, 2025. Now, before the politics of hate become emblematic of how people perceive you. Your stand for common decency and basic respect needs to be loud and visible.
Speaker 1:Simply making statements in the comfort of your home is not enough. When your hunting buddy repeats jokes about assaulting women, you need to tell him to stop it, not laugh awkwardly along when someone rolls their eyes about youth questioning sexuality or gender. You need to say you love your niece, nephew, cousin, however they are, and that you're okay with all the people like them. Even better, put a pride flag in your front yard and tell our community that you don't hold with cruel and heartless discrimination. If you see the border patrol harassing the nice farm worker from Jamaica who live across the street, go out and stand alongside those nice people. When Trump says he won't leave office at the end of his term, tell your local party to condemn that statement as hints of dictatorship. That's what it is. In case you're wondering, if you want to reclaim your reputation, you need to take these kinds of actions and many more. Contribute to the movements protecting vulnerable people. Join your fellow party members who are brave enough to criticize Trump. Denounce the ways your party treats women. Make a clean break away from racism, discrimination, threats, harassment, hate crimes and all the documented actions that have caused concern for nearly a decade.
Speaker 1:Right now, tens of millions of Americans are mourning what you have become, what this nation has become and what you just voted for. When I spoke with people across the country on November 6th, many people wept like I did. We were not weeping simply because Kamala Harris lost. We wept because your choices made our country lose something sacred the vision and aspiration that we could one day become a place where everyone is welcome, where everyone is treated with respect, where everyone is worthy, where everyone is treated with decency.
Speaker 1:On election night, I did my civic duty and held it sacred. Now I'm asking you to do your civic duty and hold it sacred. Stand up for your fellow citizens and human beings. Reject the politics of hate and policies of discrimination. Join us in reclaiming that profound and sacred aspiration of being a country of respect and decency. It's not just the fate of our nation at stake. Your reputation is also on the line. That's the end of Rivera-Sun's son's commentary, and I only want to add that, when you think about it, all that she said needs to be done needs to be done as well by people who voted for Harris. It's really not different. And that said, this is Mike Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z.