I bet you agree that we need to persistently resist Trumpian fascism. ‘Smash Trump. Sink his administration. Replace both.” I said that just now. Countless others have said similar things increasingly in recent days. 

All of us are one hundred days in. Much has been revealed and also comprehended. Rather than redundantly rehash all that, I’d like to consider the choices of anti-Trump actors who also seek participatory, self managing, equitable, feminist, solidaritous, culturally intercommunalist, internationalist, and ecologically wise people’s institutions. What can we add to what Sanders, AOC, Pritzker, and even some mainstream media now advocate? Resistance grows, diversifies, and escalates. How might seekers of fundamental change uniquely and valuably augment it?

This question is trickier than it may first appear. Many throughout society now advocate outreach, civil disobedience, and even mass disruption. Sanders, AOC, and Pritzker militantly urge serious resistance with their large megaphones. Our smaller megaphones reach less far into the population. We can certainly add our voice to further amplify current messages, but can we bring anything more to the fight against fascism? Can we add words or deeds that are sorely needed but not already present? 

I think we can, but I also think it is a tricky task. We can urge resistance to more clearly adopt positive program alongside our vigorously rejecting Trumpist fascism. We can urge that success is not just to get Democrats back in the saddle. We can propose specific tactical, strategic, and programmatic formulations to arouse forward-seeking passion that continues once Trump is gone. 

To reduce and reverse global warming, to curb and cease international violence and U.S. militarism, to diminish and eliminate exploitation, hunger, and curable diseases will all benefit from and likely even require ending Republican rule of Congress, the Senate, the Judiciary, the Cabinet, and the Oval Office. So to that extent, to resist and then get beyond Trump we will have to get Democrats into various offices. To deny that is idiotic. I am sorry, but it is. To stop Trump clearly needs the widest possible support, the most possible voices, and the broadest possible range of actions—not just the most militant, most woke, and most revolutionary voices and actions. But it is simultaneously true that to inspire sufficient participation, particularly from working people, anti-Trump activism needs to point beyond removing Trump. Working people will not become active partisans of ending Trumpism to enshrine Democratic Party business as usual. Is understanding and acting in light of that truth the left’s unique contribution? Maybe it was a few weeks back—but not any more. That recognition and commitment is now widespread, even issuing from a subset of Democrats.

Can leftists constructively support that call but simultaneously cast shade on the idea that any Democrat—even Sanders, AOC, or Pritzker—can fully deliver on it? Can the left say that such Democrats could even mislead the resistance? That they may even sell out? That some may only be saying what they think audiences want to hear to defeat Republicans but they don’t really mean it? Could leftists usefully claim that when the dust clears if we just support Democrats’ calls to roll back Trump and Republicans, the seemingly progressive and even radical Democrats who urged and participated in resistance will then happily revert to Democratic Party business as usual or, if they resist, will get silenced by a resurgent Democratic Party mainstream?

We could, and I get that we have valid, insightful, and dead-on accurate critiques of the Democratic Party—though not of every Democrat via mere association. Indeed I have continually conveyed such criticisms since roughly 1966 and now too. But nonetheless I have no difficulty keeping that broad understanding in mind and simultaneously appreciating what Sanders, AOC, and now possibly Pritzker are specifically saying and doing as a critically important part of Resistance—a part that I have to acknowledge is much bigger than “the left.” And I also have no problem saying that comes 2026 I want to see Democrats beat Republicans as widely and severely as possible. And I have no trouble saying that comes 2028 I will, if still around, and if there is an election, work for and want to see an AOC/Pritzker ticket trounce whatever slug the Republicans serve up. At the same time, I also have no trouble saying that beyond that very desirable result, and potentially aided by it, movements need to seek many more gains including a new polity, a new economy, new kinship, and new culture. Hell, this dual perspective is way easier to hold than it is to walk and chew gum at the same time, or whatever that phrase was, because while the electoral gains aren’t the whole point, and while acting as though they are the whole point would curtail achieving the whole point, they are nonetheless part of the whole point. 

So the upshot is that we who want fundamental change have a tricky balancing act. We need to celebrate serious Democratic Party involvement in resistance—hell, we should even welcome grey flannel corporate college trustees and rich law firm partners who resist—and yet, at the same time, we must keep alive and continue to grow awareness that mainstream resistance to fascism is not the whole show. 

We should not idiotically bash and dismiss everyone who doesn’t yet display our own personal image of profoundly revolutionary sentiment so as to display how profoundly revolutionary we are. Why? Because first, to bash away at other dissenters ironically reveals how miserably isolated and operationally blind we are. Second, to bash away at people who are now rejecting Trump and even who he is hurting but who are not yet rejecting Trump, demoralizes, divides, and jettisons when we instead need to inspire, welcome, and unify. But can the left advocate and participate in wide outreach while we also maintain our longer term aims?

I think maybe we can, but again I think it will be a bit tricky. Experienced leftists with years and even decades of practical experience do sometimes actually know some things of value to convey. On the other hand, we are often justifiably seen as arrogant know it alls precisely because that is how we act. So we have to listen. We have to ask and not just pronounce. We have to not just appear humble, but be humble. But we should also say and do what we think can help. Honestly, this isn’t rocket science. We need to be about how our words and actions affect others, not solely about how they affect us. 

---