I’ll say one thing for Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and the rest of the goon squad: they certainly don’t waste time. Only 13 days since the inauguration and other politicians generally engage in at least some flattering foreplay before getting down to action – but not these bad boys, oh no! No, they’ve gone straight in and grabbed the pussy, just as they promised. Just look at how they and their cheerleaders deal with those who object to their actions.
The demonising of the media – that is, the parts of the media that were not founded by Bannon or Rupert Murdoch – is almost an old story by this point. It has certainly stepped up a notch since Trump swore on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible to defend the US constitution: in the past week and a half, Trump has started referring to the media and anyone who fact-checks him as “the opposition party”, while Bannon told the New York Times that the media should now “keep its mouth shut”. Old news, like I said, albeit news worth keeping in mind.
It seems apt at this point to look at the constitution that Trump so faithfully promised to uphold. And – what do you know? – the first amendment argues for “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”: in other words, to protest.
There have already been a lot of protests during Trump’s presidency. Not as many as there have been executive orders flooding out of the White House, but a fair few: the global Women’s March, in which millions took part; the petition, which has currently notched up more than 1.7m signatures, asking the UK government to call off Trump’s upcoming state visit; the protest at Downing Street and other UK cities on Monday night protesting about Trump’s cackhanded executive order banning immigrants from seven largely Muslim countries. The Women’s Marches and the Downing Street protest were notable for their lack of incident – a marked contrast to Trump’s campaign rallies which were infamously studded with aggression.
Now, like I said, no one can accuse this administration of dragging its feet. And if you expected Team Trump to hold its totalitarian cards close to its chest before revealing how little it cares for the constitutional right to protest, well, you haven’t been paying attention. Kellyanne Conway, the president’s senior aide, sneered about protesters in November. “We’re just treating these adolescents and millennials like precious snowflakes,” she said, using the rightwing term du jour for young people’s alleged hypersensitivity to opinions different from theirs. During the Women’s March the president tweeted: “Watched the protests yesterday but was under the impression we just had an election! Why didn’t these people vote?” Don’t try to argue that if you’re so upset by a bunch of people peacefully marching, or Alec Baldwin imitating you on a late-night comedy show, that you yourself are perhaps not exactly lacking in snowy qualities . We’re in a post-logic world, remember.
Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2017
But this is coming not just from the Trump administration: an intriguing narrative is quickly taking hold in Britain that to protest against Trump is stupid, self-defeating, hypocritical, evidence of the younger generation’s oversensitive nature (never mind that people of all ages took part in the Downing Street protest and the Women’s March). The Daily Telegraph has run two pieces this week protesting against protest, and the Times published an especially sneer-heavy article claiming that the protesters are “wasting their breath”. A full-page editorial in the Daily Mail on Wednesday dismissed anyone who protests against President Trump as “liberal elites and their sheep-like followers”.
The so-called brains of Brexit, Daniel Hannan, has been especially vocal in his disdain for protest. On the morning of the Women’s March he tweeted: “So pleased that our female head of government ran in her own right rather than as the last guy’s wife, banana-republic-style. #WomensMarch” a tweet so stupid the New Statesman ran an article titled: “19 things wrong with Daniel Hannan’s tweet about the women’s march”. Hannan continued as he began with his thoughts on the petition: “A lot of people on Twitter seem unable to distinguish between ‘I dislike Donald Trump’ and ‘Donald Trump shouldn’t visit the UK’.” And thus Hannan himself then joined the long list of people apparently unable to distinguish between “Trump should not be granted a state visit in his first month of presidency” and “Trump should be banned from the UK”.
These arguments are, for a start, as transparently absurd and self-serving as the Republicans now complaining about Democrats obstructing President Trump’s nominee for the supreme court, when they did the same to President Barack Obama for almost a year. The purity argument is popular among anti-protesters: “You didn’t protest at XYZ, therefore you’re a hypocrite for protesting over ABC!” Who knew you had to protest against everything so as to protest at anything? As for Trump defenders who say state visits from leaders of Russia and Saudi Arabia passed with (little) objection, you may want to ask yourselves whether you’re helping your man by comparing him to Russia.
If people in the UK pay more attention to the leader of America than that of Saudi Arabia, that’s a testament to how Brits see the president as more powerful and more relevant, and hold him to a higher standard. You can’t enjoy your man’s power and then affect outrage when people hold it to account. Or you can, but I think there might be a word for that. As for the argument that Presidents Obama and Jimmy Carter also suddenly ordered Muslim bans – they didn’t base their orders on religion and didn’t do it out of the blue. But other than that, great argument!
Leaving aside that peaceful protest is the root of democracy, the idea that mass protest doesn’t achieve anything can be made only by someone with literally no knowledge of history. As for the suggestion that the best way to deal with Trump is not mass protest but “respectful” engagement, as the Times suggested, this can be made only by someone with absolutely no understanding of the man. He is not a normal politician. To treat him as one is almost as stupid as sneering at protest.
What we are seeing is a chipping away at dissent. Those who sneer at protest should ask themselves what, exactly, they are hoping to achieve. Telling people not to protest is not proof of calm sophistication – it is anti-democratic and strongly suggestive of fear.
The #MarchForLife is so important. To all of you marching --- you have my full support!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2017
Trump’s defenders, after all, are free to protest too, and some of them are already doing so: there is a petition arguing for Trump’s state visit, and there was an anti-abortion March for Life in Washington last weekend. “You have my full support!” Trump tweeted to the March for Life protesters. Because protest is fine, as long as he agrees with it. What a snowflake.
