As a resident of Towers at UConn, I often find myself walking in the parking lot sandwiched between Hillel House and the Catholic Center, a route which leads me through an opening in a wooden fence and up a long set of stairs that finally bring me to my dorm building. A few days ago, however, the fence opening was unexpectedly closed, meaning I had to either walk around the fence or try to hop over. All in all, this is an extremely minor inconvenience; walking around takes about more 15 seconds. But it was fascinating to see the choice in action: accept the waste of time and trudge around, or defy the fence by hopping over? It is a decision that holds much more weight when you apply it to far more consequential affairs, such as the current U.S. government.
Throughout the first few months of Trump’s second term, as the administration has continuously flouted the rule of law and imposed draconian restrictions on everything from ideology to immigration, the idea of resistance has once again come to the forefront. During Trump’s first term, resistance to his policies seemed much more defined and organized; the Women’s March, which took place one day after Trump was sworn in, demonstrated the power of an organized, grassroots-fueled opposition.
But after nearly ten years of having Trump on the news every day, a length of time that seems both shocking and mind-numbing, widespread resistance has burned out. Organizers were astounded and exhausted by the fact that despite Trump’s obvious transgressions, he won again in 2024. Even worse, he immediately set about smashing the norms and workings of the government on a level hardly anticipated in his first term. This has created a sort of paradox where the conditions of democracy are deteriorating worse than ever, yet resistance appears feebler and people seem less interested in combatting Trump. Yes, legal challenges to Trump’s policies trundle along in the courts, and there are sporadic protests over specific issues. But one only has to look at massive, ongoing protests over democracy in Turkey and Serbia—two countries that have been teetering on the edge of authoritarianism for a long time—to know that we are doing much less in the U.S. We are not turning out by the hundreds of thousands every day and conducting widespread boycotts.
Even though nearly half of the voting bloc in America did not vote for Trump, we are not voicing our opposition as much as we could be.
This brings us to the fence dilemma. Faced with a barrier, you might very well hop over it the first time. But what happens when there are fifty fences to overcome? Chances are you would decide to just walk around eventually.
Yet walking around an actual fence only takes time, while avoiding issues of preserving democracy may cost your rights in the end. Of course, Trump’s goal is to create so many problems, so quickly that there is a laundry list of actions detrimental to our democratic norms: defying a judge’s order to halt deportations of migrants to an El Salvadoran prison, arresting college students off the street and revoking their visas because of their personal views, instructing the Smithsonian to purge “improper ideology” and seriously floating the idea of a third presidential term. Those events, all from the past two weeks, are part of Trump’s constant stream of swift democratic erosion. At the same time, all of these problems divide attention between them, so that only a few moments of outrage last for each one before the news moves on to the next issue, as there is always more to cover.
Faced with a barrage of illegal or unethical actions, we must consider what lies at the heart of all of them—a concerted assault on democracy—and act accordingly. Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, exemplified this idea when he spoke for more than 24 hours on the Senate floor, protesting against the lack of normality we find ourselves in by disrupting the regular business of the chamber. Booker’s speech contained protests against many Trump administration policies, but first and foremost, he did all he could to fight against Trump’s attempts to make democratic government obsolete. The speech captured attention nationwide, providing a step in the right direction for those looking to find a spark in what has been a concerning past few months.
Much as Trump has been continuous in his ways, resistance should be continuous as well. In Turkey and Serbia, every day the people protest, boycott and go on strike puts more trepidation in the hearts of their governments, the fear that their countries will grind to a halt. That is the response this moment in the US deserves. Letting Trump know that his “new normal” of attempted autocracy is not accepted is needed to begin the new phase of resistance.
The author makes a good observation: why is it that there were so many impassioned demonstrations last year but really nothing following the elections and subsequent actions of the Trump administration? Maybe this is proof positive that there were foreign anti American leaders and material support behind last years “Gaza” protests, just like right and center politicians have been saying. Otherwise, it seems like those same “left wing” activists would be out protesting en masse now. The irony is that the topic of protests last year will have zero impact one way or the other on most people, while the tariffs, immigration, abortion, etc. policies of the Trump administration will directly affect college and young adults in their daily lives or in their social and family circles. If those 2024 activities were legit, it seems those same people would be even more energized over these things.