SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
white nationalism
7 Rules for Narrative Discipline in the Time of Trump
We need to focus on helping people to see that the current administration is not on their side, to see the damage being done, and to see that there are alternative policies that actually would meet their needs.
Jan 31, 2025
The next period in U.S. politics will be won on the battlefield of narratives. The recent presidential election was lost on that battlefield.
As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is always pointing out, the American people support progressive positions on many issues: Medicare for all, funding education, taxing the rich, gun control. And yet those were not issues in the recent election. Winning elections will involve creating and disseminating narratives that speak to those who don’t always already vote for Democrats.
Our country is roughly divided into three groups. First are those who have fully bought into the MAGA narrative, often for reasons having to do with white nationalism and a politics of resentment. As white cultural hegemony is declining and people feel a loss of a sense of themselves as the center of our national identity, few in this population are likely to be moved by anything our side does.
We are living in a time of an epistemological crisis, where it is very difficult to keep a clear sense of what is actually going on in our world.
Then there is the third of the population who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris. That is a wide-ranging group made up of people who truly believe in the neoliberal agenda of the mainstream corporate wing of the Democratic Party, people who believe in “the system” and wanted to save it from fascism, and those in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and on the left who voted pragmatically against U.S. President Donald Trump. That third votes reliably and always for Democrats.
Finally, there is the third who didn’t vote for president in the recent election, or who might have voted for either party, but who are not entrenched in their support. Many of them are against “the system” and don’t like either major party. Some see both parties as catering to the rich, to the global capitalist elite, or to the military-industrial complex. Many don’t vote because the whole election conversation doesn’t speak to them in ways they find compelling. That is the population that needs to be focused on if we are to defeat the right at the ballot box.
And winning them requires that we have narratives that speak to their interests and concerns. We need to engage with media in ways that don’t just flatter our own sense of righteousness, but rather that engage people in that moveable third.
Our opponents are very effective at using narrative and social media. Look at the TikTok war. Trump started it as a piece of anti-China rhetoric. Democrats and Republicans worked dutifully to come up with bipartisan legislation to ban the popular app. Then as the new administration was about to come into power the president said he would save TikTok. Users of the app got a menacing message saying it would go dark in the U.S. Then they got one saying that Trump had saved it. Now millions of people in the anti-system third of the electorate have Trump to thank for something tangible in their lives.
Similarly, I expect that as soon as the immigration raids continue, they will get a lot of publicity. People who care about immigrants will be horrified and heartbroken by that news. People on the other side will see the raids as a victory. And forgotten will be that immigration raids happened regularly under the Biden administration as a routine part of mainstream policy. But that won’t matter. The new administration will be seen as doing something bold to rid our country of people who have been vilified by the right and ignored by the liberal mainstream.
Immigration is one issue where progressives are deeply out of step with the mainstream. It is probably one of the biggest narrative failures of the recent election. Rather than reminding people that immigrants contribute positively to the country, that U.S. foreign policy and the climate crisis make people’s home countries unlivable, or even, on the anti-immigrant side, that former President Joe Biden had cracked down on immigration in his last year in office, Democrats rolled over and allowed the scapegoating narrative to take over.
And in mainstream and social media it was worse. The vicious and slanderous story told against legal immigrants who helped revitalize Springfield, Ohio was repeated over and over in the mainstream liberal media and on the comedy shows. In mocking its slander, liberals spread its vicious images and associations further. Some on our side tried but did not have any breakthrough narratives about the positive impact that Haitian immigrants have had on their community, and our country as a whole.
Even when we spread our outrage at the absurd statements of the current administration, we can inadvertently feed their power. The president’s absurd statements are compelling. We love to hate them. And that is why they exist. They feed the sense that the president can say and do whatever he wants and is unconstrained by any social structure, history, norms, or common sense. That image of him as transgressive actually enhances his power. And, the more we are outraged, the more those opposed to us take joy in the fact that someone has “owned the libs.” While absurd statements are candy for the outrage centers of our brains, they are distractions from the things that actually shift the balance of power and resources and impact people’s lives in this country.
We are living in a time of an epistemological crisis, where it is very difficult to keep a clear sense of what is actually going on in our world. Our shared sense of reality and ethics has been brutally undermined by the current tech-oligopoly dominated social media hellscape. When we focus on the absurdities and illusions rather than on real things that impact people’s lives, we are feeding the trolls.
The first few days of the administration being in power saw much attention to the president’s executive orders. I was surprised that in my feed there was very little on the overturning of Biden’s lowering of prescription drug benefits. I wanted to see devastating memes about the price of prescription drugs.
A Republican plan is circulating that would pay for the president’s tax cuts by cutting Medicare for 600,000 people. I want memes, satire, and news about that. We need to focus on helping people to see that the current administration is not on their side, to see the damage being done, and to see that there are alternative policies that actually would meet their needs and build livable communities.
If we are strategic and disciplined in how we communicate, we can help shift the common-sense notions people have of what is going on in our world and we can create counternarratives that help make the world make sense for our perspectives. We need to be smart about how we communicate on social media and in legacy media.
Here are Seven Rules for Narrative Discipline in the Time of Trump:
- Don’t respond to the absurd things that people in power say;
- Don’t give any more attention to the president as a person and personality than is necessary to make a point;
- Amplify and spread news of the terrible things the administration does: policies that are changed, rules that are violated, money that is spent. Focus on ones that impact people’s everyday lives;
- Amplify and spread news of our victories in the courts, on the streets, and in our communities;
- Remember that the future belongs to those who speak to those who didn’t vote for Democrats, but who might;
- Create and spread counternarratives that shine a positive light on the things you support; and
- Above all, don’t feed the trolls.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pick for State Dept Post 'Espoused White Nationalist and Islamophobic Views'
In a 2016 anti-immigrant essay, Michael Anton wrote that "the burden is forced on Americans to prove that Muhammed is a terrorist or Jose is a criminal, and if we can't, we must let them in."
Dec 23, 2024
Further fueling fears of what the incoming Trump administration will mean for immigrants and people of color, a watchdog group on Monday highlighted various essays by Michael Anton, who is slated to take on a key role at the U.S. Department of State.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced earlier this month that Anton would become director of policy planning at the State Department. Trump said that he previously "served me loyally and effectively" as a National Security Council spokesperson during the Republican's first term and "spent the last eight years explaining what an America First foreign policy truly means."
In a Monday publication first reported on by USA Today, the watchdog Accountable.US detailed how "Anton has espoused white
nationalistic and Islamophobic views and has written numerous conspiracy theory-laden articles about Democratic 'coup' attempts and supposed widespread voter fraud."
The group spotlighted "Toward a Sensible, Coherent Trumpism," a nearly 6,000-word essay that Anton published under the Latin pseudonym Publius Decius Mus at The Unz Review on March 10, 2016, eight months before Trump was elected to his first term. Anton's use of the pen name was first revealed in early 2017 by The Weekly Standard, a now-defunct neoconservative magazine.
In the 2016 essay, Anton wrote that "Trump's two slogans—'Make America Great Again' and 'Take Our Country Back'—point to the heart of Trumpism: 'America First,'" and "the Constitution and the social compact it enshrines are for us—the American people—and not for foreigners, immigrants (except those we choose to welcome), or anyone else."
Anton praised Trump for "his willingness—eagerness—gleefulness!—to mock the ridiculous lies we've been incessantly force-fed for the past 15 years (at least)," writing in part:
"Diversity" is not "our strength"; it's a source of weakness, tension, and disunion. America is not a "nation of immigrants"; we are originally a nation of settlers, who later chose to admit immigrants, and later still not to, and who may justly open or close our doors solely at our own discretion, without deference to forced pieties. Immigration today is not "good for the economy"; it undercuts American wages, costs Americans jobs, and reduces Americans' standard of living. Islam is not a "religion of peace"; it's a militant faith that exalts conversion by the sword and inspires thousands to acts of terror—and millions more to support and sympathize with terror.
As Common Dreams has reported since Trump's latest White House victory last month, numerous analyses have warned that the Republican's promised mass deportations will not only have devastating impacts on people but be "catastrophic" for the economy.
Anton's essays have repeatedly referenced the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In March 2016, he suggested that it was "insane" to allow Muslims to immigrate after that, writing: "Yes, of course, not all Muslims are terrorists, blah, blah, blah, etc. Even so, what good has Muslim immigration done for the United States and the American people? If we truly needed more labor—a claim that is manifestly false—what made it necessary to import any of that labor from the Muslim world?"
"From a region and a faith that is at best ambivalent about the societies that welcome them and at worst murderously hostile? This question has, until now, been ruled wholly out of bounds—illegitimate even to raise," he continued. "Immigration to the United States—by Muslims or anyone else—is presented as a civil right for foreigners: the burden is forced on Americans to prove that Muhammed is a terrorist or Jose is a criminal, and if we can't, we must let them in. Trump alone among major political figures has stood up to say this is nonsense."
Another infamous essay noted by Accountable.US cites 9/11: Using the same pen name, Anton wrote "The Flight 93 Election," published by the Claremont Review of Books on September 5, 2016, referencing the United Airlines flight that ended with a plane crash in Pennsylvania, after passengers fought the hijackers.
"2016 is the Flight 93 election: Charge the cockpit or you die," Anton argued, taking aim at Trump's Democratic challenger that year. "If you don't try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances."
Accountable.US also pointed to a pair of essays from 2020 and 2021 in which Anton accused Democrats of plotting a coup, peddled voter fraud conspiracy theories, and—in one of them—downplayed the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Both of those publications appeared with Anton's real name.
After his time in the first Trump administration, Anton went on to work as a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College. Previously, he was a speechwriter for former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ex-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.
Anton did not respond to USA Today's request for comment, but Trump transition spokesperson Dan Holler framed him as an asset to Trump's nominee for secretary of state—Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the son of Cuban immigrants—in a statement to the newspaper.
"President Trump and Sen. Rubio are building out an all-star team to deliver on the America First agenda the country demanded," Holler said. "As director of policy planning, Michael Anton will play an important role in implementing an America First foreign policy."
Meanwhile, Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk on Monday released a statement putting pressure on Rubio—who would typically select the candidate for that post, which does not require Senate confirmation, according to USA Today.
"Michael Anton hid behind a pseudonym to spread hate and deride diversity as a source of American weakness. But he'd surely wear his extremism on his sleeve if appointed to a top State Department post," said Carrk. "Anton's rhetoric against people he deems culturally undesirable may be music to the ears of President-elect Trump, father of the kids-in-cages policy who threatens to end birthright citizenship. But is Marco Rubio willing to stand by Anton's extremist views if he's confirmed secretary of state?"
The president-elect's other selections who have sparked alarm on the immigration front include Stephen Miller—an architect of the family separation policy from Trump's first term—for deputy chief of staff for policy and Tom Homan as "border czar."
Trump has also chosen anti-immigrant, dog-killing Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for secretary of homeland security and former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard—who has a history of being "extremely sympathetic" to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Russian President Vladimir Putin—for director of national intelligence.
Both of those roles generally require Senate confirmation, as does the defense secretary. Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon is "Fox & Friends" co-host Pete Hegseth, a "lobbyist for war criminals" who, in his own words, "was deemed an extremist" because of his Jerusalem Cross tattoo, which led to him not joining his National Guard unit for President Joe Biden's inauguration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Digging Deep and Planting Seeds in the Face of Trump 2.0
This is a moment of radical uncertainty. No one knows. For many of us, that’s terrifying. Simply acknowledging this, rather than insisting on forced optimism or self-righteous action, feels necessary.
Nov 30, 2024
This is neither plan nor polemic. I am as lost as anyone in the face of Trump 2.0. I fluctuate between deep grief, existential fear, anger, privilege guilt, and Go mode.
I’m living on a tiny blue island in the middle of a sea of white nationalism in the Pacific Northwest. In just the last few years, synagogues have been attacked, a predominantly Black women’s NCAA basketball team was verbally harassed, books are being banned, trans athletes are being benched, and a militia rolled up on a Pride parade. There are real enemies living right around the corner, and they are emboldened.
We don’t have to decide whether Trump 2.0 is same ole, same ole or apocalypse now. We can recognize both can be true.
So, I am less interested in the election blame game than in figuring out how to prepare for what’s coming. Still, I’m compelled to reject the way the left, ”identity politics,” and ”woke agendas” are being scapegoated yet again as the reason the Democrat lost. That plays into the hatemongering on the right that is causing real harm. As Debt Collective organizer Astra Taylor wrote: “The fate of democracy is too precious to leave in the hands of the Democratic Party.”
I’ve been casting out a line hoping to reel in The Answer to meeting this moment. That’s where I think I get it wrong. I am trying to find solid ground, a correct position, a strategy. After an initial beat of stillness in the morning after, many answers are now on offer. Often, they are presented in contrast to what they are not. Two dominant themes keep reemerging.
Continuity Versus Rupture
Some are stressing that the U.S. has always been an “imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.” They counter liberal surprise with “you are awakening to the same country you fell asleep to. The very same country. Pull yourself together.” I’m reminded that after Donald Trump’s 2016 win, Native scholar-activists offered, “Welcome to the Empire. Where did you think you were living?” A week after this election, Mishuana Goeman told those of us gathered at the American Studies Association (ASA) conference in Baltimore, “The empire is meant to crumble.” She and other scholars reminded us of Indigenous survivance, generative imagination, kinship, and generational time.
Others are underscoring this moment as new, as a rupture, as a sharp right turn into authoritarianism. While not denying the history and on-going structures of U.S. state violence, they are encouraging us to recognize the difference of this moment. At a post-election event in Oakland, Angela Davis offered, “This is terribly new. It’s new with a terror.”
Step Back and Rest Versus Strategize and Fight
Many people are talking about resting in this post-election period, with various commitments to rejoining the fight. They are stepping back, disengaging from organizing, turning off the news, unplugging from social media (I’m not talking here about those who are overwhelmed, paralyzed, or permanently checking out). I hear this from liberal white colleagues. And from mainstream media stories about Black women stepping back.
Exhaustion seems to be the biggest motivation for stepping back, but a few others are circulating. Some question whether Trump really wants, or will be able, to follow through on his campaign promises. Others worry that believing the autocrat and focusing on what he says he’ll do could add to a sense of despair or panic. Still others are cynically signaling that voters deserve what’s coming.
Some are counseling, as they did in the pandemic, that we don’t know what light might emerge from the darkness—that the only constant is change.
At the other end of the spectrum, many are urging us to dig in, to (re)build networks, to strategize, to provide resources to those already under direct attack (e.g. Palestinian solidarity activists, DEI practitioners and educators, immigrant and trans communities). They note that the shock and awe campaign has already begun, the chaos is calculated and lying is the point. We are meant to feel overwhelmed—it’s literally part of the plan.
Some are focusing on things the Biden administration, Democratic governors, and local governments could be doing in this window before Trump takes office. There’s also the caution that, in an authoritarian context, institutions will not save us and so we need to organize to save ourselves. As one organizer put it, “We have everything we need. The fight is long, but winnable.”
Beyond Binaries
I’ve been examining the arguments, trying to determine which I should commit to, but they all have merit. I am remembering to be skeptical of binaries, to think beyond either/or, to cultivate humility, generosity, and imagination. This is particularly critical considering the vicious attacks on nonbinary and trans folx, and the way Democrats have thrown them under the bus.
We don’t have to decide whether Trump 2.0 is same ole, same ole or apocalypse now. We can recognize both can be true. We don’t need to choose between resting or fighting. We can remember we are part of larger intergenerational collectivities that can hold us while we do both.
Like the pandemic, this is a moment of radical uncertainty. No one knows. For many of us, that’s terrifying. Simply acknowledging this, rather than insisting on forced optimism or self-righteous action, feels necessary. It’s also a more humble, generous stance. If we learned nothing else, the pandemic absolutely showed us we need to build systems of care, networks grounded in revolutionary love. Barbara Ransby encourages us to remember that “most importantly, we have each other.”
Some are counseling, as they did in the pandemic, that we don’t know what light might emerge from the darkness—that the only constant is change. At the ASA conference Roderick Ferguson offered: “What we believe to be the nadir may also be the emergence. Plant seeds, walk away, don’t hover, trust your planting... Teach others to plant seeds.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular