What We Do

This is the third piece in a series from director john a. powell on the ongoing assaults on our democracy and communities, and how we may think about, respond to, and confront them. You can also watch our livestream conversation with john about this series and read the full series here.

 

Let me start with one of the questions I get asked most often when I talk to groups about belonging: “So, what do we do?”

In my first two essays in this series, I offered a way to address that question by first articulating what we are building toward. In responding to the overwhelm of Trump’s agenda, our actions or reactions may be confusing or unsustainable if they are disconnected from our core values and a vision of where we want to go. 

It is not enough if we focus only on what we are against. This limits our imagination and the ability to envision what is possible. It also cedes even more power to what we are against, and may obscure positive changes as well. 

We need to first articulate an affirmation vision of the world we are working to build. There are many paths and roles that take us toward our shared vision, but what is clear is that such a vision cannot be limited to only specific policies or issues, but should reflect our shared aspirations and deeper values, including our moral and constitutional values.

A Different Kind of Fight

A recurring motif right now is how to understand the moment we are in, or asking what it will take to get us beyond this moment. Moments change quickly (from moment to moment)—what we are in is likely much deeper than that. Calling it a moment suggests this time will likely pass, maybe even without our engagement and agency. The phrase may give us false, even passive, hope, or hide the scale of what is actually more of a shifting paradigm. 

A paradigm shift is something that changes the very nature of society. What Trump and his allies are engaged in is full-scale institutional capture and radical culture shift, with global implications. For a leading figure to blatantly disregard the Constitution would have been political death just a few years ago. Today, it may not even make the evening news.

To be clear, we have seen expressions of violent state repression against many people in this country, and we need to learn from, and build with, communities that have endured long histories of state violence and exclusion, both in the US and elsewhere. But today’s attack is not just against one particular group or even one party. Trump and his allies have a radical agenda to fundamentally reshape America. 

So when we think about what actions to take, we have to be ready for a different kind of fight. 

The question on the table then must include not just what we do, but also who we are. As I’ve said before, I believe at its core the attacks from Trump are fundamentally about who belongs, and what belonging even means. The idea of belonging on offer from Trump is not rooted in dignity and democracy, but in disdain and hierarchy. In asserting a very narrow “we,” he and his allies trade in dominant tropes, language, imagery, and ideology often associated with figures like Hitler. Aspects of this belonging based in othering are finding resonance throughout the country, including among a growing body of young men. 

So, what do we do? Obviously, there is no one answer or approach. In part it depends on your situation and resources. But I want to first lay out what I see as essential. We must act and speak from a place of belonging without othering—a place of caring, and yes even love. This is easier said than done. But we have examples from our past. We may not adhere completely to the examples of MLK, Gandhi, or Mandela, but we have much to learn from them, and others, who have gone through struggles to claim and reclaim human dignity and more in the face of autocratic capture. 

Institutions for We the People

We must take stock of our institutions and cultural norms to see where they are fraying and, with an honest look, ask if they can be fixed. Or should they be? Institutions are powerful and fragile at the same time. How do we take advantage of their fragility? That’s where collective action comes in. 

Pick any issue and map out where the pressure points are. There are different institutions at different levels–local, state, regional, national, and global. Locally we might focus on a city council or county board. We could run candidates who agree to use a platform of bridging rather than breaking. This is just one example. 

Actions do not have to be overtly political. Targeting the economy and corporations with a general strike may be an effective step to use our collective power. In the Vietnam War era, many people refused to pay their taxes. Consumer boycotts have proven effective when focused and sustained. These actions potentially have far-reaching implications beyond geography, and can proliferate global as well as local change. Even within large systems, it is always possible to find gaps where we can apply pressure.

There are also many informal systems that operate outside of or in absence of formal ones. Mutual aid efforts have provided essential support for communities where there has been government failure, absence, or disinvestment. Mutual aid flourished during the COVID pandemic with groups such as the Metro Atlanta Mutual Aid Fund (MAMA). We are currently seeing an upswell in communities providing support and protection for their members amid this second Trump era. From providing food and living assistance as the administration cuts jobs for millions of federal workers or refuses to fund SNAP benefits (which more than 40 million Americans receive), to mobilizing against militarized ICE raids across cities and neighborhoods, these community efforts have been swift and well-organized.

In the long-term, we need a meticulous, incremental strategy that leads to expanding belonging through institutions. Conservative movements have begun with hyper-local targets like school boards and built upwards to change the political conversation at the national level. What is our strategy for building institutional power at all levels? When deciding what to do we need to understand the impact and role of structures and institutions, and make sure they work for us.

Ecosystem of Collective Action

The role of organizing is fundamental in any society, but particularly when democracy is threatened. Sociologists Karina Kloos and Doug McAdam show in their book Deeply Divided that it is seldom the majority that drives politics. It is more likely a well-organized and highly engaged group or groups. A critical and organized mass from different sectors who are concerned about democratic norms and practices, and who are willing to act, is therefore essential. There are many heartening efforts underway. The reality is that “we the people" are not failing the test on the durability of civil society—we are seeing sustained protest activities, novel modes of organizing, and many expressions of mutual support. 

It may be helpful to understand how groups are organized, so we can identify ones that can be supported and strengthened. I have included some of the main groups below who are part of the larger ecosystem that shapes civil society. Learn more about them, support them, join their work. No government can work only by coercion.

Legal organizations play a critical role in advancing democratic tenets within the structures of the law. These institutions do more than engage in legal battles—they help shape the public understanding and narrative of why these rights and contests matter. Groups like Democracy Forward, the Legal Defense Fund, and the ACLU have been working vigorously in courts at all levels to mount opposition to the Trump administration's brazen attacks and disregard for the law.

Policymakers enacting legislation at all levels establish the rules by which we operate and as a result, the content of our laws at each level matter enormously for every sphere of our lives. The majority is not reflected in many policy wins for the right, such as reproductive rights, protecting the environment, or gun control. 

Power-building groups such as labor unions, community-based organizations, tenant unions, student networks, and faith-based organizing are active in listening and working with constituencies and members to catalyze collective action in strategic ways. This work runs through traditional door-to-door engagement and community events, as well as increasingly through digital venues. At OBI we are partnering with powerbuilders that work at national, statewide, and local levels, including, among others, Make the Road,  Workers Center for Racial Justice, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, and VietRISE.

Demonstrations. People are demonstrating in larger numbers than ever before. There has been a mobilization of protests against the Trump administration, including the most recent No Kings marches that brought more Americans to the streets than potentially any single-day political rally in history. People are also in the streets to push back against the Trump administration’s targeted attacks on specific communities. Anyone online is probably aware of the ways organizers and neighbors alike have been showing up to loudly and peacefully protest the militarization of immigration enforcement in their communities. The immigrant rights movement in the US has many sophisticated organizations, such as Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and CHIRLA, that bring in and train volunteers to join efforts to protect community members and make their voices heard.

No matter what actions we take, there are going to be potential consequences. There is always risk. Each group must determine what their threshold of reasonable risk is given the circumstances and environment. When engaging in non-violent civil disobedience in the 1960s, Dr. King and leaders of the civil rights movement in the US did not expect impunity when breaking laws that upheld segregation. Their non-compliance with unjust laws was a public and strategic act, and they were prepared to take on the subsequent consequences. It is not a light matter to determine to disobey the law, even if it is a bad law. If we decide to do that, we need some clarity about what we’re advocating for by refusing to comply, and some understanding of the consequences. 

Organizing as Bridgers

Many people feel they do not have the capacity to change the far right movement, or the federal government. But we all have various spheres of influence—a teacher in their classroom, a pastor to their congregation, a politician to the public, a neighbor in their community. Perhaps you can make a difference in the spaces you inhabit, spend your money, or where you work or live. When others have gone silent, can you find a way to speak up? Can you support those who do speak up even if you cannot? 

Yet none of us exists in only one domain. We need people, and we need to be people, who are willing to reach out across different spheres, to bridge across issues and communities. One way of doing that is to be more intentional about bringing more people into our work and actions based on shared values, including democratic norms. 

We must also be careful not to slip into demonizing those we disagree with. We can oppose policies and even laws, but I believe we must be willing to listen even to those who say things that are difficult to hear. That does not mean we agree. In fact it is when we don’t agree that we need to lean more on our fundamental principles, including holding onto the humanity of all including our own. If our principles are that we value life we can’t live that forward if we are breaking with others. 

Bridging helps us not only meet conflict with openness but in doing so helps us deepen our relationships with each other. In order to bridge to scale, we must have institutions we can trust and leaders that help us to bridge. Identify where and who those are. 

These are difficult times. We will need to find ways to be together more, not less, despite an environment of targeted fear and division. We must not leave caring, loving, and joy on the sidelines. We need sustenance and strategy. This is one of the reasons we are committing to hosting a major belonging convening next spring in Kentucky. Without taking lightly the risks involved in gathering in this environment, we believe democracy and pluralism is strengthened when we come together, and practice being together, across a diverse range of issues, sectors, and geographies. This is in part how we at OBI are answering the question of what do we do. I hope to see many of you there. 

Meaning-making together is also an action, and I’ve been heartened by the feedback we’ve received from this series. Please keep writing to us with your input and ideas. 

 

--
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the author.