What We Share

The current reality in the US presents a grave and challenging struggle for pluralism, equality, and democracy. The Trump administration’s continuous attacks on the people and pillars of American society are at their core a concerted project to reshape this country. 

Fundamental rules, principles, and norms are being called into question, and institutions are being radically repurposed. Consider a few illustrative examples. The US military is being deployed to interfere in domestic matters, even with strong opposition from local elected leaders and community members. The Department of Justice is being used as an extension of the president’s retribution on specific people, not because they are a threat to the country, but because they are people who the president does not like. By using the strong arm of the state, whether to terrorize immigrants, attempt to rewrite the history of slavery in America, or gut the federal workforce, Trump and his allies are attempting to define who can participate in America, and aggressively expand who cannot. 

We are in a fight for the bedrock principles of a pluralistic democracy. This is not merely a moment, but a new era. 

While it is important to understand the many fronts this fight is taking place on, such as attacks on separation of powers, academic freedom, or institutional and personal autonomy, it is also critical that we create space for how we respond. 

I believe this work of responding is best done collectively and publicly. That is the impulse behind this message, and others that will follow. 

Vision and Values

So, how should we respond? How do we defend the institutions of our democracy, however imperfectly realized they may be? How do we defend our communities and each other? 

One critical response, I believe, is to articulate an affirmative vision of what we do believe in, that we are guided by a set of values—and that we are willing to fight for both. 

There are many places one might see the outline of such a vision. The one we are asserting at OBI is a world based on belonging without othering. Belonging means that we believe all people deserve to be treated with dignity, and that we reject the belief or assumption that any race, religion, class, or other identity deserves more or less than any other. Belonging is one vision, but not the only vision; it has given us a foundation and set of principles to work from, such as the right to participate, to have agency, and to be fully included—principles which are also central to a functioning democracy. 

And belonging is not just a belief at OBI—it is a fundamental tenet rooted in this country’s founding principles: “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” that all [people] are created equal. 

Anchored in a vision of where we want to go, we must therefore also determine what actions, among many, are appropriate. This is an important and complex question, and one that I will say more about in a future essay on organizing and collective action. For now I will say that primary among a range of actions will be building a united front to collectively fight back. 

I realize that given my public and deeply held position on belonging and bridging, it may seem incongruous to some that I am articulating how we fight. But I do not see a contradiction here. 

Being a bridger, or working toward a world built on belonging, does not mean one doesn’t have strong feelings, including anger, or that one does not fight. When Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King called for non-violence, they did not mean passivity. King used non-violent civil disobedience to not only fight against racial inequality, but to shed light on unjust laws that affected all. And as I discussed in a piece last month, UC Berkeley handing over a list of 160 names from our campus community to comply with the Trump administration without a fight is a deeply questionable response when these orders have dubious legal and ethical merit, potentially devastating impact, and troubling historical resonance.

What bridging does means is that even in a space of fighting one must attempt to hold a space for all of our humanity, and the value and worth of all other life. 

This may not be easy but I am clear this is the call. 

And while we consider how we will fight back, I believe we must also fight forward—we are not only taking action against what is happening now, we are helping to shape a future we want to live in. 

Discussions on these issues are not just theoretical, but are how we actually give life to the promise of democracy. We hold these truths to be self-evident—that belonging is unconditional for all people and a foundational principle of democratic life. 

We the People

Trump undoubtedly wields significant power in advancing an anti-democratic agenda, but his authority is not absolute or without limits. In exploring how to respond, we often focus on the three branches of government—judicial, legislative, and executive. The judicial and legislative are in various states of capture to the executive branch. But there is one more critical branch that makes up our government—and that is we the people. Right now we the people are the bulwark that will either preserve democracy or witness its collapse. 

We the people are stronger when we work together—collaboratively and collectively. There are at least four areas where I believe we need to focus our collaborative efforts. 

First, we need to try out new ways and formations of working together. These new formations, which may be neither all left nor all right, and which may cross identity, ideological, and partisan lines, should be underpinned by a shared belief in principles such as the rule of law and freedom of expression. These formations must foster unified and aligned efforts among pro-democracy groups who come from legal, policy, media, grassroots movements, and cultural sectors—the main spheres that touch civic life. Those willing to work across lines and in building new coalitions may be uniquely suited for this moment. 

We have seen many promising examples of coordination among major anchor groups, such as universities, foundations, and local governments. California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii have formed the West Coast Health Alliance to pool resources and public recommendations related to public health research and work. Some of the largest foundations in the country, including Ford, MacArthur, and Robert Wood Johnson, created a shared fund to give immediate support for public media stations after the Trump administration gutted funding to PBS and NPR. 

These are just a few examples, but revealing because they have been formed in very short time frames between large and complex institutions. That they can provide rapid and collective responses illustrates that complete alignment on every issue does not need to be in place–indeed, will not be in place–for us to join forces with others and mount united fronts on a range of issues. 

These collaborative efforts, and others like them, are critical spaces to sharpen our strategies, identify how to de-duplicate efforts, and stand in solidarity amid a highly unstable and changing environment.

Secondly, we also need to share risk. Where possible, groups, institutions, and communities should not act alone. Trump’s playbook of “muzzle velocity” and flooding the zone has deliberately created an environment where many groups are immobilized in fear and trying to play small. Capitulation and silence will continue to erode the trust and hope that we can restore and grow our democracy. Even when we don’t know the potential impact, we must continue to act. Uncertainty is always present. 

Relatedly, and third, we will need to employ courage as both a practice and a strategy. Courage thrives in numbers and in mutual reciprocity. Courage is something we most effectively build together. Courage does not call on us to not be afraid, but to move forward together even while acknowledging and honoring fear. 

And a fourth area of focus is to share learning, where we learn from history in resisting authoritarianism, our own history, and that of others. There have been democracies that have been threatened, and some even lost. What can we learn that might be useful in our current and future struggles? Resources such as understanding authoritarianism, waging nonviolent civil disobedience, and legal and cultural pro-democracy efforts may be useful. 

Just as we look back, we must also look forward—we will need to explore and try out possible futures. Exercising imagination and employing thinking rooted in complexity and possibility will help guide us in our work. “Us versus them” is very simple. But “we and we” is complex, full of possibility, and will continue to evolve. 

As we try out new ways of being and working together, there will be disagreements. Even among groups who share very similar missions, discussions may be quick to focus on what is not possible, rather than what may be possible. Rather than cause for despair, I think these kinds of conversations, when held in a container of bridging and care, can open up a new space where our mutual values can flourish. 

Being comfortable with disagreement, and finding ways to ground ourselves in common purpose, are muscles that we will need to continue to exercise. And even where we disagree, we must hold on to our belief in shared humanity. We are born and we will die. There will be joy and there will be suffering. Let’s do it together. 

What’s On Your Mind?

This is the first in a series of discussion pieces I’ll offer this month on attacks on democracy amid a rapidly changing landscape, and how we may think about these attacks as well as respond. This is a shared space of learning and meaning-making, so I hope you will join in the conversation by sharing ideas and actions you are taking part in, and resources and practices you are drawing inspiration from, as proof of what is possible in our mutual work to fight back against further erosion of our fundamental rights, and fight forward to build a society where all belong.

What we each do matters. I believe what we do together matters even more.

Register for our Oct. 15 livestream

--
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.