Over the past two weeks I carved out time to participate in two
anti-Trump in-person events. In this post I wanted to share some notes
on the experiences, along with photos.
Last Thursday, after the regular Future Trends Forum session, my son
Owain and I went to a local town hall led by our federal representative,
Democrat Suhas Subramanyam.
It took place in a community center and was very crowded, packed with
people. Before it began I didn’t hear much discussion, but did see some
folks with anti-Trump and -Musk signs. I found some seats for Owain
and I and we each opened up a Google Doc on our phones to take notes.
Subramanyam took the stage and began with some brief remarks,
starting with citing the dangers of DOGE. He mentioned working in the United States Digital Service
during the Obama administration, the unit which DOGE took over as its
institutional base. Subramanyam described why he voted against the
continuing resolution to keep the government running and also spoke to
the humanitarian and governmental problems of firing so many federal
workers.
Then it was over to questions. Folks lined up before two (somewhat
functional) microphones. They told personal stories: of being lifelong
federal workers, or having family members in those positions, and now
facing their work being undone or their jobs ruined. Some spoke of
depending on federal programs (SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security) and fearing cuts to them. Several had military experience,
which won applause from the room. Above all was this seething sense that
Trump was a brutal and extraordinary threat, that Democrats weren’t
taking it seriously, and the question: what can we do to fight back?
Subramanyam listened hard to each one and answered thoughtfully,
respectfully, often pointing to resources or actions we could take.
Ever the extrovert, I joined the microphone line right away. I was going
to ask about threats to higher education, but happily someone else beat
me to it. The representative offered a positive response, praising the
work of researchers and teachers, urging us to fight for educators. So,
standing in line, I came up with another question. When my turn came I
began by thanking the representative for actually doing a real town
hall meeting, not a scripted thing. I compared this meeting favorably to
Vermont’s town hall tradition, and mentioned Bernie Sanders as a
comparable example of someone who also knows how to do a community
meeting well, and the room erupted in applause.
So I asked about climate change, how we – academics and everyone –
can do climate work in this situation. I noted how the crisis was
worsening, and how Trump was going to make things even more difficult. I
was impressed to have Subramanyam’s full attention while I spoke. I
was equally impressed that he replied by supporting my remarks and work,
then called for more climate action in the face of Trump’s actions.
Nobody
got a photo of me that I know of, so here’s a shot of the
representative (on right) paying close attention to one resident
(standing on left).
(A sign of climate in culture today: people applauded my question.
After I left the mic, several folks reached out to me – literally – to
thank me for raising the topic.)
Returning to that question of what can be done to oppose Trump, Subramanyam and questioners listed these actions:
-
- Legal action: filing lawsuits and supporting other people’s. Getting Democratic politicians to do the same.
- Congressional investigations into Trump: the Congressman pointed out
that these can expose administrative malfeasance and build resistance. - Flat out resistance to Trump actions. Subramanyam argued that when
people refuse to comply, the admin sometimes backs down, saying they
made a mistake. - Doing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests to get the feds to cough up documentation. They can slow-walk
queries or outright refuse, of course, but FOIA can produce results. - Phone calls to people in red counties. (I think this was aimed at calling GOP officials, but am not sure.
- People telling stories of Trump harms in whatever setting works. At
one point Subramanyam said if the GOP wants to “flood the zone” with
bogus content we should flood it right back with true, personal stories.
There were no calls for property damage or violence against people.
Nor did anybody used the phrase “civil disobedience” or called for such
actions.
The hour grew late and people started to drift out. Owain and I had to get home and we filed out as well.
Two weeks ago I joined a different event, a rally for science in Washington, DC.
It took place at the Lincoln Memorial. Several thousand people were
there, all ages, races, genders. The mood was upbeat despite the chill
and strong winds.
A podium rested on the steps and from there spoke quite the program of luminaries, including Bill Nye (I missed him), Francis Collins (just stepped down as NIH head), Atul Gawande (excellent medical writer, also surgeon), Phil Plait (astronomer, science communicator), and some other people I didn’t recognize. There was some singing, too.
Dr. Gawande
The overall theme was that Trump’s science cuts were awful. Speakers
hit on points under this header, such as that RFK was a dangerous idiot
and that research reductions meant that human lives would be harmed and
lost. Diversity along race and gender lines was vital. All kinds of
science were mentioned, with medicine and public health leading the
charge.
The consensus was on returning science funding to what it was under
Biden, not in expanding it. There were no claims for adding scientific
overviews to policy – it was a defensive, not offensive program.
There were plenty of signs. Some had a fine satirical edge:
Off to one side – well, down along the reflecting pool – there was an
Extinction Rebellion performance or group appearance, but I didn’t get
to see if they staged anything besides looking awesome and grim.
During the time I was there no police appeared. There weren’t any counterprotesters.
Eventually I had to start the trip home. As I walked along the
reflecting pool towards the Metro station I heard speakers continuing
and the roar of the appreciative crowd.
What can we take away from these two events?
There is a fierce opposition to Trump and it occurs across various
sectors of society, from scientists to everyday folks (with some
overlap!). Pro-Trump people didn’t appear, so I didn’t see arguments or
worse between groups. I don’t know if this means that the president’s
supporters are just confident or prefer to work online.
The Democratic party is not in a leadership role. Outrage precedes
and exceeds its actions so far. The town hall liked Subramanyam, but it
was clear they were bringing demands to him, and that he did not back
the party leadership.
Both events had a strong positive feel, even though each was based on
outrage. There was a sense of energy to be exerted, action to be had.
Many people visibly recorded each event, primarily through phones. I
didn’t see anyone object to this. (I tried to get people’s permission
to photograph them, when they were clearly identifiable individuals.)
My feel is that climate interest is waning among people who oppose
Trump. They aren’t denying it and will support those who speak and act
on it, but it’s no longer a leading concern.
Yet these were just two events, a very small sample size, and both in
roughly the same geographic area, about 50 miles apart. We can’t
seriously generalize from this evidence, but hopefully it’s a useful
snapshot and sample.
Personally, I found both to be rewarding and supportive. It was good
to be with people who were similarly outraged and willing to be so in
public.
American readers, are you seeing anything similar in your areas? Non-Americans, what do you think of this glimpse?
[Editors note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]