He's at war with us. Should we return fire?
Don't hand him ammunition
A couple of weeks into the return to power of President Trump, is there anyone who still fails to see how much politics matter?
Trump’s radical attack on the climate and key institutions
Trump’s team is moving rapidly to
Reverse all US federal government efforts to replace fossil fuels with renewables, all over the world
Bully other international players to abandon climate action
Centralize all US governmental power in his own hands
Intimidate all rival centers of power, to make them impotent to oppose his policies
sSource: Nick Downes. www.CartoonStock.com
To achieve this, and his other radical goals, Trump’s applying all the levers of power, just as I anticipated in my November 2024 post, “Trump, power, and climate”.
Physical force. (e.g., threatening EU member Denmark with invasion unless it surrenders Greenland)
State action. (e.g., firing or halting all activities of a wide array of individuals and agencies he considers his enemies, like Government Inspectors-General, and USAID)
Wealth. (e.g., offering most government employees a bonus to quit, and using tariffs to force the subordination of traditional US allies who do not share his right-wing politics)
Numbers. (e.g., threatening to “primary” Republican Congresspersons who don’t completely back his nominations and other measures)
Social norms. (e.g., rationalizing his attacks on civil servants loyal to the Constitution by calling them “radical-left marxists who hate America”)
Ideas. (e.g., insisting on the Schmittian notion that politics requires open warfare against domestic political opponents, including the radical destruction of many US institutions (like the independence of the Justice Department, or the apolitical Civil Service)
Source: Ted Rall. www.CartoonStock.com
How might we climate advocates respond?
Without question, climate advocates should respond forcefully to these mortal attacks on our (and humankind’s) cause!
But do “desperate times call for desperate measures”? If Trump is deliberately accelerating global catastrophic heating, confirming the darkest warnings of his opponents that he is a malevolent (“evil-wishing”), power-hungry tyrant, should climate advocates, too, conclude that “anything goes”, and that it’s justified to oppose his naked power-play with force and violence if necessary?
Outraged that a majority of the US electorate could give a leader like Trump virtually unlimited powers to sabotage humanity’s future, some people who are already at the edge may feel provoked to cross into extremism also. Some may be tempted to conclude that they can no longer respect the result of the US democratic election, or the US rule of law, when the weight of civilizational survival hangs in the balance.
In short, they might consider reacting to the new Trumpian Administration as to a full-fledged totalitarian regime, like Nazism, or Soviet Communism. For surely radical resistance to such regimes would be justified! They too, posed existential threats to entire peoples and even civilization. That was the rationale of the US and other liberal democracies, which waged self-defensive war against these regimes in World War II, and in many episodes of the Cold War.
Source: Bill Houston. www.CartoonStock.com
Is it alarmist to expect a turn toward violent extremism ?
Is it overly alarmist to think that some people might resort to extremist tactics in reaction to Trump policies? Unfortunately, the answer is No.
To understand public attitudes, the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats (CPOST) has conducted quarterly nationally representative surveys of support for political violence and confidence in democracy since June 2021. These surveys show that political violence is supported by determined minorities on both the right and the left and at disturbingly high and stable levels.1
Among the results of the September, 2024 survey, here are the study authors’ estimated number of Americans who believe
“Elections won’t solve America’s fundamental problems”: 124 M
“Trump is a danger to democracy” 134 M
“Force is justified to prevent Trump from becoming president”: 21 M
They…show that large fractions of Americans see the nation’s politics as broken and are deeply distrustful of the value of elections to solve problems. They see the leading political candidates for the presidency as dangers to democracy...In other words, support for political violence is now squarely in the mainstream of Americans’ thinking and a normalized tool to achieve political goals when peaceful means fail.
Source: Dave Whamond. www.CartoonStock.com
In light of the above, we can count ourselves fortunate that the number of acts of political violence has not increased statistically since the Capitol insurrection in early 2021. According to a New York Times article from September, 2024
Instances of political violence involving extremists have declined steadily since 2020, and have grown increasingly removed from partisan conflicts, according to an analysis published this week by Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, a data-mapping project that tracks political violence and protests around the world. 2
Possible causes for this decline:
The removal of pandemic-era restrictions, which had fed frustrations on all sides, leading to Black Lives Matter disruptions and backlash.
The Biden administration’s eventually effective and efficient prosecution of Capitol insurrectionists, sending out a clear message that such acts would receive swift punishment.
Unfortunately, the two attempts to assassinate Donald Trump in 2024, and the killing of the UnitedHealthCare CEO, might presage a new phase of political violence as Trump expands his heavy-handed exploitation of his electoral triumph.
How does history suggest this works out in the end?
The tactic of violent resistance against authoritarian leaders is a recurring pattern in history. Often romanticized, their actual outcomes have usually been grim.
The record since 1900 shows some success stories—but in very limited circumstances. Most of these occurred after the authoritarian rulers suffered severe setbacks through war or economic collapse, which exposed how little popular support they had ever had.
Revolts after military defeat in World War I abolished the autocratic rule of the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian emperors. 3
Anti-colonialist movements in Africa, Asia and Oceania ended the rule of European imperial powers there, after their post-1945 financial collapse due to World War II losses. 4
Most recently, armed uprising against the Assad dynasty in Syria, ended its rule there, after its Russian, Hezbollah and Iranian allies could no longer prop them up militarily and economically. 5
At this moment, Trumpism is a very different animal. He has just received a popular vote victory in a fair election where he also swept all of the “battleground” states and increased his share of votes in almost every demographic. He received from President Biden an economy that is “the envy of the world” (according to The Economist), and US allies at war have triumphed (Israel) or continue to hang on against great odds (Ukraine). And as we have seen, he commands all the major levers of power. His is not a regime that is weakened and already toppling.
There are closer and much more pertinent historical precedents.
Source: Mike Luckovich. www.CartoonStock.com
Better historical analogues
Past would-be authoritarians have known exactly what to do with evidence of violent opposition. They’ve exploited it to fuel the growth of some of the worst regimes in history.
Russia in 1905. Liberal and progressives in imperial Russia were outraged when their authoritarian leader, Tsar Nicholas II, responded to their lawful petitions by massacring hundreds of peaceful demonstrators in front of his palace on “Bloody Sunday”. They reacted with a flood of resistance activities, some of which were violent. The Tsar’s ministers happily exploited the discomfort with violence felt by the more moderate of the Tsar’s opponents to buy them off with minor reforms. In return they supported massive repression by the Tsar against the largest, more demanding opposition groups. This bought 12 more years of life for the Tsar’s regime, before another revolution overthrew it—bringing to power Lenin’s Communist, totalitarian Soviet Union for the following 74 years. 6
Italy in 1923. Leftists had proved their commitment to peaceful change through elections, but they also muscularly championed justice and equality, which threatened the upper and middle classes. The newly founded Fascist movement, led by Benito Mussolini, fought the leftists in the streets, but the Fascists claimed to be acting for all Italians, and in defense of private property and traditional values. So the middle classes and industrialists embraced the Fascists, and the King gave Mussolini control over the government, which unleashed a wave of violence against all progressives--not only leftists, but also liberals—and installed Mussolini’s Fascist authoritarian police state for the next 20 years. 7
Germany in 1933. By claiming to defend Germany against the threat of Communism during the Great Depression, Hitler won just a plurality of legislative (“Reichstag”) seats. Still, the authoritarian President Hindenburg named him to the top executive office, that of Chancellor. But Hitler was frustrated that he still needed other parties’ votes in the Reichstag to pass legislation. A few weeks into his term, the Reichstag, the counterpart to the US Capitol, was set on fire—by whom, it was not clear (many suspected Hitler). Hitler took immediate advantage of the national outrage to blame the Communists for the fire and for trying to seize the government. He declared a national emergency and jailed opposition lawmakers, which gave him an overwhelming majority in the legislature. He used it to ram through an “Enabling Act”, which suspended civil rights indefinitely and gave him the authority to rule by simply issuing executive orders, without legislative or judicial constraints. His totalitarian Nazi state ruled for another 23 years. 8
Source: Ted Rall. www.CartoonStock.com
We should apply only non-violent resistance
Since 2021, Trump has rebuilt the Republican Party on the basis of waging war on his domestic opponents, so he and they are on high alert for signs of like opposition—and when they can’t find it, they make it up. To take up violent opposition against him would in reality give him a priceless gift: It would provide him real evidence of what he will undoubtedly call terrorism, which he would use to rally the country behind him. Climate advocates cannot afford such a mistake.
Like Lenin in Russia, Mussolini in Italy, and Hitler in Germany, Trump would like nothing better than to seize the moral high ground against violent opponents, by posing as the defender of peace and order. Above all, climate advocates must strive to hold the moral high ground—it’s our most important asset. Like Martin Luther King, we now find ourselves opposed by the awesome worldly power of the state and much of society. Like him, too, most of our power is not of the material world. It’s in our hearts, in our minds, and in our self-discipline to hold on to high moral and spiritual values and to our goal of saving as much as we can from the crisis upon us.
Source: Joe Heller. www.CartoonStock.com
Bottom-line: Climate advocates must absolutely oppose the Trumpist assault on the climate cause! (And on other institutions the climate cause depends on.) But we must do this through non-violent means.
Effective ways to do this will be the topic of future posts.
Each of my posts is part of an extended strategy for how to surmount the climate crisis. This evolving strategic analysis is organised by themes, in a separate post, “Posts, organised thematically”, which I invite you to consult.
“How Many Americans Support Political Violence? Tolerance for aggression against political opponents is rising on both the right and left.” By Robert A. Pape. Foreign Policy. November 1, 2024.
“The Surprising Reality of Political Violence in America: After two apparent assassination attempts against Donald J. Trump, it’s easy to think our politics are becoming more violent. The research is not so clear.” By Charles Homans. New York Times. September 22, 2024.
The Fall of the Dynasties: The Collapse of the Old Order, 1905-1922. By Edmond Taylor. Originally published by Doubleday, 1963.
"Decolonization" Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed February 12, 2025.
"Fall of the Assad regime" Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed February 12, 2025.
"Russian Revolution of 1905" Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed February 12, 2025.
“How Mussolini Seized Power in Italy—And Turned It Into a Fascist State” By Fred Frommer. History.com. Original: April 11, 2022. Updated: September 15, 2023.
"Adolf Hitler's rise to power" Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed February 12, 2025.