What are we actually for? The Mamdani case for positive resistance

I’m on vacation this week, which means I’d taken some time away from the internet to breathe. The Oregon coast is beautiful; if you’ve never had a chance, I recommend that you visit.

Let me amend that: if you’re not already within the United States, I recommend that you wait to visit. Incidents of visitors being detained at the border are on the rise. When I reconnected, I learned that we’ve opened a concentration camp in South Florida and that a funding bill that will serve to create, among other things, an unprecedented surveillance state has been passed by the Senate and sent back to the House for approval. Meanwhile, a Supreme Court decision stripped courts of the ability to block executive actions nationwide, making it much harder to pose legal challenges to the ongoing descent into fascism at the hands of the current President.

I know, I know. We’ve all got dystopia fatigue: the stories are relentless and more people are turning away from the news in order to protect their mental health. The temptation is not to say anything about it at all, because what could we possibly add to the conversation? And how can we say something about the current moment that doesn’t sound like something from a paranoid science fiction novel? But at the same time, silence is acquiescence. The overwhelming narrative is one of racism, nativism, and bigotry; by not raising our voices to counter it, we effectively help it along.

The government knows this, which is why it’s attempting to create a chilling effect on free speech, in part by demanding to see the social media accounts of immigrants and flagging people who might be critical of the current administration. Surveillance always creates a chilling effect on speech and organizing: clearly, immigrants who want a visa but know their social media profiles may prevent them from obtaining or maintaining one will watch what they say.

But, as bad as this already is, this climate of intimidation affects more than immigrants: it’s designed to make everyone think twice before speaking out. For the rest of us who might find staying silent more comfortable, we need to understand that the bystander effect is real:

In this study, when a person is alone in a room that begins to fill with smoke, three-quarters raise the alarm within minutes. Yet, when surrounded by others who remain passive, only 10% take action. This is the “bystander effect”, identified by Latané and Darley in the 1970s, which reveals how a silent, unresponsive crowd can stifle our instincts – even when our own lives are at stake.

It’s not just about speaking out: a resistance with no message of its own is doomed to repeat empty slogans. The hashtag resistance movement of the first Trump administration is a joke for a reason: it was largely performative, with few actions or real alternatives to back up its words. There needs to be something to say beyond, “not this guy”. Beyond what we’re against, what are we for?

This moment demands a robust counter-movement, but the formal opposition has been profoundly disappointing. I don’t know what established Democrats are doing. In response to the Republican spending bill that will give funding superpowers to ICE, Senate Minority Leader forced the bill to change its name and claimed a victory for it on social media. Meanwhile, the game remains the same: pass measures and repeal regulations to give as much wealth and power as possible to the ruling class, stripping it from lower income people, while scapegoating immigrants for their misfortune.

Much of Trump’s support this time around was about the cost of living. For some reason, Democrats insist on messaging that supports “the middle class”, leaving low-wage earners and the working class behind. To be clear, this was reason number two; reason number one was racist anti-immigrant sentiment, but that can also be tied into the economy when you consider how immigrants have been scapegoated for high costs and job losses. Removing the name from a terrible bill isn’t going to help here, but some inroads have been made. Many of Trump’s social media posts over the last few days have highlighted the price of gas, food, and taxes on social security.

This week, Zohran Mamdani won the NYC mayoral primary over Andrew Cuomo by a landslide, with more votes being cast than in any NYC mayoral primary since 1989. Voters were excited, and many precincts switched their allegiance from the Republican Party. (His video about why he won is a masterclass.) His core policies are progressive answers to cost of living problems: things like expanded childcare, cheaper groceries, and free public transit that will benefit people on lower incomes more than anyone else. They’re based on working policies from elsewhere or pilots that yielded great results.

We need to clearly oppose the cruelty of the second Trump administration, from unconstitutional deportations and detentions without due process through unprecedented surveillance and his anti-trans crusade to ethnic cleansing in Gaza. This goes far beyond partisan politics to simply being a position that fascism should always be opposed.

But we also need to have our own vision: one that addresses the core issues felt by ordinary people who are struggling to live in an increasingly cruel American society. I think Zohran Mamdani has clearly shown a road ahead: one that is embraced by a coalition of voters across cultural and ideological barriers.

I think Trump does too, which is why he posted:

As President of the United States, I’m not going to let this Communist Lunatic destroy New York. Rest assured, I hold all the levers, and have all the cards. I’ll save New York City, and make it “Hot” and “Great” again, just like I did with the Good Ol’ USA!

It would be better if the Democratic Party embodied its current role as an opposition force and embraced a progressive approach to the financial hardships faced by many Americans. Instead, both Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have declined to endorse Mamdani and other major figures have expressed concerns, in part because big-dollar donors favor a more centrist approach. But that approach is entirely at odds with what the electorate wants and needs — and the path forward is now clear. Establishment Democrats need to adjust accordingly or get the hell out of the way.