An Ethnograph: The anti-Trump movement

        The anti-Trump movement, which developed as a result of the nomination and then the election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States in 2016, has developed several specific characteristics that are rare in American history but are more commonly found in authoritarian and tribal societies. Americans, in general, expect to be a part of, or expect to witness vigorous and at times fierce debate over political and cultural issues. Indeed, such debate has been the hallmark of our free society and our willingness to tolerate such debate has served as a barometer measuring the overall health or sickness of our society.

          The reaction to the election of Donald Trump, among certain segments of his opposition, has not been the societal norm in America and this speaks to the perception on the part of these segments of what it means to be an American. The first cultural manifestation of the anti-Trump movement came about when the opposition started calling themselves “the resistance” which is an old communist idea. Instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” in accord with American traditions, when the defeated party competes with the victors for the mind and hearts of Americans on the field of law and opinion, the opposition positioned itself, in a manner similar to a communist revolution, as resisting the government and, in the de-facto sense, trying to overthrow the government. This expressed itself when members of “the resistance” expressed rage at Democratic Senators who voted to ratify the new Administration’s nominees for cabinet positions, not because they necessarily disagreed with the nomination, per se, but rather simply because by ratifying the nominee the Senator had enabled the Trump Administration to establish a functioning government.

        The anti-Trump movement breaks down into two camps, one that is whitting and conscious, and the other largely unwhitting and unconscious. This metric, as would be the case with any metric that attempts to examine a society or a group, is inexact and most members of this specific movement, as it is defined here, embrace variations of and different levels of both camps. It should be noted that the vast majority of Americans who oppose the Trump Administration, including the majority of those who voted against him, are normally and legitimately opposed to him for the same reasons that anyone opposes any President or Administration. They legitimately disagree with specific or general policies or issues the administration supports or they dislike Trump’s style as a leader and as a person. This ethnograph focuses on a specific segment of that opposition, one that, I argue, is outside the norm.

          The first camp, the whitting and conscious camp, is what Trump accurately has identified as the “deep state” or the “swamp.” These are people, both Democrats and Republicans, who have accumulated power over many decades if not over the last half century. They have been euphemistically referred to by various names including the Eastern Seaboard Liberal Establishment. They are generally White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are amoral and non-ideological with the exception of believing it as virtuous to turn the United States into a province and a cash cow for a world order that they hope to control. Their clients are often people of color who have accepted various favors from them. Government power is part of their lifestyle and an outsider like Donald Trump, who is not beholden to special interests and who, as a largely self-funded candidate who spent relatively little money to get elected, threatens their power. It should be noted that self-described Socialist Bernie Sanders, however misguided, also threatens their power which is why they have gone to such great lengths to stop his movement. This whitting camp has made major inroads, over several decades and through the use of the carrot and the stick, into American cultural institutions of education, corporations and the media. Their amoral agenda, as described by Italian communist social scientist Antonio Gramsci as the “long march through the institutions” has resulted in their control of the high-ground today in the United States.  

        They have shown themselves as willing to engage in ruthless and extra-legal tactics to stop and to possibly remove President Trump from office such as their promotion, with the help of their media mandarins, of the preposterous claim that President Trump is a Russian spy. The Obama Administration ensured that the White House, and the intelligence establishment, was fully staffed with conspirators who would try to stymie Trump’s agenda at every turn. They spied on Trump, created a phony dossier with the help, ironically, of Russian sources, and then used the information to get Robert Mueller, one of their own, appointed as a Special Prosecutor. The Mueller conspiracy, with its constant media drumbeat of blockbuster impending indictments, dragged on for over two years and this was followed by the ridiculous claim that Trump had conspired with the Ukrainians by asking them to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, an investigation that Biden had himself previously shut down after threatening to withhold American aid to Ukraine. President Trump was impeached for what he clearly and accurately described as a hoax.

           The second camp, the largely unwitting camp, consists of those who really don’t know what is going on but who respond, in Pavlovian fashion, to the drumbeat of manufactured outrage reported, in a concertized style, by stooges, some whitting and some not, by the mainstream media. This camp is stimulated by half-truths and lies relating to identity politics, a practice that has gained momentum in recent decades. Race relations, and racial inequality and segregation, is the most shameful chapter of American history and its legacy lingers on. Recent decades have witnessed leftists exploiting these tensions for political gain while covering up their own de-facto racist policies which often promulgate and prolong racial tensions and inequality. President Trump has presided over unprecedented gains on the part of African-Americans on all levels and this is, I would argue, directly attributable to his policies.

        Yet the second unwhitting camp is fooled into believing that Donald Trump and his movement have something against African-American men and women. This type of cynical and exploitative narrative, fueled by hate and fear, has certainly been employed, almost routinely, against enemies of the left since the 1960’s but never before at such a ferocious and divisive level. The manipulators are willing to shred the fabric of American society with demagogic emotional claims and all as a means to preserve and to advance their leftist enterprise by attempting to utterly destroy their opposition.

          I have experienced the anti-Trump phenomena in my own life as an outspoken conservative in my liberal community. Before the Trump election, I had been seeing a therapist for several years going back to the collapse of my business in 2008 and the problems I experienced as a result. He had always found my conservative activism, my books, and my media, to be mildly amusing. He had explained to me that my conservatism emanated from my need to get attention, putting aside that I would have likely been more successful and notable as an author, columnist and radio host if I had been a liberal. In the sessions I had with him leading up to the Trump election, he became completely unglued and unprofessional in his diatribes. It was as if he had become a different person. Perhaps, for the first time, he felt that his liberal world was being shaken.

          He stopped working with me the day after the election explaining that in order for us to continue I would not be allowed to discuss politics. Likewise with the Thanksgiving that year, which was held at the New York home of friends of my wife's family, where I was informed in advance that the dinner would be “trump free.” At the time, I was broadcasting once a week at Tufts University College radio station WMFO where I was an open supporter of Trump. In the ensuing months, I was reported by a listener to the “anti-bias” police and an extremely derogatory and inflammatory article was published about me in the school newspaper. This was followed by my hour mover to 3 am in the morning. I got the hint and left.

          Likewise with my job selling health and life insurance as a representative of Aflac. The manager of the office called me into his office, asked me if I was a Trump supporter which I answered affirmatively, and told me that I would have to work from home going forward. I left that job as well. Likewise with my TV show at Boston Neighborhood Network. The atmosphere there had become toxic and my wife was concerned, and rightfully, that my visibility in the community as a Trump supporter due to that show might hurt our daughters chances of getting into a Boston area College. I agreed to leave. My hairdresser informed me around this time that he didn’t want me to come back.

          I could easily continue with details illustrating the toxicity of the anti-Trump movement but I will leave this study by noting that in order to continue my YouTube program and other media activities that were left to me, I had to change my name. I did this both to protect my family from possible negative consequences that might arise from my support of President Trump and to ensure that they were separated from me and my views as they are also opponents of President Trump. Meanwhile, under an assumed name, I shall continue, as best as I am able, to support the president and to examine the nature of his opposition and what it means for American society.