Dealing with it all
It seems that the Sisyphean curse of our times involves dealing with a perpetual, rolling tide of information, anxiety, and outrage. We each have our preferred trick for doing so. Some limit their exposure to political news. Others find hobbies, get lost in novels, or simply enjoy the company of friends and family. No matter which life hack we embrace, the cares of the world rarely remain distant. When those cares do return front and center, we often feel like simply giving up. As the author and activist V (formerly Eve Ensler) observed in a recent opinion piece, however, our attitude and approach really should be akin to that expressed by Samuel Beckett: “You must go on. I can’t go on. I’ll go on.”
We have to go on in the face of the death by a thousand cuts inflicted on the imperfect, yet amenable democratic order found in the US during the last half-century. In one recent episode of The Gray Area podcast, Vox journalists Sean Illing and Zach Beauchamp discussed how the Trump regime has been delivering more or less what observers expected it would bring — the human catastrophe of mass deportations, economically destabilizing tariff and trade policies, and a wholesale remaking of the federal government. No doubt about it, but the lies and madness that feature in a Trump TV appearance or social media rant, the bigotry and cruelty of policies targeted at perceived enemies, the intimidation and extortion directed at various people and institutions, the overt corruption and profiteering … in the face of all of it, we sometimes feel as if there’s no point in going on.
Our desire to go on can return at times. For example, it can be boosted when polls reveal that the ratings for Trump and his policies are “underwater” (people express more disapproval than approval). For instance, in June, one poll found 42% of the public approving of his performance as president, compared with 56% expressing disapproval. Majorities disapproved of the regime’s social and economic policies, management of the federal government, and foreign policy. Even though there was majority support for Trump’s approach to border security, other polls since then have found that support to vary depending on people’s understanding of the policy. A “secure” border is welcomed, though having masked ICE agents randomly assail, detain, and deport people is definitely not embraced.
Similarly, when events like the “No Kings” protests (one of the largest demonstrations in US history) are attended by millions of people nationwide, we become uplifted and hopeful. Though news reports from the spring lamented the weakness of the “resistance,” we later learned that the growth and number of protest rallies and demonstrations in 2025 has outpaced those in 2017. The ultimate impact of such events is often debated, but we no doubt gain renewed strength to carry on when we gather with like-minded people, when we make new friends, when we build community.
Michel Foucault once observed that “where there is power, there is resistance.” In the course of granting and exercising power, the US Constitution fashioned a political system that has several mechanisms which serve as levers for resistance and opposition. Elections, for example, loom so large in the public mythology that scholars and citizens alike have often equated democracy itself with competitive elections. Electoral processes alone, however, provide no guarantee that society will be characterized by civic liberty, popular government, or the satisfaction of human interests. Significantly, recent experience in various countries (e.g., Russia, Hungary, and Venezuela) has produced systems of competitive authoritarianism — hybrid regimes where the form of electoral democracy exists but the content of popular rule is absent. Our national history is replete with restrictions on the franchise (the right to vote), overly limited electoral choices, and other mechanisms that override popular will. Despite such forces, whatever progress toward genuine democracy that the US has seen can be traced to individuals acting in and through social movements, labor unions, and other organized efforts. These have tended to be the most effective sources of resistance, countervailing power, and alternative visions of society.
During Trump’s first administration, we were fortunate that the constitutional checks and balances associated with Madisonian democracy functioned somewhat adequately. The federal judiciary limited the scope and reach of the president’s efforts to impose an Islamophobic travel ban. Congress, even though it passed plutocrat-friendly tax cuts and packed the Supreme Court with ideologues, still could not erect an massive border wall or end the Affordable Care Act. It eventually managed to support investigations into and proceed with impeachments over the worst excesses of executive power and violations of the oath of office. Ultimately, the 2020 election and the Biden administration subsequently provided a brief respite from governmental chaos and political insanity. Six months of experience with the current Trump regime, however, has taken us back well more than the proverbial two steps. We can all recite the sorry litany … rule by decree (in the form of executive orders and emergency declarations), illegal firings of civil servants and dismantling of entire agencies, free rein given to an armed force of kidnappers (ICE), deprivations of such constitutional rights as press and speech, and all the rest.
Judicial efforts to check such presidential overreach initially served to limit the damage. As Adam Bonica has noted, the District Courts have issued rulings that went against the administration 94% of the time. Because of their efforts, injunctions have halted some attempts to fire government personnel, prevented some deportations and renditions, and freed people like Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil whose rights were violated. However, the picture is worse when it comes to the Supreme Court, which has taken the contrary path and supported the Trump administration about 94% of the time. The judiciary cannot be an effective check on the presidency when the reactionary majority on this Court consistently supports expansive executive power (far beyond what the framers intended), grants it both substantial leeway and immunity from accountability.
Similarly, the cultish influence of party politics has made Congress a bit player in American politics. Its constitutional prerogatives are no longer well defended, and its members no longer seem to have minds of their own. Guided by the variable whims of one man, Republican majorities do little but acquiesce to presidential desires and echo the president’s proclamations. The story of the newly passed financial and policy package reveals the sad state of U.S. politics. Committees and members have very little to say about the nature of these massive bills because everything is negotiated at the summit. Speakers, party leaders, and presidents (not to mention their top staff members) are wholly in charge of both policy content and political timing. Whenever occasional Republicans show independence, raise concerns, exercise agency, or simply complain, they are quickly pacified, bought off, suppressed, or expelled from the tribe. The incentives and dynamics of partisan polarization, electoral politics, and social media have left us with one of the most supine Congresses in history.
The skewed analyses and simple solutions offered by right-wing politics have captured a public that had been made ready to accept them. Our segmented media environment seems to rely more on prejudice and propaganda than on clear information and significant context. Popular dissatisfaction with government generally, along with status anxiety and feelings of “stolen pride,” have made it easy for people to fall for demagogues peddling what Arlie Hochschild has called “policy promises and a story.” Those same demagogues are skillful in pacifying the public with bread and circuses, manufacturing consent through repetition and intimidation, as well as waging a culture war while perpetuating corruption.
In such an environment, once again, it is not surprising that people deal with it all through disengagement and distraction. However, really dealing with it all means doing it all — where ALL might stand for agitation, litigation, and legislation. Some years ago, Latrice Walker ran to serve as the public advocate in New York City, whose job she saw as to “advocate, agitate, legislate and litigate.” Since then, other politicians and activists have used a similar construction and employed similar language to summarize the task for change agents. However, this understanding of ALL can’t be all we mean by “all.” Agitation, litigation, and legislation are mere first steps along the path of opposition and resistance. To be sure, there are many other steps to take along that path and along the ones branching from it. They range across letters to newspapers and calls to legislators, social media posts and public protests, community organizing and noncooperation.
Doing it all — understood as doing something, anything, whenever you can — is obligatory, necessary even when we feel like we can’t go on. Both individually and collectively, perseverance and persistence are central not only to the moment’s struggle against fascism but also to the long-term struggle for a better world.
——
Find the crossword puzzle here (courtesy of Crosshare): Dealing With It All.
Happy solving!