magine you are about to crack open a new book and begin reading. The opening sentence goes like this: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

You might think “worst” refers to the now on-going Trumpian fascistic makeover of government, economy, culture, health, education, and indeed all of U.S. society and beyond. Goodbye empathy. And you might think “best” refers to students, workers, moms, dads, daughters, and sons assembling to instead win a fundamentally better future. Hello solidarity. But Charles Dickens actually wrote the quoted sentence nearly 170 years ago to begin his “A Tale of Two Cities.” Please forgive that I have shamelessly adapted Dickens’ title to become “Trumpism: A Tale of Three Reactions.”

Consider reaction one, passive accommodation. Many millions of people who Trump disturbs, worries, sickens, or even enrages nonetheless remain quiescent. They ignore unravelling social ties. They deny impending social suicide. They accommodate. Why?

I would wager that two long-nurtured beliefs fuel people’s resignation. One: you can’t fight city hall and win. Two: even if you do fight and win, what you implement will lead right back to the vile conditions you sought to overthrow. Yes, fear undoubtedly also propels people to accommodate. We bow to avoid Trump’s cruel wrath. And yes, exhaustion or even eyes on only self likely play a part. We must go where it is quiet. But despite these latter possibilities, I think accommodation isn’t mostly people being scared, lazy, or uncaring. I think accommodationists mostly feel that to fight Trump is a fool’s errand. They believe we will lose big time, and more, if we did win our victory would just reinstall yesterday’s horrors. Accommodationists feel “doom is our destiny.”

When the dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of lawyers in a big firm including the young ones who still have social ties and progressive feelings are told by their groveling “partner” bosses to obey cuts and restraints and acquiesce to Trumpian dictates, and they say, okay, yes boss, and lawyer on, what is that? It is passive accommodation. It is individuals seeking individual survival without even contemplating another path. We can understand, but why don’t they resist? Does it even occur to accommodationists to try?

The same holds for universities. When groveling Trustees tell faculty and students they must surrender to Trump and in response most faculty and some students say, okay, yes boss, and return to class, what is that? It is again passive accommodation. It is individuals seeking individual survival. It is individuals not even noticing their potential collective power. This too is understandable, but why don’t they resist?

What leads to accommodation? Protect myself, my future, my job, and my family? Okay, I can do that. Fight against Trump and my own immediate groveling boss, fight against just my own circumstances, much less fight to achieve a better world? No way. I can’t do that. I surrender.

For activists to ask working people to push endlessly on what they quite reasonably see as a revolving door will move few if any working people to resist. To go back to Bidenism will not inspire workers’ involvement. In contrast, to communicate positive intent and long-term strategy can inspire involvement. This is simple. For people who rightly mistrust institutions to decide to sustainably resist Trump, they need reasoned hope. They need positive achievable aims. It follows that if are to overcome accommodation, we need to address peoples’ hesitancy. We need to offer more than........

© CounterPunch