longer.blue

Defending the Constitutional Order We, and all of the resistance groups, coalitions, or organizations, are like the colonies in 1765. Divided. In October 1765, delegates from nine of the thirteen colonies met in New York City. This was the first time the colonies had independently organized a coordinated political response to British policy from the king of England. We don't have a King to oppose, but we do have a wannabe dictator. Political science research suggests that no government can withstand a challenge by 3.5% of its population participating in active, nonviolent protest. On their own, individual groups (e.g., environmentalists or labor unions) rarely reach this threshold. Together, they create a mass of people that is physically and politically impossible to ignore. This administration often uses a strategy targeting specific groups (like immigrants and journalists) while leaving others alone. If groups are not united, they may stay silent when another group is attacked, thinking they are safe. Unity creates a mutual defense pact: an attack on one is treated as an attack on all, preventing the administration from picking off opponents one by one. In a fragmented resistance, the public hears dozens of different messages and demands, which can lead to "outrage fatigue" and confusion. Unity allows the movement to present a single, clear alternative vision for the country. This makes it easier for "undecided" citizens to join the cause, as they see a stable, organized coalition rather than chaotic infighting. Individual boycotts are often "stings," but unified economic non-cooperation is a "sledgehammer." When labor unions, consumer advocacy groups, and big-city governments coordinate their economic power (e.g., nationwide strikes or synchronized boycotts of certain donors), they can force a change in policy by making the "status quo" too expensive for the administration and its backers to maintain. Extremist framing often portrays resistance groups as fringe or radical. A "Big Tent" that includes everyone from far-left activists to center-right "principled conservatives" proves that the opposition is actually the mainstream majority. This strips the administration of its claim to represent "the people" and places the label of "radical" back onto the government’s actions. Resistance is exhausting and expensive. Unity allows for shared infrastructure: one legal team, one massive data network, and one fundraising engine, making every dollar and hour of volunteer time go much further. Even the neoconservative journalist on PBS, David Brooks, says it's time for one mass movement to resist this administration. We, citizens from every walk of life, should stand united not by a single party, but by a shared commitment to the rule of law, the protection of our neighbors, and the preservation of our institutions. We should recognize that while our individual causes, from labor rights to environmental justice, may differ, they all depend on a government that is accountable to the people and restrained by the Constitution. Furthermore, we should pledge to act as one: an injury to one community’s rights is an attack on the freedoms of us all. Together, we should choose a future of inclusion over exclusion, and democracy over autocracy. We need unity, not division. What do you think about that?