From D to D, Chapter 3: Whence Comes The Power?

This is the third installment of my commentary and "study guide" on the book From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp.  (In my series, I am shortening the title of the book to "From D to D.")  In the last post of this series I made the following statement:

The goal of the organizers of effective resistance against a dictator is to turn a large number of their fellow sufferers into a coherent, focused source of effective non-cooperation, and to focus that non-cooperation on one or more of the dictator's pillars of support until the pillars start to shatter.

The key to effective resistance against a dictator is therefore a strategy of focused, coherent non-cooperation and defiance by a large number of the citizens of a country against its ruling dictator and the dictator's institutions of power.  The question therefore that arises from this realization is how to persuade that large number of oppressed citizens to withdraw their cooperation from the dictator.  Chapter 3 of From D to D begins to answer that question.  But the chapter starts first with showing the reader what that noncooperation might look like - and the devastating effect that such noncooperation would have on the power and survival of anyone who might wish to live by oppressing others.

Sharp presents a fourteenth-century Chinese fable titled, Rule By Tricks, about an old man who made his livelihood by enslaving a group (pack? tribe? barrel?  Ah, it is a troop!) of monkeys.  Without spoiling the fable for you, let me just say that in exchange for his exploitation of the monkeys, the old man became dependent on the service they provided.  Therefore, the monkeys were able to kill the old man - not by a violent attack against him, but simply by withdrawal of their service.  This illustrates a principle stated by community organizing scholar and teacher Dr. Marshall Ganz - namely, that systems of oppression always depend on those whom they exploit.  The Monkey Master fable (as Sharp calls it), has become very popular among those who study and seek to bring about the disintegration of dictatorships, as can be seen here, here, and here, for instance.

Every state or polity has institutional bases of power which enable its leaders to foster the cooperation of the citizens or subjects of that polity.  In addition, in free societies, the citizens or subjects have  bases of power which are separate from the leaders of the polity and which can potentially act as a curb or brake on excesses committed against the subjects or citizens by the leaders of the polity.  To quote Dr. Sharp, the ruler's bases of power include the following:

• Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it;
• Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the rulers.  (Not: these obedient persons and groups cannot exist at all unless there is a base of the population who believe that the regime is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it.)
• Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups;
• Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers.  (Note: it is vital to understand the psychological and ideological factors which underlie the loyalty of the dictator's human resources noted above.  These may vary from regime to regime.  This is why opponents of the dictator's regime must learn to study their opponent.  Or, as a character in a mildly interesting 1990's action movie once said, "Полезно знать что думает противник, не правда ли?")
• Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation; and
• Sanctions, punishments, threatened or applied, against the disobedient and non-cooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies.

Note the interdependencies of these bases of power.  Without authority, the ruler has no human resources.  Without the requisite psychological and ideological factors, the ruler has no authority.  Without skills and knowledge, the dictator's human resources are useless.  Without human resources, the dictator has no access to material resources.  Without human resources or material resources, the dictator cannot apply sanctions.  The members of the dictator's regime who are committed to him comprise his human resources and are known institutionally as his pillars of support.

On the other side of the equation are the bases of power that are independent of the government and are held by the subjects or citizens of a free society or of a group of oppressed people who seek to liberate themselves.  These consist of the groups and institutions that have been founded by citizens or subjects and that are not under government control or dependent on government support.  When these groups become weak or begin to disappear from a democratic society, that society becomes increasingly vulnerable to democratic backsliding and authoritarian takeover.  In Chapter 3 of From D to D, Sharp notes that dictatorships frequently target these independent groups for co-optation or destruction, but such groups can die by means other than deliberate destruction at the hand of a dictator.  Thus it is that in the United States, independent groups such as strong trade unions have been deliberately weakened or disintegrated by the application of State power and the power of the filthy rich.  But American social life has also been disintegrated by a culture that is addicted to electronic entertainment, excess mobility fostered by the automobile, and other factors which were not necessarily deliberate, but rather emergent properties of certain technologies.  

The first task of democratic resisters against dictatorship is therefore to re-build independent groups and institutions in the oppressed society.  Let me repeat: this is the FIRST resistance task, the prerequisite to all that follows of successful strategic nonviolent resistance, just as bread is the prerequisite before you can have a sandwich.  As Gene Sharp says, "Their continued independence and growth [that is, the independence and growth of these independent groups] is often a prerequisite for the success of the liberation struggle."  Note also that Mohandas Gandhi said much the same thing in outlining his program for nonviolent liberation of India from British rule.  Gandhi started his organizing by organizing Indians to come together to meet their needs collectively without reliance on the British.   He called this approach the "constructive program," and said that "... my handling of Civil Disobedience without the constructive programme will be like a paralyzed hand attempting to lift a spoon."  

This is why basing a liberation struggle solely around mass protest marches and rallies is such a losing idea.  It lacks the prerequisite strength for long-lasting success.  Even when it seems to succeed, as in Tahrir Square in Egypt in 2011, the "victory" is fragile and thus easily taken over by a new round of would-be dictators as the Muslim Brotherhood and later, the Egyptian military, did in the aftermath of Tahrir Square.  (For a couple of commentaries on the failure, see this and this.  Note that I do not endorse everything these authors say.  Take them with a few grains of salt.  YMMV.)  (Second note: I am a great fan of the OTPOR! nonviolent revolution that deposed Slobodan Milosevic.  However, I would say that one potential weakness of the OTPOR! strategy and of the CANVAS Core Curriculum is perhaps a failure to look at the prerequisite of building or re-building independent groups and institutions by the democratic nonviolent resisters.)

The building (or re-building as the need may be) of these independent groups and institutions is such an important topic that my next post in this series will focus on this subject.  And I will refer to some additional sources that will shed light on the subject of institution-building from multiple angles.

From D to D - An Introduction

As I promised several posts ago, today starts the first of a series of posts I would like to write as a study guide and commentary on a key text on strategic nonviolent resistance.  Today also seems to be the first day in which Blogger won't have their legacy posting interface available, so I hope I can make it through this post without too much pain and suffering on my part.  

The text I want to walk us through is From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp.  It can be downloaded for free from the Albert Einstein Institution, or you can download it by clicking on the link in the first sentence of this paragraph.  If you're too busy to be able to spend a lot of time reading, you can download a free audio recording here.  

Today we'll focus on the first chapter, titled, "Facing Dictatorships Realistically."  And it is important to note that the first edition of this book was published in 2002, while the fourth edition was published in 2010.  The period from 1989 to 2011 was indeed marked by a number of impressive victories for those who were struggling for democracy in many autocratic regimes which existed during that time frame.  However, as many scholars have noted, the period from 2011 to the present has been characterized by a period of intense democratic backsliding, defined by one source as "a...decline in the quality of democracy...caused by the State-led weakening of political institutions that sustain the democratic system."  It is important to note that democratic backsliding does not originate only from the obvious members of a State government.  When capitalism is allowed to run unchecked, private interests can become powerful enough to buy off governments.  This is called regulatory capture, and it is a game that the world's richest people can play with ease.  (You may not know this, but the world's 26 richest people "own" (or lay claim to) as much wealth as 50 percent of the world's population.)

Therefore it is quite likely that if you're an ordinary stiff like me, you either have awakened, are awakening, or will one day soon awaken to a nation and a world which you didn't sign up for, a world or a nation ruled by people who think you would look good barbecued and stuck between two pieces of bread.  You may also discover that you are a member of an entire people who have been designated for exploitation by the wealthy and powerful.  The question then becomes what to do.

Scholars of strategic nonviolent resistance have a general answer to that question, yet they realize that much of the world's population has been conditioned by myths of redemptive violence to see violence as a means of righteous and effective social change.  (For examples of this myth in action, just watch a week of American television.)  In severe cases of injustice and oppression, the oppressed may come to see violence as the only effective answer to the oppression.  Therefore, in Chapter 1 of From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in this series of posts to "From D to D"), Gene Sharp takes us through an exploration of the various options available to ordinary people who find themselves victims to ruling powers who want to exploit them.

Sharp examines four possible responses to repression: 

1. Hoping for change via the intervention of another rival power (or, hoping for "foreign saviors" to intervene)
2. Hoping for change through elections and other seemingly democratic tools
3. Hoping for change by forming an armed militia to achieve regime change by killing a bunch of your opponents
4. Strategic nonviolent resistance (which Gene Sharp called "political defiance" in his book)

Let's focus on response #3 for a moment.  As a Christian, I am forbidden to advocate or choose violence as a means of liberation.  However, there are people who might look at such a prohibition as unrealistic moralizing, just as such people, if they were kids, might have called me a "Momma's boy" when I was a kid because I brushed my teeth three times a day or because I looked both ways before I crossed the street.  To such people I would answer that people who refuse to brush their teeth or who refuse to look before trying to cross busy streets on foot sooner or later learn that their parents had very good reasons for admonishing us kids the way they did.  And the reasons for refusing to use violence for political or economic liberation have been very well documented by social scientists such as Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan in books such as Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.  

But in case there are people who are not convinced, let's try a little thought experiment.  Say that you are a member of a historically marginalized group in the United States, and you chafe against an environment in which the President of the U.S., the members of many law enforcement agencies, and a number of redneck militias are trying to target you because of the color of your skin or your language of birth.  Say moreover that you have decided that a violent response is your only chance of changing your situation.  Immediately you run into a problem, namely, that in order to apply violence, you'll need weapons.  Given the current state of armaments among belligerents, you'll need at the least a good assault rifle.  A decent assault rifle costs around $1,000.  So you'll need to smash your piggy bank (and maybe a few other people's piggy banks) and eat ramen noodles for a few months if you just want to equip yourself.

Now violence is more effective at achieving political change when a number of violent actors join forces and pool their resources.  But if you are just starting from scratch, equipping a decent force with assault rifles will quickly get rather "spendy" as they say where I live.  For instance, equipping a 1,000 man force will require you to spend a million dollars.  And that's not counting the cost of ammunition.  Ammo will in fact be a recurring cost, because you'll need to practice regularly with your weapons in order to get good at using them.  Where will you get the money for all of that?  

(Wanna be insurgent goes to bank to take out a loan.  Insurgent to loan officer: "Uh, I need some money..."  Loan officer to insurgent: "How much do you need?"  Insurgent: "Uh, a million and some change..." Loan officer: "What do you have for collateral?"  Insurgent: "A two-bed, one bath house, a 25 year old car, and a German Shepherd who's missing a few teeth."  Loan officer: "Ohhh,... and what are you going to do with the money???"  Insurgent: "Uh, make some noise...?")

 A further problem arises when you actually start your "revolution", namely, the very much non-zero probability that you or your compatriots will get shot.  If that happens, you lose your $1,000 per rifle!

But it gets even better.  Your opponent will have much more than 1,000 men to match your 1,000-man force.  For starters, he will have other things besides assault rifles.  Take mechanized infantry fighting vehicles such as the M2 Bradley.  Do you want to match your opponent's capability here?  You too can have an M2...for around $3.2 million.  Try taking out a loan for one of those!  Note also that many police forces in this country have similar vehicles at their disposal.  And if you somehow manage to scrape together enough for a (very small) fleet of M2s, you've still got to deal with attack aircraft ($46.3 million for an A-10, $94 million for a budget version of the F-35, $4 million for a combat drone).   In other words, if you're trying regime change through violence, the violent option is very, very spendy!

Moreover, the violent option is no guarantor of righteous, effective change, even in countries whose militaries are not anywhere near as capable as the Unites States military.  In weaker countries, low-level guerilla war very often degenerates into decades-long "conflict traps" which lower the quality of life for all citizens while leaving ruling elites still firmly in power  Far too many of these guerilla uprisings end in failure.  Just ask the Zapatistas.  

Next post (God willing): Chapter 2, "The Dangers of Negotiations."  Feel free to read ahead.

Why Are These Weapons Strong?

I've been scanning recent news articles that deal with nonviolent resistance.  As is to be expected, almost all of these recent articles deal with the ongoing protests against police brutality and the murder of unarmed people of color in the wake of the police murder of George Floyd.  Some of these articles are misleading - perhaps unintentionally or perhaps not.  So I thought it good to write a post clearing up a few misconceptions regarding nonviolent resistance.

As I have come to understand nonviolent resistance in the light of the literature I've been studying from the end of 2016 until now, I've come to my own definition of the term, stated below:

Nonviolent resistance: a system of means by which the powerless and the oppressed shift the balance of power between themselves and their oppressors without the use of physical violence or property destruction.

This definition comes from my reading of histories of those who have used nonviolent resistance to defeat oppression including conflicts with some of the most repressive regimes the world has seen within the last 120 years.  Because nonviolent resistance is a system of means employed by the oppressed, it is not passivity or inaction.  Below are some other things that nonviolent resistance is not:

• Nonviolent resistance is not just nonviolence.  (However, nonviolent resisters are nonviolent!)  Why make this distinction?  Because oppressors (along with some misguided members of the oppressed) frequently equate nonviolent resistance with the kind of "nonviolence" that consists only of being passive in the face of oppression, or of trying to "rise above" your oppressor by showing him or her that the oppression doesn't bother you, or by finding creative ways to continue to turn the other cheek or to learn to "live gracefully" under ongoing oppression.  The term "nonviolence" has come thus to have almost New Age "spiritual" connotations.  But if you are an African-American mother whose children were exposed to heavy metals in Flint, Michigan, when Republicans destroyed the safety of the city's water supply, or if you are a relative of the unarmed African-Americans who were murdered by police, or if you are a Latino U.S. citizen whose relatives were wrongly deported, don't you have a right - even a duty - to be bothered?

• Nonviolent resistance is not weak.  Moreover, it is not weaker than violence.  Oppressed populations who rely on nonviolent struggle are twice as likely to achieve their aims as those who use violence, according to the book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan.  In that book, Chenoweth and Stephan present the results of a statistical analysis of both nonviolent and violent conflicts which shows that nonviolent struggles achieved an outright success rate of 52 percent.  The rate of partial success was even higher.  Those who used violence succeeded only 26 percent of the time.  As for those violent actors who failed...well, let's just say that many of them did not get a second chance! 

• Nonviolent resistance is not just protest. Scholar Gene Sharp identified 198 methods of nonviolent action, which he grouped into three general categories.  While I am heartened by some of the recent tactical victories I have seen in the recent anti-racism protests, I have to repeat once again that the methods of protest and persuasion are actually the weakest of the categories of methods of nonviolent action, because they have only limited power to apply pressure to an oppressor.  Strategic nonviolent resistance can be used successfully even against oppressors who don't have any better angels to appeal to, because strategic nonviolent resistance relies on more than just protest.

Nonviolent resistance is a set of means by which the oppressed can assert their humanity and dignity in the face of their oppressors in a way that effectively disrupts the power of their oppressors.  And it has an impressive track record, as seen in a brief survey of examples:

• The Philippine "people power" revolution that deposed Ferdinand Marcos was waged nonviolently.  It succeeded after the repeated failure of violent Communist insurgencies.
• The South African struggle which ended apartheid succeeded because its practitioners learned to skillfully apply strategic nonviolent resistance.
• The Polish Solidarity (Solidarność) movement toppled the Communist Jaruzelski regime without violent combat.
• The Serbian OTPOR! (ОТПОР!)movement was part of the Serbian nonviolent resistance that toppled strongman and genocidal maniac Slobodan Milosevic in 2004.

Nonviolent resistance does depend on the participation of large numbers of people.  As more and more people decide to participate, the oppressor's psychological and social pillars of support begin to crumble.  However, there is one weakness of civil resistance: if the resistance turns violent, the number of people willing to participate drops drastically.  And the more violent the resistance becomes, the greater is the ability of the oppressor to justify violent repression against the resisters.  This is why when a nonviolent liberation struggle begins in an oppressed population, the oppressors almost always try to inject violence into it so that they can more easily crush it.

So now we come to the articles I read this week, some of which raised my eyebrows, articles like this:

• "The Limits And Dangers of a Fixation on Nonviolence", Rebecca Pierce
• "In Defense of Destroying Property", R. H. Lossin

Rebecca Pierce claims to be both Black and Jewish, and her essay appears in the New Republic.  Let me just color her misinformed both about nonviolent resistance as a strategic toolkit and as a strategy which works best when not mixed with violence.  R. H. Lossin is white, and does not have to face the sort of demonization which a Black person would face for even suggesting that property destruction is an acceptable way to advance a social movement.  Her article appears in the Nation.  Both the New Republic and the Nation are prominent magazines.  How is it that these people were given the permission to publish such pieces?  Who gave them that permission, and why?  Who benefits from teaching the oppressed to believe that including violence and property destruction in their "variety of tactics" is helpful to those involved in a liberation struggle against a more powerful oppressor?  (What kind of doofus would try to persuade a child to challenge a grizzly bear to a bare-knuckle fight???)

Two last things.  First, in my writings on nonviolent resistance, I have studiously avoided any mention of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King.  I could leave it to you, the reader, to guess all my reasons for leaving him out of my discussion, but I will help you by giving you one reason.  King has been flattened by public school history books and popular culture into a character who fits the description of "nonviolence" I mentioned in my first bullet point above.  So if one goes to communities of the oppressed saying, "We need to practice nonviolent resistance like King did," there will be voices both within and outside the communities of the oppressed who question whether it is realistic to try to convert the oppressor or to build "beloved communities" between oppressor and oppressed, or to ask the oppressed to keep trying to "love their enemies," blah, blah, blah.  In other words, these voices will set up King as a straw man who is easily knocked down, thus hindering the oppressed from seeing the real power and aims of strategic nonviolent resistance. King has therefore become a distraction.

Second, it is instructive to consider the history of Syria over the last ten years or so.  You might be surprised to know that the civil war which started in Syria several years back began as a peaceful nonviolent resistance movement.  In this form, it posed the greatest danger to the regime of strongman Bashar al-Assad, and was beginning to seriously weaken the pillars of support of his regime.  Assad correctly concluded that if the nonviolent struggle were allowed to continue, it would force him out of power (thus bringing Syria into the list of countries which experienced regime change during the Arab Spring).  To prevent that from happening, Assad injected violence into the nonviolent movement by committing outrageous atrocities against the resisters, in order to provoke them to violence.  He also planted caches of weapons in the hopes that the resisters would find them and try to use them against the regime.  (See this also.)  Assad's hope was that by turning the resistance violent, he could shift the resisters onto a battleground in which the State held a decisive advantage.  The only reason why the resulting civil war lasted as long as it did and came close to ousting Assad was that the violent resistance was able to obtain outside sources of funding and supply.  Had that not been the case, the Assad regime would have quickly crushed the resistance movement.  Let that be a warning to those who have a cavalier attitude toward the use of violence in the current struggle against racist oppression in the United States.

Alternative Resistance Tool: The Boycott

As I said in my last post, the methods of protest and persuasion are actually the weakest methods of nonviolent resistance against oppression.  There are much stronger methods, which are effective because they withhold from the oppressor the benefits he reaps from the compliance of the oppressed.

Let me introduce a concept that comes from the world of union and community organizing.  The first is the concept of power analysis - a means by which organizers of the oppressed map out the power relations among themselves, among their opponents, and between the oppressed and the oppressors.  From that power analysis you can then build a strategy for disrupting the power relations of the oppressor.  One excellent means of disruption is the boycott.

Boycotts are useful for the following reasons:

1. They are low-risk actions.  Riot police find it much harder to go after you simply because you refuse to support a business.  No one I know has ever been arrested for refusing to shop.
2. They are extremely hard to infiltrate.  Right now, I am hearing reports of violent white right-wing groups infiltrating many of the George Floyd protests.  They can't infiltrate a boycott.
3. They hit the oppressor where it really hurts.  Boycotters can do the financial equivalent of choking their oppressor to death.

But boycotts must be strategically planned in order to be successful.  A boycott without strategic planning is likely to fail.  The boycott should have a clear, quantifiable, verifiable goal, such as forcing the city of Minneapolis to reduce police funding by a certan percent and to lay off a certain percent of its police force.  On the other hand, if boycotters simply say, "We are boycotting everyone and everything until police brutality is ended!", that is not a clear, quantifiable goal.  The demand of protestors that all four of the officers who arrested George Floyd be arrested and brought to trial is a good start.  

Secondly, a boycott should focus on a specific target, namely a specific business whose compliance with the boycotters' demands would have a measurable strategic benefit, and whose downfall would send a clear message to the other businesses in its particular geographic location and market sector.  The Montgomery Bus Boycott is a good example of this.  Read also Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  (But take Alinsky with a grain of salt.)  Or study the highly effective strategy used by the United Farm Workers in the boycotts of grape growers in the 1960's.  You can also read Why David Sometimes Wins by Marshall Ganz.

Lastly, here is a partial list of Fortune 500 companies based in Minnesota.  Whether any of them is a good boycott target will depend on the power analysis performed by the oppressed.  Whether a boycott succeeds in forcing your demands will depend on your strategy.  The list:

• Polaris Industries
• Thrivent Financial for Lutherans (Why am I not surprised that a Lutheran financial institution is in a racist state?)
• Hormel Foods
• Ecolab
• Land O'Lakes (a food company that makes cheese and other products)
• General Mills

These entries are taken from this source.  In your analysis, ask which of these firms are pro-police.

One other note: I believe that the violence perpetrated by infiltrators at the George Floyd protests were meant to give Donald Trump a strategic opportunity to boost his popularity by demonizing nonwhite people.  Now that it is being revealed that these infiltrators are mainly white, Mr. Trump seems to have lost his strategic advantage.

Of Sympathy And Negotiations

This last week has been less than kind to the junta which now holds the reins of the U.S. presidency.  Things have been particularly hard on the figurehead and namesake of that junta, a certain Mr. Donald Trump.  After losing his bid to exclude travelers from seven Muslim countries, his administration was embarrassed by news reports that revealed that Michael Flynn, the National Security Advisor, had tried to cut a deal with Russia before the election to remove U.S. sanctions against Russia under a Trump administration - and that Trump knew about this weeks before he took office.  As a result, the Trump team ditched Flynn and Trump had to defend himself in a Thursday press conference in which Trump's answers and comments sank to the level of word salad.  That press conference also induced Mr. Trump's first pick for a replacement national security advisor to decline the job.

One interesting thing came out of that conference, however, namely an offer by Mr. Trump to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus.  This coincided with the release of issues of some of the glitzier gossip magazines sold at the checkout counters of supermarkets across America - magazines which sought to induce sympathy on behalf of Melania Trump (and by extension, on behalf of the Donald himself) in the hearts of many of us who buy groceries.

My problem is, I find that I keep having sympathy for the many people from Arab and Muslim countries who are in the U.S. legally and who were terrorized by Mr. Trump's abortive travel ban a couple of weeks ago.  I keep feeling sympathy for Elizabeth Warren.  I keep having sympathy for the many Hispanics who have been arrested by the ICE over the last several days, and who are now threatened with deportation.  I keep having sympathy for the members of the U.S. Congressional Hispanic Caucus who this week were ordered away from a meeting with the ICE chief by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  My sympathies are also for everyone of Hispanic descent who lives in the U.S., for they are all potentially threatened by a proposal entertained by the Trump administration to use 100,000 National Guard troops in eleven states to round up supposed "illegals."  (Do not think for a moment that they would limit themselves solely to deporting those who could be proven by due process to be in the United States illegally.  Mass deportations have occurred at other times in U.S. history, and have targeted many legal citizens as well as illegal residents.) My sympathies are for the refugees and asylum seekers who can no longer find a place of refuge in the nation of Franklin Graham.  But for the Trump junta, I have no more sympathy than I would have for Scarlett O'Hara.  And that's quite a bit less sympathy than I would have for a pile of used toilet paper.  You feel me?!

Trump's offer to "reach out" to the Congressional Black Caucus may by an attempt to gain some positive PR from supposed "negotiations."  But as far as negotiations go, I think there is a need for extremely clear thinking on the part of all decent people, as political theorist Gene Sharp once wrote.  Indeed, in his book From Dictatorship to Democracy, he makes some very wise comments on the dangers of negotiating with dictators:

"Democrats should be wary of the traps that may be deliberately built into a negotiation process by the dictators. The call for negotiations when basic issues of political liberties are involved may be an effort by the dictators to induce the democrats to surrender peacefully while the violence of the dictatorship continues. In those types of conflicts the only proper role of negotiations may occur at the end of a decisive struggle in which the power of the dictators has been effectively destroyed and they seek personal safe passage to an international airport."

 And there's this:

"Resistance, not negotiations, is essential for change in conflicts where fundamental issues are at stake. [Emphasis added.]  In nearly all cases, resistance must continue to drive dictators out of power. Success is most often  determined not by negotiating a settlement but through the wise use of the most appropriate and powerful means of resistance available. It is our contention, to be explored later in more detail, that political defiance, or nonviolent struggle, is the most powerful means available to those struggling for freedom."

We have seen that the Trump team is capable of attempting appeasement when backed into a corner, although the attempts are artless and very badly done.  Yet even well-done attempts at appeasement used by abusive persons to pacify their prey should almost always be rejected.  I have written at length of the insights that can be gleaned from viewing dysfunctional national governments through the lens of family and intimate partner dysfunctional relationships in which at least one of the parties has a personality disorder.  While others have also written along these lines, this way of thinking of national and global politics has become well known only in the last few years.  Yet, just as one can predict the behavior of a non-periodic mathematical function by modeling it as a Fourier series, one can also predict the behavior of a dictatorship toward its subjects by modeling it as an interaction between a physically abusive man and his wife or girlfriend.  The interaction goes in cycles - first, the honeymoon, then the buildup of tension, then the abuse, then the apology and honeymoon, and so on.  The cycle stops only when the woman manages to put an effective barrier between herself and her abuser - a barrier that prevents any further contact.

In the same way, those of us who are the intended targets of the Trump regime should wage what Dr. Erica Chenoweth calls a maximalist campaign against the regime.  (This is only fitting when opposing someone who himself wants to cause maximal hurt to others.)  The campaign should use nonviolent means to shatter the regime's pillars of support in order to disintegrate the regime.  That means not only Trump himself, but Mike Pence, Steve Bannon, and all the others in the legion of demons who have now possessed the American government.