My Fourth-Grade Political Awakening: The Legacy of the Resistance
Written by Jayesha S.
Tuesday, November 8th, 2016. Election day. My fourth-grade class’ eyes were collectively glued onto a bar — split: blue and red. We cheered for blue and booed for red because, to us, the orange man with the funny haircut couldn’t win. But then, he did. Former President Trump’s election was my first exposure to politics. As I grew up seeing the tweets, watching the conferences, and reading the statements, my desire for political activism only grew. By 2018, political discourse opposing Trump from multitudes of perspectives swelled together, forming the Resistance. For me, along with many of my peers, the Resistance represented grounds for a political awakening where young voices finally entered the conversation.
Given this, reading Michelle Alexander’s essay “We Are Not the Resistance,” enraged me. In her essay, Michelle Alexander, civil rights activist, and lawyer, argues that this pseudo-movement was short-term and counterproductive to the larger ‘revolutionary river’ which consists of historical fights for human rights. Written in 2018, a few weeks after a member of the Trump administration published an anonymous article in the New York Times claiming to be part of the Resistance, the essay is likely a response to this contextually surging pertinence of the movement. She posits to her audience — likely those who are optimistically part of or privy to the Resistance — that Donald Trump is the actual, surging resistance to a new nation. While I disagree with her framing of the movement and its impacts, her nuanced, redefinition of the term ‘Resistance’ revolutionizes her audience's views on fights for social justice.
Despite Alexander’s argument that the impacts of the Resistance remain limited, the influx of young perspectives through the Resistance established new, pertinent voices in the political conversation. Alexander’s main contention with the Resistance as a movement is that “the bar of entry is too low…and restrict[s] our field of vision” (12). She argues that because seemingly anyone can join, its impact is short-term: to remove Trump from office. This stance fails to consider the immense amount of valuable change that resulted from the Resistance. Because the Resistance centered around Trump, his policies, and his embarrassing tweets, the Resistance saw a myriad of young voters entering the political landscape and conversation. It became a gateway into political activism. With this also came increased cooperation between previously polarized parties on the grounds of disliking Trump. This “unified front” fostered vital political conversation and agreement regarding policies between people who previously dissented (12). The “broader, bipartisan idea” that Alexander asserts is short-term resulted in far more political awareness, enthusiasm, dissent, accountability, and voter turnout, especially from younger generations who entered on the backs of this movement (11). These effects would eventually contribute to the revolutionary river, defined by Alexander as the continuous historical battle for social justice. Alexander, stating “every leap forward for American democracy…has been traceable to the revolutionary river and not the resistance,” dismisses the possibility that the resistance is another stream allowing the revolutionary river to flow further because of increased political discourse (14). She addresses this by asking “can’t we be both?” (14). To answer this question, she then begins to completely redefine what ‘Resistance’ means for social justice.
Through a deft shift in perspective, Alexander powerfully reverses the narrative of Resistance, vividly illustrating that “Donald Trump is the resistance. We are not” (13). This inversion challenges the conventional understanding of the term, propelling her audience into a new realm of thinking. The revolutionary river has been flowing for centuries, carrying change, change that will pave the way for a new nation. In the grand scheme of democracy and justice, our progressive revolution is not the Resistance—attempts to undermine it are. Alexander then frames Donald Trump’s election as the “surge of resistance to this rapidly swelling river” (13). This redefinition challenges her audience’s predetermined views of the Resistance, while also inspiring them that “a new nation is struggling to be born a multiracial, multiethnic, egalitarian democracy in which every life and voice truly matters” (13). Her striking diction within this sentence secures an idealistic view of this ‘new nation.’ The future is rich in its diversity, and inevitable in its progression. Her words provide a sense of comfort, especially in the context of heated political polarization at the height of Trump’s presidency. Alexander grounds her audience; she encourages them to look toward the larger goals of justice, rather than narrowing into the Resistance. Through her reframing, I now consider The Resistance as a part of the whole, an added stream to the larger revolutionary river that continues to carve through and resist canyons of racism, sexism, and xenophobia so that it can eventually overcome them.
As a member of the infamous ‘Gen Z,’ the Resistance was my, along with many other members,’ introduction to politics. The Resistance was an opportunity to see the power of democracy when younger generations were able to voice their opinions through forums like social media, which is (and continues to be) a prime method for political activism. Not everyone part of the Resistance, or her audience, shares this perspective, however. This leaves other readers more likely to accept her frame. Awaiting the 2024 campaign, I am confident that the long-term impacts of the Resistance will continue to encourage dissent and accountability among all running members. I am also confident that the revolutionary river will continue flowing, carving the new nation Alexander assures us is inevitable. In retrospect, the initial surge of anger I experienced while reading her essay serves as a testament to its ability to provoke introspection and dialogue. It mirrors the very essence of the Resistance — varied, impassioned, and persistently evolving.
