Coalition-building, Strategic Resistance, and Strategic Economic Will: The Basics
- Jose H. Vargas, Ph.D.
- Feb 25, 2017
- 4 min read
Why a Coalition Is So Important…Especially Now!
In the first liberation piece issued by our team, I made the observation that the Trump Administration has been engaging in a purposeful “distraction” campaign. This campaign seeks to trigger the emotions of its resisters, The People. The first month of this blatantly inept and destructive Administration has already shown how it is behaviorally and cognitively impossible for any one person to follow all the chaos and disorder: the Orwellian-like concept of the “alternative fact” and the Conservatives’ continued and perverse politics of definition; an untruthful press secretary; xenophobic senior advisors; the infiltration of White supremacists into the US Federal Government; congressional Republicans in fear or in denial of the real facts (redundancy acknowledged); false conspiracy theories regarding illegal voter turnout; the expansion of draconian immigration bans and deportations set forth by prior administrations and their unjust laws; tyrannical attacks on our valued free press and independent judiciary; the realization of conflicts of interest involving the Trump family and other kleptocrats worldwide; political corruption, collusion and treason at the highest levels of federal power; the Administration’s implicit approval of hate crimes; and—perhaps the most troubling, though not surprising, set of facts—the intrusion of the Russian Government in the 2016 US General Election and its Cold War-era desires to annihilate the very existence of justice, democracy, and peace.
It is no wonder why some may feel overwhelmed by the authoritarian force sweeping the US and the world. In the face of this force, how can anyone be an effective resister? How can one person help sustain a social movement? And, as it concerns the progressive movements which have emerged since The People’s Saturday, how is the threat of “movement fatigue” to be avoided in the short-term, and for the long haul? Any burgeoning social movement always runs the risk of losing its momentum and, with it, its noble goals. The solution to this problem requires both a “coalition of values,” as well as a coalition of pro-movement social institutions that share those values. Through preexisting leadership, their loyal membership, and a set of explicit shared values, such a coalition would be able to leverage its will strategically, and in ways the Trump Administration and its supporters would be unable to match. In other words, we, The People, must coalesce. What do I mean exactly?
Strategic Resistance as a Means of Upholding a “Coalition of Values”: Formal Coalition-building
A formal coalition of the type described above is essential for a strategic resistance campaign’s sustainability and success. But why else should we consider coalescing already-existing social groups and coalitions? At least three reasons justify the establishment of a new formal coalition of progressive social entities:
Reason 1: Diffusion of momentum. The Trump Administration is purposefully engaging in unorthodox executive behaviors in order to divide-and-conquer the momentum of the movement. As such, the movement must focus its momentum strategically (if not surgically) to avoid movement fatigue in the long-term. This necessitates a “coalesced leadership” comprised of critical groups and well-established institutions. These entities are repositories of collective esoteric expertise that, when combined, would be able to systematically offer vital “knowledge transactions” that are not possible within any one single entity.
Reason 2: Emotional triggering and distraction. Behaviors from the Trump Administration are purposefully designed to emotionally redirect the focus of the movement, in turn diminishing the behavioral and sociological impact of movement resistance. In praxis, a coalition of leaders—in conjunction with social media and mass communication—would have the ability to mobilize devoted members at any given moment and, most critically, toward a set of shared values, or common causes.
Reason 3: Asymmetrical power. A coalition of progressive social entities, bound by a set of shared values, can leverage its economic, intellectual, behavioral, political, and cultural power strategically, and in ways the Trump Administration and its supporters cannot match.
Under this paradigm, entities contribute to the table a unique set of values, as well as behavioral tactics. Put differently, the desire to advance and institute a progressive, feminist agenda unites what may appear, on the surface, as a puzzle of disjointed values and actions (see Figure 1). But, like any alliance, it is imperative that all allies formally agree on a set of shared values and rules of engagement. How would something like this look like in the real world? To illustrate, consider the “test case” discussed in our first liberation piece!
Strategic Economic Will as a Means of Motivating a Progressive Coalition, and Some “Articles” for Sustaining the Movement through Coalition-driven Strategic Resistance
The events of The People’s Saturday, and those that have followed, have brought to the forefront a set of shared values, and a wave of autonomous entities known for defending these values. But, through their formal coalescence, it would be possible to engage in strategic economic will: a piecemeal and systematic form of boycotting. Notably, at least five principles are necessary to sustain the current progressive movement, without which strategic resistance—whether economic, political, intellectual, and so forth—would not be possible:
Article 1: Collective defense principle. An existential threat to one social entity, or party, of the coalition is considered to be an existential threat to all parties of the coalition.
Article 2: Shared values principle. Although parties retain their sovereignty, parties of the coalition agree to defend the shared values adopted by the movement’s members and its leadership.
Article 3: Peaceful dispute principle. Parties of the coalition agree to resolve internal conflicts via explicit actions that do not jeopardize the sustainability, morale, and momentum of the movement and its shared values.
Article 4: Mediated conflict resolution principle. Disputing parties of the coalition agree to resolve conflicts in an open forum and to abide by the majority decision outlined by the remainder of the coalition.
Article 5: Social footprint principle. Parties of the coalition agree to “limit” their aiding and abetting of opposition groups that behave against the interests and values of the coalition and the movement. That is, parties agree to monitor, control for, minimize, and—if possible—eliminate “social footprints” that threaten our shared values.
The history of social movements has demonstrated the awesome power of the boycott. But boycotts are ineffective when they are transient, when they are alienated from the core values that justify them, and when they operate without directed motivational energy and leadership. A strategic resistance paradigm offers one possible way to push ordinary boycotts into overdrive; into a state of strategic economic will (see Figure 2). In our upcoming liberation pieces, I will continue to articulate explicit plans for engaging in strategic resistance, more generally, and strategic economic will, more specifically.
Stay tuned and long live the resistance! ∞