How the Trump Resistance circa 2017–2020 Shot Itself in the Foot
Or, why values and principles must be at the center of our opposition to Trump
Since the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, there has been a lot of talk about how the ‘resistance’ to Trump seems to be more scattered and less ‘energetic’ than last time. This, inevitably, leads to arguments about whether the ‘resistance’ during Trump’s first term was effective or not. Those who argue that it was effective often point to the fact that Biden won in 2020. However, this ignores a few important facts: that Biden won by a relatively small margin, that Trump was able to vastly increase his actual number of votes between 2016 and 2020, that he was able to keep almost all of these votes in 2024, which was pivotal for his victory, and that the populist right has continued to get stronger across the Western world. On the other hand, those who argue that resistance 1.0 was ineffective often simply point to the fact that, well, Trump is back and his policies are even more extreme this time. And then, there’s the fact that the current ‘burnt out’ state of the opposition to Trump demonstrates that the Trump 1.0 resistance was simply unsustainable.
I actually think all this can be explained by the view that some aspects of the Trump 1.0 ‘resistance’ worked, but others were counterproductive. I think what worked was the passion, the fact that people tuned in, and the fact that people had hope that things could turn out better eventually. However, some important faults ultimately meant that the ‘resistance’ was unable to convince Trump supporters, or even many undecideds, and it also led to burnout in the long term. The biggest fault, I believe, was that resistance 1.0 was not grounded in any values or vision, but simply opposition to the personality of Donald J. Trump. Anyone who disliked Trump in some way and wanted to see him lose in 2020 was welcome. This meant that ‘resistance’ had no firm commitment to any values, and indeed took contradictory stances sometimes. Worse still, it meant the parts of the ‘resistance’ big tent which shouted the loudest got to set the agenda for the whole movement. In practice, this meant that far-left activists inspired by postmodern critical theory had a lot of say over its direction, much to the dismay of old-school liberals like myself.
For example, the ‘resistance’ often did not take a principled stand for free speech, because far-left elements which, inspired by postmodern critical theory, supported de-platforming, were included in the tent. This has implications right up to the present moment, in the form of the opposition to Trump having difficulty arguing against his anti-free speech, anti-press freedom and anti-academic freedom policies. The ‘resistance’ never developed the language, or indeed the credibility required, to talk about free speech, because it was too cowardly to say no to the cancel culture far-leftists who snuck into its tent early on. I still remember being very lonely as somebody who was both anti-Trump but also concerned about cancel culture back in 2017. Many other people in the anti-Trump camp simply weren’t interested in free speech back then. They were, much to my frustration, more welcoming of those who said we should de-platform people they consider to be ‘Nazis’ and practice ‘safe speech’. This was actually how I got into anti-wokeness in the first place. A similar thing happened on the ‘identity politics’ front, where far-left elements which pushed an oppressor vs. oppressed worldview came to dominate the conversation, shouting down those of us who said we preferred the more traditional universalist approach to social justice. This, I believe, is the biggest reason why the Democrats and the center-left in many Western countries now have a problem with attracting male supporters across all age groups, which in turn is contributing to the strength of Trump and the populist right.
Furthermore, the resistance also took no firm position against Trump’s tariffs, because it included extreme ‘anti-capitalist’ elements which opposed international free trade in the name of opposing capitalism. This led to a sole focus on the cultural aspects of Trumpism, while neglecting its economic weaknesses, thus allowing Trump to accrue economic credibility he shouldn’t have had in the first place, simply by taking credit for the good economy during 2017–19. This, of course, was ultimately the biggest reason for his victory in 2024, and also allowed him to paint the Democrats as ‘woke’ and obsessed with cultural issues. The resistance could have championed old-school liberal values including free trade, as an antidote to Trumpism, and it would have won on the economic merits. Instead, it shied away from this most important fight, because it kowtowed to the far-left elements within its own tent. The result is the global trade war that Trump is launching on the whole world right now.
The resistance’s valueless, ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ approach to politics eventually led to the normalization of this approach to politics, which ultimately worked in favor of Trump and the populist right. The cultural far-left’s agenda of de-platforming, cancel culture, and oppressor vs. oppressed identity politics, and the broader left’s implicit sanctioning of this agenda, alienated many old-school liberals. The fact that the far-left touted their platform as ‘progressive’ and derided the old-school liberals as ‘right-wing’, while the broader left didn’t push back, was also doubly damaging. Eventually, the populist right reached out to many of these old-school liberals through their many well-paid influencers, and taught them that they should see the right as their friend, because the left was now the enemy of freedom. The fact that these influencers all became unwavering Trump supporters at one point or another, and are totally on board with his anti-free speech agenda in 2025, speaks volumes about their actual commitment to liberty, or lack thereof. However, I know that at least some old-school liberals were successfully sucked into that rabbit hole, and still haven’t come out of it. This wouldn’t have happened if the resistance stood for actual liberal values, on principle, regardless of whether the far-left liked it or not. Instead, the resistance’s choice to go with a valueless, tribalist approach to politics allowed the Trumpist right to weaponize the same approach, to peel off old-school liberals and lead them down a well-designed pipeline towards reactionary populism. This is yet another reason why the populist right has grown in strength in the past ten years.
Since Trump’s victory in November last year, some Democratic Party-aligned commentators have called for their party to adopt a more moderate stance on various social issues, justified by some opinion polls and exit polls. In response, activists of various stripes have accused them of throwing certain groups under the bus. This tug-of-war argument on choosing between ‘swing voters’ vs ‘the base’ is exactly the result of the valueless approach of ‘resistance’ politics, one that prioritizes coalition building strategies over actually standing for something. I think a better approach would be to drop the coalition building approach altogether, and return to a values-first approach. When faced with an issue, what we should ask is, “what would our values demand that we do in this instance?” We should stop thinking about whether this approach or that approach would upset constituency A or constituency B. This approach is ultimately hollow and meaningless, and leads to loss of passion and burnout over time. It will also not be respected by anyone who sees through it.
In practice, this is what a values-based approach would look like: we can continue to stand strong for civil rights and fundamental freedoms, but we also need to apply these principles universally, and reject the oppressor vs. oppressed mindset. For example, if you believe racism is wrong, then it is always wrong, no matter who it is targeted at. The idea that the definition of racism should include ‘power’ or ‘privilege’ is a hypocritical piece of nonsense that should be rejected outright, even if it upsets some activists. We should not be afraid of alienating such unreasonable ‘activists’ in the course of taking a stand for our fundamental values.
Given Trump’s repeated and flagrant violation of many of our most important long-standing values, including free speech, freedom of conscience, limited government, academic freedom, press freedom, freedom to do business as one sees fit, due process, compassion and so on, there should be a lot of opportunities to effectively oppose his agenda, simply by standing strong on these values, and refusing to give an inch when it comes to what really matters. The challenge for us is to be able to create a movement around defending these values, and make them the center of our case against Trumpism and reactionary populism. I believe whether we can successfully resist the New Right will depend on how passionately, vigorously, and most importantly, consistently, we defend and champion these values.
Originally published at https://taraella.substack.com.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Progressive Conservative Manifesto, the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series. She is also the author of her autobiography The TaraElla Story.
