In the wake of Donald Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton, an impressive number of politicos, media pundits and entertainers have doubled-down on the sort of white-knuckled hand-wringing that got them nowhere during the election.
Some have called for nationwide protests, while others have declared (laughably) that they’re prepared to convert to Islam in protest of the “Muslim registry” that Trump is supposedly going to create.
What very few Trump critics have done, however, is take a step back to reconsider how best to resist America’s incoming president.
Trump won, despite all the protestation and bad press from the entertainment and news industries. Perhaps more of the same isn’t the smartest way forward.
For those who are genuinely interested in keeping the president-elect in check, a new strategy is in order, or so says Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago professor Luigi Zingales.
There is a “right way to resist Trump,” Zingales wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times, adding that former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi — a very common point of comparison to Trump — provides the blueprint.
First, he argues, Trump critics must abandon their attacks on the president-elect’s character. “Mr. Berlusconi was able to govern Italy for as long as he did mostly thanks to the incompetence of his opposition,” Zingales wrote. “It was so rabidly obsessed with his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared; it focused only on personal attacks, the effect of which was to increase Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity. His secret was an ability to set off a Pavlovian reaction among his leftist opponents, which engendered instantaneous sympathy in most moderate voters. Mr. Trump is no different.”
He has a point.
One of Hillary Clinton’s greatest mistakes during the election was that she and her army of campaign surrogates spent most of their time attacking Trump’s character, even as they claimed they wanted to give Americans something to “vote for, not against.”
The press behaved similarly, and focused much of its time during the primaries and general election on criticizing Trump and his supporters. The end result was the GOP candidate benefited from more than $2 billion worth in earned media.
On a related note, like Trump’s critics in media, those who’ve taken to the streets to protest the Republican candidate’s election should also take it down a notch, Zingales argued.
This isn’t to say that the protesters are illegitimate or that they don’t deserve to have their voices heard. The broader point here is that the anti-Trump demonstrations are counterproductive. They are actually helping Trump. There is a “right way to resist Trump,” Zingales argued, and protesting him before he has even been sworn into office isn’t it.
So how best to take on Trump? Look to the example of Berlusconi:
The Italian experience provides a blueprint for how to defeat Mr. Trump. Only two men in Italy have won an electoral competition against Mr. Berlusconi: Romano Prodi and the current prime minister, Matteo Renzi (albeit only in a 2014 European election). Both of them treated Mr. Berlusconi as an ordinary opponent. They focused on the issues, not on his character. In different ways, both of them are seen as outsiders, not as members of what in Italy is defined as the political caste.
The Democratic Party should learn this lesson. It should not do as the Republicans did after President Obama was elected. Their preconceived opposition to any of his initiatives poisoned the Washington well, fueling the anti-establishment reaction (even if it was a successful electoral strategy for the party).
This point requires an additional note. As Republican lawmakers were sent to Washington to reasonably oppose President Obama’s agenda, so too are Democrats expected to oppose Trump’s agenda where it violates their principles. This is a much more involved and selective, but also a more meaningful opposition than an unwillingness to accept the voters’ decision.
Democrats may need to be extra selective about picking and choosing their battles, Zengales correctly argues.
If it comes across that they oppose Trump simply because he’s Trump, or simply because of his recently-chosen party label, then they should expect the president-elect to use that to his advantage.
Trump, who was carried to the White House on the back of anti-establishment sentiment, will likely respond to opposition by claiming the Washington “elites” are trying to block the will of the people, or some such thing.
If that happens, and Trump is able to play it off as him versus the so-called establishment, then Democrats may soon find themselves again on the losing end of a battle with the Republican president. They may also discover what it’s like for a president to attempt to bypass Congress with the claim his agenda “can’t wait” for constitutional processes.
Zingales continued, adding a second suggestion for how to resist the president-elect: “Democrats should also offer Mr. Trump help against the Republican establishment, an offer that would reveal whether his populism is empty language or a real position.”
“Finally, the Democratic Party should also find a credible candidate among young leaders, one outside the party’s Brahmins. The news that Chelsea Clinton is considering running for office is the worst possible. If the Democratic Party is turning into a monarchy, how can it fight the autocratic tendencies in Mr. Trump?” Zingales asked.
On top of all of these other suggestions, Democrats and other opponents of Trump should avoid going after his character.
Taken together, Zingales’ may not be the best strategy. It certainly isn’t a perfect one.
But it’s likely to be more efficacious than simply repeating the complaints of the election. And it seems a lot more useful than declaring half of the nation racist and sexist.
