A critique of the reactions to US President Trump's actions

Let me begin by making it very clear ("stating for the record") that I consider US President Trump's actions with regard to refugees to be utterly wrong, indefensible and extremely harmful - especially to the struggle against violent extremism.

Having said that, however, I consider a lot of the actions taken in response to those awful actions to be either counter productive, or essentially unlikely to lead to any change, as they are "preaching to the converted". As reported by Reuters [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-supporters-idUSKBN15E0BH] today, Trump's supporters in the south and mid-west of the USA are unmoved by the protests on the east and west coast of the USA - let alone what is being done in other nations.

On balance, I consider those actions - with the exception of those instances where people have resorted to violence - are largely of some value: they don't only give people who are experiencing genuine distress at President Trump's actions an outlet for their pain, it also reminds the more progressive politicians that there is a powerful desire for the USA to be a better nation in an inclusive, progressive sense (and other nations where those actions also occurred).

But it is still preaching to the converted, and that is dangerous given what has to be done over the next four years - continuing that same approach will, unless something goes wrong that Trump's supporters care about (and that is possible - e.g., on jobs), run the very real risk of a repeat outcome at the next election in four years. Now, Trump will probably have a different opponent, but I'm not sure that they will necessarily be capable of inspiring an out-voting of Trump's supporters ... Bernie Sanders may, in my view, be too old to be a credible candidate - although he is only 5 years older than Donald Trump ... I doubt Hilary Clinton will run again ... maybe Elisabeth Warren or the others who are being touted by the experts (e.g., see http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/305614-ten-potential-democratic-candidates-for-2020) will be a credible candidate.

It would be very nice to have a Nelson Mandela or an Abraham Lincoln (or, to take a dream from the entertainment industry, a Jed Bartlet?), someone who strikes a chord with a large number of voters (i.e., has credibility in the voters' eyes), can eloquently elucidate the reasons that things like torture are wrong, and inspire people to get out and vote ... but even that would possibly not change the hearts and minds of those who support Trump - but what is certain, in my view, is that nothing being done now is going to change the hearts and minds of Trump's supporters, especially those in the US south and mid-west.

What will change their hearts and minds (which would probably be the most assured way of ensuring a different outcome in four years)?

Well, as a first step, maybe find out why they have the views they do - without disparagement, and carefully considering Gandhi's question as to whether one fought to punish or to change. In fact, if there are people in pro-refugee and other socially progressive groups who previously held opposing views, then there is a marvellous opportunity for those people to become heroes and share their knowledge of what successfully changed their hearts and minds - not what the listeners think should have changed their hearts and minds, but

what

actually

did. 

Those brave people who have already changed have the ability to be able to look at a list of suggestions and say things like "1, 4 and 7 helped me, 2 and 8 were neutral, and the others would have hardened my stance" - and it is important to keep in mind that people's actions can simply reinforce the prejudices and mindset of their opponents. Those who chose to be violent when protesting against President Trump's actions very likely did exactly that - hardened the views of Trump's supporters, or, at the very least, made it harder for whoever comes along next to try and change their minds (that is apart from the inherent errors of their ways .. ).

What we need, in my view - and this applies to more nations than only the USA, and more situations than refugees and torture and the other actions President Trump has taken - is for more eloquent people to sit down with those who support President Trump's actions, and engage in face-to-face communication - NOT talk at them, but listen, get to know and understand them, establish credibility, and then start persuading them why they should change their view.

It would take time, and it would possibly require those people who travelled to protests to think about travelling to areas they don't normally go to, and start viewing their enemies as human beings and equals - at the very least, equally deserving of respect, dignity and human rights, which is a bedrock principle of progressivism.

As an example of this, I have a friend who works in the power industry in the Latrobe Valley, in my home state of Victoria; he told me of a time that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard went to the power station he worked at, faced a mob of angry and hostile (mostly) men ... and talked them largely round to her position.

That's what we need - and there are Democratic Senators and Representatives in the states where President Trump received his most critical support: maybe it is time for progressives to look at what can be done to support those already progressive politicians, and see what they need/want in order to be effective advocates for progressive points of view.

In fact, if I was to try outlining a strategy to defeat Trump next election and also contain the damage being done now and until then, it would probably go something like this:

1. find and actively support progressive politicians (Senators and Representatives, in the USA - the terms are different elsewhere); 
2. engage - politely, respectfully, and remembering to listen, as Zeno of Citium suggested, twice as much as one speaks, with those conservative politicians, groups and people who are expressing concern about President Trump's actions - and have, in some cases, for some time. Find out how they can best be supported on these matters, whilst agreeing to disagree on others; 
3. the experts who write about matters such as refugees and torture need also to find a way to firstly establish their credibility with those who are more inclined to believe pseudo-facts (remember, communicate as equals - don't patronise, listen), and then start giving credible to the audience descriptions of real evidence.
   To illustrate this with an example from crime: many people either know, or think they know, someone who "got off lightly" (e.g., didn't go to jail) and committed further offences. Therefore, when talking about things like re-offending (don't use elitist terms like "recidivism"), talk about the statistics, that there will always be the exception, etc - make the comments real, and understandable to people who, although probably intelligent, may not have the specialised vocabulary and predilections that go with a University education (if I had my time over, I would quite possibly learn a trade, rather than do engineering, or any of the other options I had available at Uni [which included medicine and the law]: if I had done so, that would NOT have made me any less intelligent, but I would have been less familiar with the jargon); 
4. this also raises a very important principle: humanise, humanise, humanise - present the stories of people like those who worked helping the US military in Iraq and now need a place of safety (don't assume everyone has cottoned on to what you would consider obvious points - apart from anything else, they may be so busy with "everyday" things like caring for ill family members that they don't have the time, energy or inclination to consider politics). This was advice that has helped me and the others I was working with when I was involved in lobbying (sorry, we weren't paid so I have to say "community activism");
5. next, those people who are genuinely eloquent, calm under provocation (which rules me out) and patient communicators should start to engage slowly, genuinely and thoroughly with President trump's supporters - as I outlined above. It would be very good if this could be coordinated - when I was involved in "community activism", we used our connections on both sides of politics to guide our supporters when to write letters (this was quite a few years ago) or emails and WHEN TO STOP (you can get into people's face too much, and start to be counter-productive - i.e., inspire them to harden their positions, simply because you have become someone who is trying to bully them out of their position);
6. finally - and this should be last in the list of actions - start looking around for, and support the next credible progressive political opponent to, in this instance, US President Trump.

It's a long, slow process, but it has, in my view, the greatest chance of permanent success.

I'm not in the USA, but ... anyone there want to give something like this a go?