The Resistance: Elite Power vs. Democratic Values
Following Trump’s victory and the middle-class uprising we examined in the previous lesson, America witnessed an extraordinary phenomenon: those who had held cultural and political power for decades began calling themselves “the resistance.” This development represents one of the most striking examples of how elite groups can reframe their own interests as moral crusades, while simultaneously working to suppress genuine democratic movements that challenge their authority.
The Elite’s Appropriation of “Resistance”
In the wake of Trump’s 2016 election victory, something remarkable occurred. The same coastal elites, Ivy League graduates, and establishment figures who had dominated American culture and politics for decades suddenly adopted the language of rebellion. From those wearing pink pussy hats to Ivy League radicals shouting “Nazi!” at every mention of Trump’s name, this was not a grassroots uprising but rather “the elite mourning its waning cultural power.”
The absurdity of this appropriation became clear when Stylist magazine celebrated Hillary Clinton as having “joined the resistance.” Here was a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State—the very embodiment of the political establishment—being portrayed as a rebel against the system. This represented a fundamental inversion of reality: the ancien regime (old ruling class) disguising its “ruthless self-interest as glorious rebellion.”
The irony runs deeper when we consider that the real rebels in this scenario were “those tens of millions of working people who voted for the overthrow of the old politics,” not the “pampered muppets defending that old politics.” The true resistance came from ordinary Americans challenging elite control, while those claiming to be “the resistance” were actually defending the existing power structure.
The War of Ideas: Elite Control vs. Alternative Voices
To understand how elite power maintains itself against democratic challenges, we must examine what political theorists call “Stage One” of social conflict. In this phase, each side engages in “a war of ideas and words” while campaigning for their version of truth. The elite possess significant advantages in this battle because they “control 98% of the media through five corporations,” giving them extraordinary power to shape public opinion.
However, the rise of alternative media through the internet has begun to challenge this monopoly. This explains why political figures like Senators Feinstein and McCain repeatedly attempted to gain control over internet communications and determine “who is a journalist and who is not.” Their efforts to silence alternative voices reveal their fear of losing control over the national narrative. As one analysis notes, “they fear our message because they have much to hide in their role of working for the criminal elite.”
The effectiveness of alternative media in winning “the hearts and minds of the American public” has caused elite panic, leading to increasingly desperate attempts to suppress dissenting voices. This battle over information represents a crucial front in the larger struggle between elite power and democratic values.
The Global Dimension: Stakeholder Capitalism vs. National Sovereignty
The resistance to democratic values extends beyond domestic politics to the global stage. Since World War II, there has been “an ongoing series of developments to create global infrastructure that subverts any remaining national sovereignty while shifting power to the global elite.” This process has accelerated through initiatives like the World Economic Forum’s “stakeholder capitalism” model.
The Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) represents a worldwide network of stakeholder capitalists and their partners, including central banks, global corporations, philanthropic foundations of multi-billionaires, policy think tanks, governments and their agencies, key non-governmental organizations, selected academic institutions, and chosen “thought leaders.” This network effectively operates above and beyond traditional democratic accountability, making decisions that affect billions of people without their consent or input.
This global elite structure poses a fundamental challenge to democratic governance because it concentrates power in unelected institutions that are not accountable to any particular population. The result is that the word “government” becomes “meaningless” when real power is exercised by networks that transcend national boundaries and democratic oversight.
Theories of Nonviolent Democratic Resistance
Despite these challenges, democratic theory offers pathways for legitimate resistance to elite control. Gene Sharp, an influential theorist of nonviolent resistance, argued that “the power of governments depends on the cooperation and obedience of those they govern.” This means that ordinary citizens can undermine elite power “by withdrawing their consent.”
Sharp’s approach emphasizes that “when people refuse their cooperation, withhold help, and persist in their disobedience and defiance, they are denying their opponent the basic human assistance and cooperation that any government or hierarchical system requires.” This represents true democratic resistance—not violent revolution, but the organized withdrawal of consent from illegitimate authority.
Political scientist Erica Chenoweth’s research suggests that approximately 3.5% of a country’s population participating actively in nonviolent protest can bring about significant political change. For America, this would mean about 12 million people taking to the streets. Notably, the Women’s March early in Trump’s first term gathered more than five million Americans on a single day, demonstrating the potential for such mobilization.
The Moral Inversion of Elite “Resistance”
The elite’s appropriation of resistance language represents what we might call a “moral inversion”—turning the language of liberation against liberation itself. True resistance emerges from those living under siege, bombardment, and military control who are judged not by the justice of their cause, but by the decorum of their defiance. In contrast, elite “resistance” demands that genuine democratic movements meet standards of “appropriateness” and palatability that are never applied to elite power itself.
This creates an absurd situation where resistance is increasingly treated as if it were a government policy, and the resister judged as though they were the criminals. The real resisters—working-class Americans challenging elite control—find themselves portrayed as threats to democracy, while those defending elite privilege claim the moral high ground of resistance.
The Challenge of Authentic Democratic Movements
Genuine democratic resistance faces the challenge of operating outside captured institutions. As one observer notes, “with very few exceptions, those who politically represent their constituencies in the fake democracies of the world, are there to do the jobs the hidden deep state cabal has consigned them to fulfill.” This reality means that authentic resistance must often work outside traditional political channels.
The challenge is compounded by the fact that elite institutions have proven adept at co-opting the language and symbols of resistance while maintaining their fundamental power structures. They present themselves as defenders of democracy while simultaneously working to undermine genuine democratic participation and accountability.
This situation requires what some call “fierce realism” about the nature of existing political institutions and the need for new forms of democratic organization that cannot be easily captured by elite interests.
Key Takeaways
Following Trump’s 2016 victory, establishment elites appropriated the language of “resistance” while actually defending their own privileged position against genuine democratic challenges from working-class Americans.
Elite control of media (98% through five corporations) gives them enormous advantages in shaping public opinion, but alternative media through the internet has begun to challenge this monopoly, leading to elite efforts at suppression.
Global networks like the World Economic Forum’s stakeholder capitalism model concentrate power in unelected institutions that operate beyond democratic accountability, effectively making national governments less meaningful.
Gene Sharp’s theories of nonviolent resistance show that elite power depends on public cooperation, meaning organized withdrawal of consent can challenge illegitimate authority without violence.
Research suggests that approximately 3.5% of a population (about 12 million Americans) participating in sustained nonviolent protest can bring about significant political change.
The elite’s appropriation of resistance language represents a moral inversion where genuine democratic movements are portrayed as threats while defenders of elite privilege claim moral authority.
Authentic democratic resistance must often work outside captured political institutions, requiring new forms of organization that cannot be easily co-opted by elite interests.
As we move toward our final lesson examining America at the crossroads, we must grapple with the fundamental question of whether genuine democratic renewal is possible within existing institutions, or whether new forms of democratic organization will be necessary to restore power to the people.
