🔗 Share this article

The former president's public spectacle frequently seems to turn even opposition into a segment of the show. We become like extras reacting as he energizes his base through breaking long-standing norms. However what if we created an independent political theatre that leaves Trump out – or at least with a different priority?

Earlier Precedents of Political Resistance

Revolutionaries from 1768 to 1776 created new types of opposition in response to England's policies. Rather than relying on conventional governmental institutions, they chose boycott organizations including an initial intercolonial assembly without any obvious official status or historical model.

These acts of symbolic defiance, although imperfect, finally culminated in a new nation. After the revolution, founders held a delegates' meeting – officially for revising the first national framework with a unanimous vote from all states. However, the framers operated privately, overhauled the document completely, and changed the method for modifying the replacement framework to a 75% threshold.

A Modern Opportunity for Change

That political era represents a massive decline for democratic principles, yet it also presents an opportunity to change such principles constructively. Like the founders, we should form a selective, invitation-only group – an initial framework development – which anti-Trump blue states solely set up independently, restrict to their group, and manage.

The constitution contains some authority to support this approach.

Creating an Multi-state Partnership

The participating states might assemble to develop an interstate compact by and between participating members, in the spirit though not necessarily the precise language of the compacts which the constitution’s article I, section 10, clause 3 references. These states could submit formally to national representatives for approval as binding policy. Naturally ratification appears improbable currently, given the federal government as currently dysfunctional lacks the ability for any substantial constitutional reform, in any form.

But the goal is to put forward a framework for a new type to governance, in a future political landscape, that carries forward components of the existing governmental structure that remains functional, alongside substantial transformation in response to recent political developments.

A Practical Proposal

For example: Multiple Democratic-leaning regions could declare a constitutional crisis. The governors would invite several aligned anti-Trump states to select delegates selected through the people or state representatives. The representatives' task would involve to create a regional agreement, a statement of rights for residents and obligations of the participating governments.

This agreement would divide the funding of those obligations among participating regions and national authorities, should it be ultimately ratified at the federal level. It would create requirements that Washington would resource – just for those states and any other that subsequently decide to join the agreement.

A Visionary Opening

This agreement would open with a preamble in which We the People of these several states affirm not just our rights and our duties to treat all members fairly. The statement would recognize our obligations to ensure all have sufficient nutrition, social security, medical care availability, productive jobs as safeguards in a time of technological change. It must clearly state regarding the dangers artificial intelligence and a warming planet. It must demand on the federal role in scientific advancement and evidence-driven healthcare policy so that our standards rise with increased longevity.

Confronting Previous Wrongs

And then there should follow a comprehensive catalog of wrongs during the last presidency, damaging actions, which must be punished and corrected, and violations by the supreme court, such as the political spending ruling, which must be nullified through state action ratifying the compact.

At the outset, the states must include DC and the territory to engage as states with equal standing and sign on the partnership.

The Most Difficult Aspect – Funding

Next involves the hardest part – funding. The compact would specify designated projects that the state should fund and initiatives which national authorities ought to support – at least for participating regions that ratify the compact. The compact would function as a structural document enduring, but a budget document for the next fiscal year. It needs to incorporate a reinstatement of resources for medical assistance, and lowering of premiums for alternative models of healthcare.

A Welcoming Invitation

Ultimately, this agreement should include an invitation to Republican-leaning regions, and all additional non-signatory region to join as well, despite they were not originally invited.

Symbolic Consequences

Whatever could be argued against such a compact, it might shift Trump from prominence and display a particular tradition-defying boldness from Democratic allies. It would give the blue states acknowledgment for independent symbolic breaking of the pottery. All the better should additional regions decline to participate. {In