Robert Fritz (robertfritz.com) works as an author, composer, filmmaker, and management consultant. Among his books is The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life.
NEWFANE-One principle from physics is the “path of least resistance,” which observes that energy flows along the path of least resistance, with the underlying structure determining that path. In other words, the structure of anything will determine its behavior.
Sometimes the path of least resistance leads to difficulty that, while challenging, is where the energy is easiest to go. And the underlying structure will determine that path.
Right now, in the United States, the Trump administration is attempting to change the underlying structure of our Constitution and our way of life. The goal is to assert executive power over every aspect of American life.
There are dimensions and levels of this assault on our values and system. With a weak Congress and politically biased Supreme Court, many of the formative structural principles of the founding of the nation have been ignored — or, in some cases, violated.
Structural change is the goal. In the end, if Trump and his allies have their way, the president’s approach will limit true democracy, ensuring that the majority does not rule. Then power will be centralized in the hands of a small group of authoritarians.
Some of this is done in the name of Christian Nationalism, the idea that the state should enforce a fundamentalist view on politics, culture, and civil society. This rationale is simply a way of trying to justify tyranny, as if you are doing it in the name of the Lord. And some zealots are gullible to this rationale.
But the true motivation has little to do with religious extremism. It is simply a power grab.
* * *
With the thuggish behavior of federal immigration agents as they invade cities run by Democrats, the strategy was to divide ethnic groups into us-against-them. Immigrants, either legal or not, were to be seen as the enemy. The subtext of white supremacy was never far away.
Perhaps if the majority saw the agents from ICE, CBP, and other Department of Homeland Security agencies as the champions of a race war, the power grab could have worked.
The majority would accept the assertion of authority, and one major step in the endeavor to establish central authority would be set in place as a foundation for other critical steps in restructuring the U.S. Constitution.
But the scheme didn’t work. The majority did not fall prey to the subtext of racism.
There is something in the American spirit that deplores a bully. That instinctively wants fairness and justice. That rejects brutality. Yet, there is little one can do until election time comes around.
That is why protests are essential in mass numbers. There is a point where even the most authoritarian governments are subject to the will of the masses.
Meanwhile, Trump’s predisposition has always been to push harder, never retreat, never apologize, never back down. Instead, to double down, become more tenacious, force the issue.
* * *
So two major forces are in play and in conflict: the quest for authoritarian takeover, against the salvation of the beautifully designed democratic structure of the Constitution.
The term that has come to oppose oppression is “resist.” And much like the French resistance during World War II, it is a noble cause.
It has been inspiring to see ordinary people face cold weather, tear gas, and smoke bombs from federal agents wearing masks to hide their identity while they carry assault weapons that they point at the protestors.
At its best, democracy is a collective creative process. But it is only possible within the right structure.
For the protesters, given the underlying structure, the path of least resistance is the path of most resistance to Trump and his followers.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.