Today, I got into a conversation with a delivery guy. (I never get into these conversations, so I have little skill at them.) He said, “so what’s with all the protest signs out front?” (We have one BLM flag and maybe a forgotten pink “Madam President (and Tim!)” sign leaning against the house.) So we talked. He’s pretty much been soaking in the right-wing media. He was a nice enough guy but you could tell.

But one of the things he asked, which made me think later, was, “What are you protesting for, other than just against Trump?” And I tried to answer it with “We’re protesting for regular democracy, and for the Department of Education, and just sanity, in general.”

But later, I realized something: there is nothing wrong with being against something. It’s what the word “protest” actually means. We elect politicians to do what we want, and if they don’t, we vote them out of office. In other words, if enough people protest what they do (i.e., object to what they do), they’re out. The entire process is essentially negative and time-honored, back to the beginning.

The “but what are you for?” question is a trap of framing. The implication is that if you can’t articulate a positive vision (and we certainly can), then your protest is invalid.

---

(inb4 cynical comments about unfree elections or no elections: stahp.)