How can citizens most powerfully voice dissent to President Trump's decisions and actions?

There are times—plenty, really—when outrage feels steady as a heartbeat. Marches swell, placards wave, petitions shuffle rhythmically from hand to hand. These things are tried, and tested, and tired. I've watched movements roll forward through ancient channels, imagined as rivers, muddy and predictable, and I've wondered if we might dream ourselves oceans instead.

But the question knotted beneath it—the question people hesitate to ask clearly—is what activism is actually for. Is it enough to stand against something, or must we also begin to stand for something else, for futures truer than the ones politicians carve out for us? Our dissent often dances around symptoms, symptoms personified by familiar faces, faces like Trump's. And we mistake fighting him for fighting the deeper sickness, the invisible rules and fears binding society to diminished, dulled imaginations.

I remember Occupy, the camps pitched defiantly in city parks, tents blooming like sudden mushrooms overnight. There was an electricity then, a strange and buzzing hunger—no demands fussily spelled out because, perhaps, the hunger itself was the message. They wanted another kind of world. Not reforms exactly—deeper: another kind of humanity. It’s still an ambition we've barely begun to voice.

There’s this strange clause hidden in the Constitution—the Guarantee Clause—loose enough for those who wield power to twist into a monstrous thing. Here, democracy’s finest outlines blur: suddenly what stands for freedom might stride forth as oppression instead. We’ve been shamefully naïve, assuming clarity in principles when principles, like water, take whatever shape given. Perhaps the revolutionary act isn't clarity, but relentless imagination.

I've become tired of activism that's only reactive, only doubling back toward what came before. We're asked to resist along prescribed routes of dissent, logging objections dutifully, as if democracy is a process solely of paperwork. Voices raised in predictable protest—voices still enclosed within what we've been shown as boundaries of acceptable dissent—won't suffice. Real transformation means stepping into unknown fields, planting uncertain seeds, waiting for something wild to grow up between the cracks. The task is daunting, unmeasurable, outlandish—unleashing social energies powerful enough to overwhelm systems built strictly for control.

Maybe that means daring something more audacious than usual—to resist not just obvious abuses, but the hidden patterns beneath them, to worry less about wrangling politicians and more about waking slumbering collective dreams. Go deeper than the habitual cycle of cause and immediate effect: think like quantum leaps, sudden and improbable shifts into altogether new landscapes. The older I get, the more convinced I become: it’s the subtler rebellion that rewrites who we can be.

Of course, we need practicalities. Movements matter because ideas are not formed in isolation or abstraction, but through tangled action, conversation, friction. Activists need strategies to resist authoritarian tricks, yes—anticipating oppressive reactions, documenting abuses, inventing new ways to organize safely and securely in digital spaces. Perhaps activists could explore hybrid political-cultural forms, creating structures that feel like "movement-parties," flexible and local, guided by digital democracy's elusive promises. But beneath all this tactical cleverness must remain an understanding that we will always fight symptoms if we do not continually unsettle the foundation beneath them.

What if Trump—or whoever follows—is just shadowplay, obscuring larger powers reshaping society behind screens and algorithms, crypto-currencies and faceless artificial intelligences? We play catch-up, chasing each threat as it emerges, instead of striking out from the root, imagining entirely new ways to organize, to govern, to dream. We can build vibrant communal spaces—physical gatherings, alternative communications that resist commercial capture and shake loose our constrained imaginations. The true oppositional force must create not only resignation of current structures but a profound psychological and cultural liberation, reclaiming a space of wild, critical dreaming uncontrolled by tidy narratives.

Activism at its most essential—what it might yet be—is not attacking figureheads, but freeing our early visions of ourselves. When we dare to conceive of humanity anew, unconstrained by numbing expectations, we do more than resist—we become creators of possibility itself. The question—what activism is for—begins to answer itself. Dissent becomes less a negation and more an opening, a passageway toward exhilarating transformations, extraordinary leaps, burrs of imagination catching on the sleeves of the world.

• • •

An illustrative historical example of deeply transformative protest occurred during the campaign in Clayoquot Sound in the summer of 1993. Clayoquot Sound, an area renowned for its ancient temperate rainforests in British Columbia, became the focal point for what evolved into the largest civil disobedience action in Canadian history. The immediate spark was the British Columbia government's April 1993 decision to permit clearcut logging in 62 percent of the area, a decision which galvanized massive local and international backlash. Organized by the Friends of Clayoquot Sound, protesters established the Clayoquot Peace Camp, drawing over 12,000 visitors. Adhering to Gandhian principles of non-violence and inspired by eco-feminist thought, demonstrators physically blocked road access to impede logging trucks, directly defying legal injunctions. This intense wave of activism resulted in nearly 900 arrests and set in motion a series of unprecedented mass trials. Significantly, the campaign spotlighted tensions between nonnative environmentalists and the indigenous Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation, who had historically resisted logging threats but maintained an autonomous stance from the blockades themselves. The subsequent 1994 interim agreement on logging standards further exposed these complex dynamics of indigenous territorial rights versus environmental advocacy. Ultimately, the profound significance of the Clayoquot Sound protests lies in their departure from conventional political protest methods towards approaches that challenged not only policy decisions but also provoked critical debates about indigenous sovereignty, ecological preservation, and collective societal values.