What would be the result of “our side”—meaning a center-liberal-progressive-left alliance—winning the ’26 elections?  Advocates for deep engagement in the 2026 election tell us we would put a big dent in Trump’s operation.  I do not question that conclusion.  I hope voting skeptics will agree!  This coming election may be our last “free” election in some time; we need to take advantage of the opening it offers.

I write those words while doubting the 2026 election will be an honest one.  The forms of election theft are widely discussed, so only get brief mention here:

— Trump and his allies control the state electoral apparatus in a number of key states.  While election officials have generally been strong in defending honest elections, there is a strong possibility that won’t be the 2026 case in some states.

— New and vigorously enforced rules for electoral participation (photo ID, spelling of name at vote check-in perfectly matching name on voting clerk’s list, and others).

— Polling place vigilante action at Democratic-friendly precincts to intimidate voters when they show up to cast a ballot.

— Supreme Court appeals will face a majority that is ready, willing and able to provide the support Trump wants.  Even cases won in lower Federal courts require enforcement by the Justice Department. We can with some confidence guess the result.

Am I Contradicting Myself?

If the 2026 election is lost without a next step, it will be a dead-end strategy—a defeat of our side that will result in “adventurism” (super militant tactics that isolate our cause rather then broaden its support), on the one hand, and despair accompanied by withdrawal from politics, on the other.  We’ve been there before:  look at the mid-1960s to mid-1970s.

If the 2026 elections are treated as a tactical part of a larger strategic plan, “defeat” by theft could win the support of centrists and moderates for a next tactical step that they otherwise would reject if they hadn’t experienced the theft.  If we wait until the fox has left the den, there won’t be any getting the chicken back.  Disarray will follow.

This is called “contingency planning.”  If “a” then “b” or if “x” then “y”:  if there’s a fair count and we win (option “a”), then celebrate, recognize those who played important roles in carrying the day, learn from what was done right (and wrong) and draw more general lessons from the experience.  It can be a teachable moment.  If there’s not a continuing basis for a “popular front” then take whatever might be your next step.

On the other hand if we lose because of election theft (option “x”) then a pre-agreed upon next step or series of next steps is undertaken.  A shift from electoral participation to nonviolent direct action is made and publicly announced.  Centrists and moderates say to their respective constituencies, “direct action is required because the election was stolen.  The plan for the next step has been widely approved and already announced publicly.”

The contradiction indicated above is resolved by strategic planning:  publicly and widely announcing, “the choice is yours Mr. Trump:  have an honest election, and we’ll abide by the outcome; have a dishonest one, and we’ll do everything we can to shut the country down.”

Another Contradiction Resolved

Direct action tactics are typically undertaken by relatively small minorities.  The key to their success is obtaining broad support in their immediate constituencies and beyond.

The 1930s industrial union movement engaged in militant direct action, including boycotts and factory occupations. Efforts to defeat them with firing of militants, hiring scabs, private police intimidation, and violence including murder of striking workers failed.  Instead, they broadened and deepened the support for the cause.

The Black student-led sit-ins and freedom rides of 1960 and 1961 were replaced by a voter registration and community organizing approach because student leaders recognized they were not achieving participation from the adult Black community.  When a process of listening to that community took place, it became apparent that community leaders’ priority was the right to vote because it could open the door to political participation, non-discrimination and economic rights.  The shift to voter education/registration/get-out-the-vote created new political voices—Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and the Lowndes County (AL) Freedom Organization that received community support.

When that support was lost, the “cause” was diminished in its impact. Non-discrimination and voting rights were important, but the economic justice (“full employment”) dimension of the massive 1963 March on Washington was abandoned.

A 2025/2026 agreement to maintain broad support says:

“we” (the further left and more militant part of the alliance) will play by electoral politics rules.  But if voting is illegally undermined, “you” (the centrists and moderates) will play by different rules. In each case the rules will be all of ours because we agree upon them now.

The tactical idea here is that what becomes widely expected election fraud by the Trump/MAGA forces will provide the education that moves initially more conservative and cautious people to a more militant program that has already been discussed.

We have to be prepared to shut the country down with a broad base of support (faith, labor, interest, identity, celebrity and other groups).  Tactics aimed at “choke points” in the economy (key production, warehousing, transportation, government and service workplaces) would have the support required to prevent the isolation of nonviolent direct action.

…