logo
Where is our Tiananmen square ‘Tank Man' who can stand up to Trump?

Where is our Tiananmen square ‘Tank Man' who can stand up to Trump?

The Guardian04-04-2025
Everyone's waiting for that one person to stand up to Donald Trump. Not just that one person. There are a lot of such people. You can read about them in every newspaper. But that one person with real power who's willing to risk something costly in defiance. That one university president who'll say, fuck you and your money. That one Democrat who'll say, fuck you and your threat to my re-election or that of my party. Everyone's looking for our Tank Man, staring down a column of tanks, all by himself, in Tiananmen Square.
Why don't we see that person? Where is our Tank Man? (And, no, I don't think Cory Booker doing a marathon-length filibuster counts.)
The reason we don't see that person is that we're asking the wrong question. There's a reason there are so few lonely individuals willing to stand up to the machine. It's not just simple cowardice or craven self-interest, though that might explain some of it. There's something deeper at work.
It's hard to take a risk, but it's especially hard when you feel like there's no point, that you'll fail, or worse, that you'll be the only one out there doing it. When you're the only one doing it, you run a risk much worse than failure. You run the risk of doing something pointless. Everything in our nature cuts against the grain of pointlessness. Yes, history might remember you, but what is history? To risk pointlessness is to risk foolishness, frivolousness, fatuity, inanity. It can even feel like moral slovenliness.
Take Roy Huggins, one of my favorite villain-heroes of the blacklist era. You've probably never heard of him. In his time, he was a screenwriter, producer and director of some note. He was responsible for The Fugitive and The Rockford Files. He also named names, after initially refusing to cooperate with the government.
Why did he do it? He had a lot of reasons. But this one has always stayed with me:
When you're thinking of becoming a hero, you feel like a slob. You feel, do you really have a right to do that?
It's a perplexing question: do I have the right to become a hero? One doesn't usually think of heroism as a right. Why does Huggins frame the question that way? Because he thinks of heroism as some sort of extravagance, some sort of selfishness, a kind of grandstanding that comes awfully close to vanity.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes had some thoughts on this matter, how easily the quest for glory, which had traditionally been considered a virtue, could slide into vaingloriousness. And the philosopher Max Weber had a similar intuition: how easily the tragic hero becomes a kind of narcissist, preening in front of the mirror.
I think Huggins is getting at something like that slide, from glory to vainglory, from heroism to vanity and narcissism. It's why he immediately follows up his question on the right to heroism with the question: do I have the right to be a slob?
That's what made him afraid. He could imagine taking on a heroic act if he thought it might achieve something, even in failure. But to think that the act would be completely extinguished by failure, by its pointlessness, that was too much.
Sign up to Fighting Back
Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk.
after newsletter promotion
I find myself thinking about this fear a lot. I've done a fair amount of political stuff over the years, some of it at some cost and risk. But it was always collective and it was always meant to work, to be successful, in some way, to achieve something, even in failure. That's what made it worth the risk.
I've always hated the romance of heroism, the futile gesture of protest and defiance, particularly of the individual. It reeks of what Lenin hated about intellectuals, who 'undertake everything under the sun without finishing anything'. He called that a kind of 'slovenliness', incidentally.
But I can see the underside of my dislike. It can make you leery of being that only person out there, and sometimes that may be what other people desperately need: just to see you, anyone, out there.
Corey Robin is the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump and a contributing editor at Jacobin. This piece originally appeared on coreyrobin.com.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ukrainian mood hardens as MPs insist country should not be forced to surrender
Ukrainian mood hardens as MPs insist country should not be forced to surrender

The Guardian

time23 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Ukrainian mood hardens as MPs insist country should not be forced to surrender

A string of Ukrainian politicians and public figures condemned the idea of handing over unoccupied land to Russia for peace on Sunday, arguing that their country had not been defeated and should not be forced into a surrender. The hardening of the mood came at the end of a weekend where there was first ridicule and disgust in Ukraine at the red-carpet treatment of Vladimir Putin by Donald Trump at their summit in Alaska, followed by frustration as it appeared that Trump was siding with the Russian leader. Trump reportedly told European leaders that he believed a peace deal could be negotiated if Volodymyr Zelenskyy agreed to give up the areas of the Donbas region that the Russian invaders have not been able to seize in more than three years of fighting. Halyna Yanchenko, an independent member of Ukraine's parliament, said the suggestion that Ukraine should 'simply surrender new territories without a fight – just because Putin wants it – is absurd from the very start'. The MP, an anti-corruption activist previously part of Zelenskyy's Servant of the People party, said hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians would be affected by Putin's proposal, initially favoured by Trump after Friday's Alaska summit. Official estimates are that 255,000 people still live in the 3,500 square miles (9,000 sq km) of Donetsk province that Russia has been unable to seize in its three-and-a-half-year invasion, which includes the industrial cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. The Donbas also comprises Luhansk province, which is almost totally occupied by Russia. Prior to Russia's full-scale invasion the population of Donetsk was 1.9 million, so the number of people with property and other connections to the area wanted by Russia is higher. 'So when someone brings up the idea of 'trading territory', we must understand that in practice it is trading people,' Yanchenko said. Serhii Kupavykh, who was born and raised in Kramatorsk but now lives in Kharkiv, said he believed that allowing Russia to take his city and the rest of Donetsk would amount to 'a defeat in the war, which will lead to a split in society', though he recognised that gradual Russian advances had made the defence of them difficult. He said Zelenskyy had 'no right to resolve such issues unilaterally' and he believed that 'renouncing the territory is political suicide for the entire government' – though he acknowledged that Ukraine was in a complex position. Cartoons and memes circulated widely online over the weekend with a particular focus on the sight of US soldiers kneeling to straighten out the red carpet in Alaska for the Russian president. 'Dishonored,' wrote Serhii Sternenko, a Ukrainian drone fundraiser, on X, comparing the image to soldiers raising the US flag at Iwo Jima towards the end of the second world war. Maksym Palenko, a cartoonist, drew a picture of a glum-looking Trump with his trademark red tie spooling out beneath him and turning into a carpet on which a laughing Putin was standing. It reflected shots of Putin smiling as he was sitting in Trump's limousine while it was setting off. 'We do not deserve to surrender and we are not in a position to surrender,' said Oleksiy Goncharenko, an MP with the opposition European Solidarity party. 'This part of Donetsk is a fortress and Putin has tried and failed to take it for 11 years. Now he wants to take it through diplomatic tricks and manoeuvres.' Russia's military has struggled to capture urban centres during the war, and the Kramatorsk area is one of the most heavily defended in Ukraine. Last week Zelenskyy said it in effect protected the centre of the country and there was no guarantee that handing it over would not prevent a new war. Goncharenko said Putin's offer to freeze the conflict in the western Kherson and central Zaporizhzhia provinces if Ukraine hands over Donetsk was designed to provoke splits in Ukraine and abroad and the situation needed to be handled with care. Zelenskyy's response needed to be 'well framed, to persuade Trump that Putin has set a trap, because we have seen in the past that the relationship between Trump and Zelenskyy can be quite explosive,' Goncharenko said. On his previous visit to see Trump at the White House, Zelenskyy was ambushed by Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, and got into a bitter public argument with both, leading to a pause in intelligence sharing and arms deliveries at a crucial point in the battle. Sevgil Musaieva, the editor of Ukrainian Pravda, said in a column published on Sunday: 'We are being forced to behave as if we have to admit defeat. Not military, but political. Not a surrender of arms, but a surrender of thought.' She said this was 'the most dangerous form of defeat. Because if we accept it internally then external defeat will only be a matter of time.' In fact, 'for the first time in a century, Ukrainians put up a worthy resistance,' she said. 'We have no right to forget Bucha, Izium, Mariupol. We have no right to forget the torture, the mass graves, the children killed and abducted by Russia,' she said, arguing that 'without memory we will lose ourselves'. Oleksii Kovzhun, a popular Kyiv-based video blogger, said Putin's demands were 'akin to capitulation' and that 'Zelenskyy could not legally hand over Donetsk even if he would want to (and he does not)' because it would have to be subject to a referendum. 'Ukrainians will not allow it,' he said.

Top Trump envoy dodges on peace deal specifics although won't rule out US military involvement in Ukraine
Top Trump envoy dodges on peace deal specifics although won't rule out US military involvement in Ukraine

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Top Trump envoy dodges on peace deal specifics although won't rule out US military involvement in Ukraine

Donald Trump's top Middle East envoy said that a trilateral meeting between the leaders of Ukraine, Russia and the U.S. was likely to occur in the days ahead but did not give any specifics regarding the deal reached between Trump and Vladimir Putin on Sunday. Steve Witkoff appeared on CNN's State of the Union where Jake Tapper questioned him about the three-hour meeting Friday between Trump and Putin, after which Russian and U.S. officials stated that progress was made towards the frameworks of a peace agreement to end the years-long war in Ukraine. Witkoff would not give many details about that progress, however, and wouldn't confirm whether a Russian demand for Ukraine to cede the entire occupied Donbas region was being considered. 'There is an important discussion to be had with regard to Donetsk and what would happen there. And that discussion is going to specifically be detailed on Monday, when President Zelensky arrives with his delegation,' said Witkoff. 'We made so much progress at this meeting with regard to all the other ingredients necessary for a peace deal that President Trump pivoted to that place,' he continued. 'We are intent on trying to hammer out a peace deal that ends the fighting permanently very, very quickly, quicker than a ceasefire.' The biggest win for the U.S. was something Witkoff was able to share, he said: 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO.' Witkoff wouldn't specify if the above security guarantee could lead to what Trump and his followers have long opposed — a promise to directly engage U.S. troops in the defense of Ukraine should Russia continue crossing the president's red lines. The U.S. president is set to meet on Monday with Volodymyr Zelensky along with several European leaders, including NATO's secretary-general. Coverage of that meeting has largely centered around the theme of damage control, with European leaders insistant on having a seat at the table for future negotiations. At the same time, his administration is signalling that it will not put significant pressure on Russia to force a peace agreement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, appearing separately on ABC's This Week, told anchor Martha Raddatz that further sanctions on Russia were, for the time being, likely off the table. 'The minute you levy additional sanctions, strong, additional sanctions, the talking stops. Talking stops. And at that point, the war just continues,' said Rubio, who along with Witkoff joined Trump in Alaska for the meeting with Russia's president. He added that meant 'more people dead. More people killed. More people maimed. More families destroyed.' Congressional pressure over the issue of Russia sanctions has ramped up in recent weeks. Many Republicans are still unwilling to break with Trump over the issue, but have come out publicly to state that Trump was wrong about his assumption in February that Putin 'wants peace' in Ukraine. 'I think he's going to be very careful about what he does,' Sen. Mike Rounds said of Trump backing further sanctions in early August, as Congress left for a month-long recess. 'But I think he is clearly disappointed in Putin and I think he is now coming around to recognizing that many of us were right.'

Ukrainian politicians condemn idea of ceding territory to Russia
Ukrainian politicians condemn idea of ceding territory to Russia

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Ukrainian politicians condemn idea of ceding territory to Russia

A string of Ukrainian politicians and public figures condemned the idea of handing over unoccupied land to Russia for peace on Sunday, arguing that their country had not been defeated and should not be forced into a surrender. The hardening of the mood comes at the end of a weekend where there was first ridicule and disgust in Ukraine at the red carpet treatment of Vladimir Putin by Donald Trump at their summit in Alaska – followed by frustration as it appeared that Trump was siding with the Russian leader. Trump reportedly told European leaders that he believed a peace deal could be negotiated if Volodymyr Zelenskyy agreed to give up the areas of the Donbas region that the Russian invaders have not been able to seize in more than three years of fighting. Halyna Yanchenko, an independent member of Ukraine's parliament, said demands that Ukraine 'simply surrender new territories without a fight – just because Putin wants it – is absurd from the very start'. The MP, an anti-corruption activist previously part of Zelenskyy's Servant of the People party, said that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians would be affected by Putin's proposal, initially favoured by Trump after Friday's Alaska summit. Official estimates are that 255,000 people still live in the 9,000 sq km (3,500 sq miles) of Donetsk province that Russia has been unable to seize in its three and a half year invasion, which includes the industrial cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. The Donbas also comprises Luhansk province, which is almost totally occupied by Russia. Prior to Russia's full-scale invasion the population of Donetsk was 1.9 million, so the number of people with property and other connections to the area wanted by Russia is higher. 'So when someone brings up the idea of 'trading territory' we must understand that, in practice, it is trading people,' Yanchenko said. Serhii Kupavykh, who was born and raised in Kramatorsk, but now lives in Kharkiv, said he believed that allowing Russia to take his city and the rest of Donetsk would amount to 'a defeat in the war, which will lead to a split in society', though he recognised that gradual Russian advances had made the defence of them difficult. Zelenskyy had 'no right to resolve such issues unilaterally' and he said he believed that 'renouncing the territory is political suicide for the entire government' – though he acknowledged that Ukraine was in a complex position. Cartoons and memes circulated widely online over the weekend with a particular focus on the sight of US soldiers kneeling to straighten out the red carpet in Alaska for the Russian president. 'Dishonored,' wrote Ukrainian drone fundraiser Serhii Sternenko on X, comparing the image to soldiers raising the US flag at Iwo Jima towards the end of the second world war. Maksym Palenko, a cartoonist, drew a picture of a glum-looking Trump with his trademark red tie spooling out beneath him and turning into a carpet on which a laughing Putin was standing. It reflected shots of Putin smiling as he was sitting in Trump's limousine while it was setting off. 'We do not deserve to surrender, and we are not in a position to surrender,' said Oleksiy Goncharenko, an MP with the opposition European Solidarity party. 'This part of Donetsk is a fortress and Putin has tried and failed to take it for 11 years. Now he wants to take it through diplomatic tricks and manoeuvres.' Russia's military has struggled to capture urban centres during the war, and the Kramatorsk area is one of the most heavily defended in Ukraine. Last week Zelenskyy said it effectively protected the centre of the country and there was no guarantee handing it over would not prevent a new war. Putin's offer to freeze the conflict in the western Kherson and central Zaporizhzhia provinces if Ukraine hands over Donetsk was designed to provoke splits in Ukraine and abroad, the MP argued, but the situation needed to be handled with care. The president's response needed to be 'well framed, to persuade Trump that Putin has set a trap, because we have seen in the past that the relationship between Trump and Zelenskyy can be quite explosive,' Goncharenko said. On his previous visit to see Trump at the White House, Zelenskyy was ambushed by Trump and vice-president JD Vance, and got into a bitter public argument with both – leading to a pause in intelligence sharing and arms deliveries at a crucial point in the battle. Sevgil Musaieva, the editor of Ukrainian Pravda, said in a column published on Sunday that 'we are being forced to behave as if we have to admit defeat. Not military, but political. Not a surrender of arms, but a surrender of thought.' This was, she continued, 'the most dangerous form of defeat. Because if we accept it internally, then external defeat will only be a matter of time.' In fact 'for the first time in a century, Ukrainians put up a worthy resistance,' she said. 'We have no right to forget Bucha, Izium, Mariupol. We have no right to forget the torture, the mass graves, the children killed and abducted by Russia,' she said, arguing that 'without memory we will lose ourselves'. Oleksii Kovzhun, a popular Kyiv-based video blogger, said that 'Putin's demands are akin to capitulation' and said that 'Zelenskyy could not legally hand over Donetsk even if he would want to (and he does not)' because it would have to be subject to a referendum. 'Ukrainians will not allow it,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store