On Saturday, nearly 1,000 people convened at Main Beach in Santa Cruz, California, for a Pride Month protest explicitly targeting President Donald Trump. This event, organized by Indivisible Santa Cruz County, featured participants forming a massive human banner reading “Resist!” in vibrant rainbow colors. The impressive display spanned 220 feet wide, with letters towering at 70 feet high and designed by prominent activist Brad Newsham. Organizers characterized the protest as a peaceful act of resistance, showcasing solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community, emphasizing the effectiveness of nonviolent demonstrations to express political dissatisfaction.
Event organizer Becca Moeller articulated the intent behind the gathering, highlighting its significance in fostering neighborly awareness and encouraging politicians to recognize public sentiment against the current state of affairs. However, alongside the vibrant message of resistance, a more contentious phrase—”86 47″—emerged, interpreted by many as a call to eliminate Trump, the figure associated with the number 47 in this context. The use of “86,” a slang term for canceling or getting rid of something, sparked controversy and alarm. Critics noted that the overt messaging seemed inconsistent with the event’s purported theme of kindness.
Protester Beth Basilius echoed sentiments of wanting a return to a more compassionate version of America, drawing a stark contrast to the “86 47” declaration. This dichotomy raised questions about the event’s true intentions, with voices like Mike LeLieur, the chair of the Santa Cruz County Republican Party, highlighting perceived hypocrisy in calling for kindness while simultaneously promoting a more aggressive narrative. LeLieur shared his personal experiences with hostility from the left, claiming increasing aggressiveness towards local conservatives, which he argued contradicted the self-portrayal of the left as the “Party of Peace.”
While supporters of the protest contended that “86 47” was merely a symbolic rejection of Trump’s policies, critics remained skeptical. They argued that, given the charged atmosphere of contemporary politics, such coded language can lead to harmful repercussions. Daniel Enriquez from the California Republican Assembly warned that the left’s messaging fosters a climate of non-acceptance, consistent with historical socialist movements, thus amplifying tensions within the local political landscape.
Jenny Evans, co-leader of Indivisible Santa Cruz County, defended the protest as a means to illustrate collective dissent against prevailing political norms. Despite the peaceful nature of the event, critics questioned how the contradictory messaging could genuinely contribute to a more harmonious discourse. Participants were encouraged to don matching rainbow colors, further tying the demonstration to Santa Cruz’s 50th Pride celebration, yet the presence of more violent undertones in slogans like “86 47” evoked concerns about the overall message of inclusivity and kindness.
In the aftermath of the protest, calls for a more unified and compassionate political conversation remain contentious, as critics and supporters struggle to reconcile the ideals of kindness and resistance against a backdrop of increasingly polarized discourse. The event underscored the complexity of political demonstrations in modern America, where the balance between expressing dissent and maintaining civility becomes increasingly challenging amidst deeply entrenched ideologies. Indivisible Santa Cruz County did not respond to requests for comment following the event, leaving many questions about the implication of their messaging unanswered.
