Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Nearly 1,000 individuals gathered at Main Beach in Santa Cruz, California on Saturday for a significant protest during Pride Month targeting President Donald Trump. This event, organized by Indivisible Santa Cruz County, aimed to convey messages of kindness and solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community through the art of protest.
Participants created a striking human banner spelling out “Resist!” in vibrant rainbow colors. The impressive 220-foot-wide display featured letters soaring 70 feet high, designed by seasoned activist Brad Newsham.
Organizers labeled the demonstration as a peaceful expression of dissent. Becca Moeller, one of the event’s organizers, emphasized the importance of showing neighbors and politicians that nonviolent resistance is a powerful way to voice dissatisfaction with current political climates.
The banner, while colorful and celebratory, also contained a controversial statement—”86 47.” Many interpreted this phrase as a call to eliminate the 47th President of the United States—a message sparking debate and concern.
The term “86” commonly refers to canceling or getting rid of something. When paired with “47,” which is now associated with Trump’s second term, critics argued that it conveyed a concerning message about political discourse. The phrase elicited responses from various political commentators, some labeling it as a crossing of boundaries.
Earlier this month, former FBI Chief James Comey faced backlash after he similarly posted a message in the sand using shells, which he later removed following public criticism.
Despite the emphasis on kindness, some protestors acknowledged an inherent contradiction in the sentiments expressed at the event. Protester Beth Basilius stated, “We want to make America kind again,” yet critics argued that the call to “86 47” directly contradicted that message.
Mike LeLieur, chair of the Santa Cruz County Republican Party, expressed his discontent regarding the hostility towards local conservatives. He described incidents of vandalism and threats faced by individuals simply for their political affiliations, highlighting a concerning trend of intolerance marked by the current political divide.
LeLieur noted that just 8.5% of voters in Santa Cruz are registered Republicans as per the latest data from the California Secretary of State, suggesting a significant political imbalance in the region. He criticized the protest for allegedly glorifying hostility under the guise of promoting kindness, labeling the actions hypocritical.
Participants, however, maintained that the event was rooted in compassion and depicted a broader rejection of Trump’s political agenda. Supporters of the protest argued that “86 47” symbolized an ethical stand against Trump’s policies rather than a literal threat.
Daniel Enriquez from the California Republican Assembly voiced concerns about the political environment in California, particularly in Santa Cruz County, asserting that the left creates an atmosphere of non-acceptance and harassment. He stated that actions like these reflect historical socialist movements focused on division and exclusion.
In defense of the protest, Jenny Evans, a co-leader of Indivisible Santa Cruz County, affirmed that such large gatherings exemplified resistance to political pressures. She emphasized the importance of publicly challenging the status quo and making the voices of dissent heard.
The event coincided with the 50th Pride celebration in Santa Cruz, and participants coordinated their outfits to align with the rainbow theme, beginning preparations early in the morning. The colorful display served as a reminder of LGBTQ+ pride while simultaneously protesting the current political climate.
While organizers emphasized peaceful expression, the juxtaposition of calling for kindness while presenting the phrase “86 47” raised eyebrows and led to questions about the integrity of their messages.
Indivisible Santa Cruz County did not immediately respond to queries regarding the event’s impact and the controversial messages surrounding it. Once again, the event shined a light on the polarized state of political discourse in the United States, provoking thought about the future of political communication and engagement.