Many things have assuredly been unprecedented about this election cycle, from Russian hacking, to the first female nominee, to the tweeting political outsider who just took the oath of office.

The actual inauguration of President Donald Trump also appeared unprecedented in terms of the size and scale of the protests mounted against his swearing-in as the 45th president of the United States.

Looks can be deceiving, however. The precedent for protesting the inauguration of a president is long and storied, and the nature of the presidency is a reason for this. Unlike a coronation, which often includes a robust religiosity that might make a protest seem tasteless, an inauguration comes at the end of a heated political contest.

Most importantly, this contest has left a proportion of the voting population with their pick selected and the rest out in the cold.

Considering the emotional highs of nearly two years of campaigning and electioneering, the discontent voiced in the form of assembly and protest is not surprising.

This is not the first time in our history millions gathered to protest the election of a president. Millennials may only remember this vaguely, but our parents and grandparents can likely remember the controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential election.

Jack Smith of Policy Mic described on Dec. 29 how demonstrators turned out en masse to voice displeasure at George W. Bush’s inauguration.

“Like Donald Trump, Bush didn’t win the popular vote,” Smith wrote. “Legal wrangling over recount efforts quickly went to the Supreme Court, which eventually reached a decision ending those efforts and giving Bush the presidency — a decision with a one-vote margin.”

Unlike the 2001 inauguration, the new president did win the electoral count without doubt – despite a deficit in the popular vote far exceeding Gore’s more than 500,000-vote lead over Bush.

The question is whether the man or the policies are more noxious to those who took to the streets Saturday across the country.

Carolina Silva, a third-year Critical Cultural, Gender and Race Studies (CCGRS) Ph.D. student and organizer of local inauguration-alternative activities, believes it’s a mixture of both.

“I feel like his policies created fear for a lot of people like people of color, women, LGBT people (and) immigrants,” Silva said. “I think people would have organized anyway because of things talked about in the election.”

Silva’s comments reflect an important security within our democratic republic: the ability to express fear and skepticism of political leadership through peaceful assembly. Indeed, we should consider presidential inauguration protests as hallowed a reflection of American values as the inauguration itself.

Moreover, the election season drummed up intense emotions in all corners, meaning one could presume if Hillary Clinton were taking office protests and rallies would also take place.

Jeremiah Sataraka, also a third year CCGRS Ph.D. student, agrees with this.

“People would probably be protesting Hillary if she had been elected,” Sataraka said. “People may not have been as organized, but there would have been protests.”

Though conjecture, Clinton’s election would likely have been met by protests concerning her email scandals, handling of Benghazi and other indiscretions related to her and her husband Bill Clinton.

Moreover, the claims of Trump being “not my president” are not new to the American political landscape. Detractors hurled similar slogans at George W. Bush and Barack Obama during their presidencies.

Party and protest are both part of the inaugural process. In both, American democratic governance demonstrates its enduring strength — the ability to ride the waves of passion where other governments have endured coup and catastrophe.

Tyler Laferriere is a graduate student pursuing his master’s in economics from Phoenix, Arizona. He can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of The Office of Student Media.