Protests, like those in Minneapolis, are effective when they generate enough moral outrage to force action from leaders. They have a time limit; their purpose is not sustained demonstration but to create a crisis that people in power must resolve through policy, as seen with LBJ and the Civil Rights Act after Selma.
Related Insights
While media narratives suggest the UK is on the brink of explosion over immigration, the reality is that peaceful protests are a constructive release of pressure. If the government responds to these concerns, it could lead to positive change; ignoring them, however, risks a genuine crisis.
In times of crisis, expecting an opposition party to lead the charge is a mistake. Real political movements are initiated by citizens who set the moral terms and take risks. The political party then becomes just one part of a larger coalition that it doesn't necessarily lead.
While public support is vital, movements don't just happen. They require specific individuals who act as catalysts. The British abolitionist movement, for example, is inseparable from Thomas Clarkson, who was the first person to envision a national public campaign and dedicate his life to it, turning a latent issue into a powerful political force.
The Ukrainian President's office tried to neutralize anti-corruption bodies by passing a bill to place them under a pliant prosecutor, which would have killed the investigation. However, thousands of citizens protested, forcing President Zelenskyy to reverse the decision, an act an investigator credited with saving the entire operation.
Escalating civil unrest, like that in Minnesota, is not random but a direct result of local and state governments refusing to cooperate with federal agencies. This antagonism creates a permissive environment for conflict and encourages public resistance, turning policy disputes into street-level violence.
Citing Gandhi and the Civil Rights Movement, the most successful long-term protest strategies rely on peaceful non-resistance. Active resistance, even when justified, often escalates violence and cedes the moral high ground, making it a less effective tool for systemic change compared to disciplined, peaceful protest.
The primary value of protests isn't just cinematic outrage; it's serving as a gateway for deeper organizing. Demonstrations allow individuals to connect with the groups that form the backbone of sustained political action, creating lasting, though often unseen, infrastructure.
Modern administrations, immune to moral outrage but sensitive to market fluctuations, can be influenced by targeted economic strikes. Mass unsubscriptions from major tech platforms can directly impact the stock market, forcing a political response where traditional protests fail.
There is a strategic distinction between the act of protest and the act of being arrested. A savvy protester understands they are crossing a legal line but complies immediately with law enforcement to avoid violence. This preserves their safety and allows them to make their case in the proper venue: court.
Traditional protests are ineffective against an administration that prioritizes market performance above public opinion. The most potent form of resistance is to create economic instability, as this is the only language such leadership understands and responds to, forcing a reaction where outrage fails.
