Harvard political scientist Erica Chenowith has studied regime change efforts around the world. She looked at violent vs. nonviolent approaches, levels of participation, and eventual results. She found that one key threshold of success correlating with toppling an authoritarian regime was 3.5% of a population actively participating in protests.
In fact, she had yet to find a case where regime change did not happen once the 3.5% mark was met. Interesting stuff. Watch her TED talk.
This level of ongoing protest – as opposed to the more familiar “hey, everyone meet up on Saturday for the Million No-MAGA March” kind of protest — doubles as a meaningful general economic protest strike, since many of those people are in the streets instead of at work.
Unsurprisingly, this data is enjoying some renewed attention. I’m glad the approach has worked elsewhere, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for us. With apologies to Wilson Pickett, 3.5% won’t do.
My opinion is grounded in asking, “What’s the desired outcome?”
What would we get if we applied ample sustained street-protest pressure (assuming that exists) for Donald Trump to resign?
We’d get President JD Vance. One can only wonder what his Secret Service codename would be.
And what do we get if, either alongside or after Trump’s resignation, public outcry compelled Vance to resign?
President Mike Johnson.
Get a good look at that, because I am never, ever going to type those three words again.
You see where I’m going here. Unless the speaker’s true motive is revolution or anarchy – and that’s a possibility you should not ignore as you take in American opinions from around the internet – protest-compelled resignation doesn’t offer the same upside in the U.S. that it might in other places. There will be no no-confidence vote, no military coup, and even within the system we do have, no chain of succession rattling all the way down to President Chuck Schumer.
To pour even more water on the idea, I don’t believe that resignation is plausible. Sustained peaceful street protest on that level would bring out the even-worse in Trump. He would double down. Have we forgotten Mr. “Can’t we just shoot them in the legs or something?” The people who truly know the right answer to that question don’t work for him anymore.
FROM LEGS TO KNEECAPS
Likewise, we should think twice before pursuing maneuvers of mass economic withholding. I’m not objecting to boycotts. Nothing wrong with voting with your wallet. What should give us pause is extended and broad no-spend initiatives to disrupt the economy, either along side such 3.5% protests or on their own.
I see encouragement elsewhere like, “Let’s show the billionaires who REALLY has the power!” And I get the raw sentiment, but again: where’s the tangible upside?
I’m not denying organized action could have real economic impact – and that’s part of the problem. We already have a nutcase intentionally kneecapping the economy via aggressive tariffs, and via the attempted needless addition of tens of thousands of federal workers and contractors into the ranks of the unemployed.
That’s significant damage. An added fat layer of private sector slowdown measures would heighten the stress and hardship that is most certainly going to ripple through millions of American families if Trump’s initiatives proceed unchecked.
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?
It may feel frustrating or insufficient, but for now the courts remain the best first line of defense. As I’ve said since before the inauguration, the fate of the country as we know it may rest on whether most of the judges can do the right thing most of the time over the next year or so. Yes, the “unitary executive” theory rationalizing this power grab may ultimately come down to the Supreme Court. But on the whole, the early rounds of rulings and injunctions have been encouraging.
That said, while pressuring POTUS into resigning is not going to happen, there could be moments where public protest can pressure a pivotal member of Congress or three to grow a spine – or persuade members to make a leadership change as necessary. For those and other reasons, the occasional big protest or lighting up congressional phone lines should stay in the toolbox.
But large-scale economic strikes or daily open-ended mass protests? Those would heighten the hardship on regular folks while playing right into the hands of the Chaos Agent. Don’t do him any favors.
I hear you, but what if the courts aren’t able to prevail? By the time we determine that, it will be too late for mass protests or economic strikes to be at all effective. And, in particular, I don’t feel at all sorry for the “regular folks” who work for X, Meta, Palantir, Tesla, Google, Apple, OpenAI, Oracle, Amazon, Microsoft, or most of the current multi-billion/trillion dollar “tech” companies. I say that as someone who depended on Silicon Valley for employment over the last 40 years. The people running those companies are funding the destruction of the government and their wealth comes from stock in those companies. Anyone who works at those places knew what they were doing and who they were working for. I say dismantle them first by tanking their stock prices, by whatever means necessary.
Belated thanks for reading and for commenting. We agree on desired end result as far as political power. If the courts roll over, then the courts (more specifically, the Court) can do that, and we adapt. But I guess to bottom line it, I don’t believe it is realistic to dismantle any international conglomerate of certain size and clout in that manner, and I think concerned parties should pursue other goals to reduce the number of terrible things committed by the White House and Congress.
The point is not to get Trump to resign. Literally no one thinks that would ever happen. The point is to pressure our leaders to stand against authoritarian rule and to uphold and improve our democracy through specific policies, such as the expansion of voting rights, reducing inequality by taxing the rich, providing universal healthcare…the list goes on.