Newsletter 346 -- April 22, 2025
Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess
In Newsletter 340, we shared some of Harry Boyte's recent thoughts and writing on nonviolence training and effective nonviolent action. That newsletter focused on Martin Luther King's notion of "agape," or "public love," and how it was similar to Kenneth Boulding's Three Faces of Power and Paul Wehr's "Power Strategy Mix." In that newsletter, Harry also explained how nonviolent actors needed to "think politically," which means identifying your audience, your desired outcomes, and your strategy and tactics. We discuss these ideas further here, focusing on 1) determining one’s audience, 2) choosing realistic short and long term goals (desired outcomes), and 3) choosing strategies and tactics that will likely obtain those outcomes.
Also, a reminder: Guy and Heidi will be talking with Ashok Panikkar in a live webinar entitled "Whither Peacebuilding? Is There Life After USAID and USIP?" on Wednesday, April 23 at 11 am Eastern time. Here's the link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84057135923?pwd=ckVqSm1nOXVYZGo4RDJ4SlloblkxZz09. We hope some of you will join us!
What does "Thinking Politically" Mean?
Harry wrote earlier:
[Bayard] Rustin [organizer of the March on Washington] argued that protest was not enough and sometimes was counterproductive. People needed to think strategically about what they were accomplishing through action. Did it increase public support? How did it build power? These questions are, if anything, even more crucial today.
Several times recently, we have been driving through our progressive city of Boulder, Colorado and watching the Anti-Trump marchers walking with signs "Save our National Parks," "We the People are a Democracy, not a Dictatorship," "Let Them Eat Teslas," "No Kings in the USA," "Bring Home Kilmar Garcia!" I'm sure marching around waving signs made these folks feel good, but did it accomplish anything else?
Almost everyone in Boulder is a progressive. It is a way to signal that you are an upstanding member of the tribe, I suppose, but was that the intention? I suspect (though I didn't ask) that most of the marchers thought that they were doing something useful to "counter Trump."
I'm guessing, if Trump noticed at all (and I doubt that he did) that he would have been pleased. It seems pretty clear that one of his goals is to make progressives angry. Progressive anger allows him to take advantage of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend effect." Since most of his constituents are distrustful of, if not downright hostile toward, the progressives, anything that makes them mad must be a step in the right direction. So, what the protesters are saying is, in effect, Look, Donald, you succeeded! We're angry! Keep doing what you are doing! It is producing just the response you want!"
I find it very hard to believe that these marches, at least in Boulder, Colorado, are increasing public support for the left, nor are they building power. (I'm sorry if I am disappointing my several friends who took part in these marches. I hope you'll read on to learn about my caveats, and consider other approaches to counter Trump. Because we agree, countering Trump is important. But it is also important that we do so effectively and in ways that will bring us closer to a society in which all Americans (both Democrats and Republicans) would want to live. This requires separating concerns about Trump administration policies into two broad categories: threats to progressive priorities (e.g. attacks on DEI programs) and threats to the society as a whole (e.g. chaotic tariff policies that threaten the entire economy.) To the extent that protesters focus on issues in the second category, it will be much easier to build the kind of broad base of support that they are going to need if they want to persuade the Trump administration to change (or, at least, be driven from office in the next election).
I will also note that shortly before this post went public, I read Jonathan Stray and Eve Sneider's interesting post "Does Protest Even Work?" in the Better Conflict Bulletin. Jonathan and Eve cite research by political scientists Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth, who conducted one of the most comprehensive studies of nonviolent protest ever done. Quoting Jonathan and Eve, who were quoting Stephan and Chenoweth, they found that "no government has withstood a challenge of 3.5% of their population mobilized against it during a peak event," what she [Chenoweth] calls the “3.5% rule.” Further quoting Jonathan and Eve,
Crucially, Chenoweth explained in a 2020 follow-up, the 3.5% number is a useful rule of thumb but not the be-all and end-all determiner of a protest movement’s success. Other factors like momentum, organization, leadership, and sustainability matter as much as large-scale participation.
Jonathan and Eve go on to say that "coalition building is key." So far the protest actions, they observed, have skewed older (lots of boomers and a few Gen Zers), were predominantly white, and were highly educated. And, I am guessing both from that description and what I have read elsewhere, they are almost entirely progressive. Although it is certainly possible to get 3.5% of the population from the progressive side alone, given the hyper-polarization in this country, we are doubtful that would have any impact beyond amplifying the Democratic side of the hyper-polarization to the point where Republicans lose their grip on Congress in 2026 and the Presidency in 2028.
While, depending on your political perspective, this might count as desirable "regime change," in Chenoweth and Stephan's rubric, (and a success for the protesters), it would really just constitute another, even more intense episode in the hyper-polarized politics that has characterized the US in recent decades. It wouldn't get us out of this highly-destructive far right-far left political pendulum that has left the federal government almost entirely unable to function. If nonviolent protest is to succeed in our view, it has to fundamentally change the system, and get us off of this wildly swinging pendulum.
It is also important to recognize that continuing to drive the hyper-polarization spiral in this way could, when combined with general public hostility toward the progressive agenda, yield a Democratic defeat instead of the hoped-for victory. Beyond this, we can't discount the possibility of large-scale violence (something that Senator Murkowski indicated last week was perilously close).
So, those who want to avoid turning a bad situation into something worse would be well advised to follow Harry's advice and learn how to truly "think politically" by avoiding the trap of simply thinking "blue = good, red = bad" or vice versa. We need to quit focusing on how can "my side" defeat "their side"? Rather, we need to think about the power dynamics and everyday politics of a particular situation. Harry said that this involves asking three questions: 1) Who is your audience? 2) What is your desired outcome, in the short and longer term? And, 3) what strategies and tactics should you use to accomplish your goals?
To these questions we would add three more questions: 4) Is your desired outcome realistic? 5) What are the downside risks should you fail? And, 6) are you being fair or are you making unreasonable demands on the other side?
Who is Your Audience?
Harry suggested that your audience is not only decision makers, but also the larger community. "The famous March on Washington was framed not as a protest, but as a living petition. Its aim was to win support from middle America." When we talked with David Eisner the other day, he noted, as Guy often does as well, that the marchers in Martin Luther King's March on Washington were all dressed up in suits, looking as serious and respectable as they possibly could. They weren't just trying to influence President Kennedy, who was in power at the time, or even just the Congress (though they likely were trying to influence Congress to some extent). They were also trying to influence the American people.
These marches made for great television. It wasn't hard to see who were the "good guys" and who were the "bad guys" when some people were dressed in suits, marching peacefully, and others were attacking them with fire hoses, clubs, and dogs. (This, of course, did not happen in the March on Washington, but it did happen in Birmingham, Alabama during the "Children's Crusade.") According to ChatGPT, "The images of children being knocked down by water jets and threatened by snarling dogs were widely circulated in the media and helped galvanize public support for the civil rights movement, eventually leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)" In our Martin Luther King Day newsletter last year, we talked about what contemporary activists could learn from the remarkable success of the 1963 March on Washington.
Might the Boulder, Colorado protesters have made a stronger point if they had traveled to places from which people were actually being deported or threatened with deportation, showing solidarity with those under threat? (All they would have needed to do, I gather, was to gather at our local high schools where a significant number of students are scared to come to school, as one teacher told me, for fear of being deported.) How about showing them some support? What about traveling to the red districts of Colorado (there are several) and respectfully protesting there? Try to change minds by showing support for the farmworkers who are working the fields in rural (red) Colorado. Or talking (respectfully) and listening even more to the residents of these rural areas. What problems are they most concerned about? Is Trump helping them? (Probably not.) Might they be willing to join your protest if it isn't about pushing the progressive agenda, but it is rather about providing freedom and security for all?
What Are Your Desired Outcomes —in the Short or Long Term?
Harry wrote "Keeping in mind the principle of not substituting militancy, posture and volume for realistic strategy, what can you realistically achieve (not what would you like to achieve)?
This made us think back to a presentation on activism that was given at one of our first conferences early in the Consortium's history. Homer Page, a Boulder County Commissioner, gave a talk entitled "Constructive Demonstration Strategies." His expertise came not only from his political experience, but also from his activism in the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the disability rights movement, all of which he had been active in for about 30 years. All demonstrations, Page argued, have three dimensions. One is informational — people want to raise public awareness of an issue. Second, there is the desire for confrontation — simply "getting in people's faces." Third, he says, is uttering a "primal scream." The simple act of venting anger — showing how mad you are — helps to ameliorate a sense of depression and disempowerment on the part of protesters. It makes people feel that at least they are "doing something."
But, he went on to say, primal screams aren't going to change policy — they might even work against policy changes because they don't win the sympathy of people "watching TV in their living rooms." As a demonstrator, you have to ask "Is this going to be a useful tool in accomplishing my goals? ... Are my goals at this point helpful to my long-range goal of changing policy?" Primal screaming, he said, is not.
One of the problems of primal screams is that there are similarly angry people on all sides of today's big conflicts. So you can have screaming matches between opposing sides, but this just drives the escalation spiral in ways that compound hostility, further dehumanize adversaries, and sharply limit the interests that people have in addressing the legitimate concerns of others. Listening to the other and responding positively to their legitimate points, as we said above, is much more likely to ultimately (not quickly) result in beneficial policy change. Because if you listen (a) you might find out that a lot of the people you have labeled as "incorrigible enemies" actually share a lot of the concerns that you have and (b) they might figure that out too, and consider collaborating with you to get some of your mutual needs met — if you don't write them off before you even meet.
This highlights the potential advantages of an alternative strategy for organizing political demonstrations — one that focuses on societal, rather than partisan concerns. For example, if you want to do something really bold (something that could actually start to unwind the hyper-polarization spiral), the left might start by recognizing that those on the right do, in fact, have legitimate concerns that the left really should take serious steps to address.
For example, in Boulder (which is the home of the University of Colorado), one could organize a series of "Reform the University, Don't Destroy It" Community Meetings. Here, instead of unconditionally defending the university and attacking the Trump administration, the goal would be to highlight the truly valuable research and teaching that the university is doing while, at the same time, making it clear that it is willing to listen to and, where appropriate, positively respond to criticism. Here, the university could do much to re-earn the public's trust and support by honestly correcting unfounded rumors about the university's actions and explaining the rationale behind misunderstood policies. More importantly, however, would be its willingness to take concrete steps to address legitimate public concerns about such difficult topics as the fairness of admissions policies, political bias in hiring decisions, skyrocketing and unaffordable tuition, ideological bias in teaching and research, and free speech. These are obviously all very difficult issues that require the university to balance a wide range of competing (and often very vocal) interests. Still, the university's standing and its ability to resist illegitimate political pressures (such as the ones that Trump is threatening) could be greatly enhanced through a transparent process that clearly demonstrates the university's commitment to wisely and equitably struggling through these difficult issues. If that seems too bold and controversial, other societal interest-based demonstrations could focus on protecting broadly supported governmental activities that are now under threat — like weather forecasting, preparing for future pandemics, disaster response, or national defense.
What Strategies and Tactics are Most Suitable to Achieve your Short and Long-Term Goals?
This was Harry's third question. He went on to ask "How do you read the politics of a situation? How can you avoid turning off allies whom you need? What would increase the power of your group? How can you add surprise and other elements to increase impact?" He then suggested would-be protesters take a look at the list of 198 different protest tactics nonviolence scholar and actor Gene Sharp assembled, choosing ones to use that are likely to have the maximum effect.
Reading the politics of our current situation seems to us to be particularly important right now. We agree that many of the things Trump is doing are extremely alarming and destructive. We are very concerned about his apparent penchant for breaking things without having any plan or inclination to put something else in their place. This means that all sorts of governmental services that Americans have come to depend upon are going to be harder and/or impossible to get. While many of Trump's cuts are focused on the highly partisan, but still reasonable, objections to Biden-era policies and programs, there are others that are going to seriously hurt his constituents, not just Democrats. With respect to these issues, Democrats have common cause with Trump voters. They are not our enemy. Trump is. We need to enlist Trump voters to join us in our demands that he either not cut these programs, or replace them with something that actually is better.
This makes us think about the presentation that came after Homer Page's all those years ago. That was a presentation made by Spencer Havlick, a long-standing member of the Boulder City Council. Havlick had a simple, but effective, strategy for combating the primal scream syndrome and the related NIMBY syndrome. (NIMBY stands for Not In My Backyard!!)
When Havlick was approached with an angry complaint demanding that he take action to protect his or her "backyard," Havlick would explain that he didn't think that it would be appropriate for him to go to the Council and advocate for policies that would only serve the narrow interests of a particular citizen. Instead, he would challenge the complainant to open a conversation with other stakeholders — members of the community who, in one way or another, were affected by the same issue. If this group could come up with some broadly (though not necessarily universally) supported approach to protecting and, hopefully, advancing the interests of all affected parties, then he would enthusiastically take the proposal to City Council with his strong backing.
The same principle applies to our current situation. If people would open a conversation with other members of our communities and states who have similar concerns, but are members of "different tribes," and they could work together to come up with solutions that would work for all of them — such proposals are likely to have much more political clout than are purely progressive adversarial proposals that are being made by the folks who are trying to re-empower the progressive agenda. Americans voted on that agenda in 2016 and 2024. They rejected it twice. Many of those voters are likely to be concerned about how their choice is playing out, however. So starting to work with "the other tribe" to come up with proposals for city councils, state legislatures, or even Congress to start turning around some of Trump's most dangerous and harmful changes shouldn't be impossible to do.
Thinking politically means thinking practically. What are the most important things we want to change? What can we really accomplish, given the political situation, the funding situation, our time and energy constraints? Who can we get to work with us? Okay, after reminding me of Homer's argument that primal screams are good for the soul, go ahead, march on the corner in Boulder and scream. You aren't going to anger any Republicans because hardly any live here. But when you go home, consider how you might really make a difference. Can you start going to city council meetings and advocate for policies that help Trump's actual or potential victims here? Can you volunteer at a national park to try to help make up some of their budget shortfalls? Can you work with an immigration attorney to reach out to frightened people, letting them know what legal recourse they have? Can you contact your senators from Colorado (who represent both the red parts and the blue parts of the state) to let them know how you stand on particular Trump actions, and what you'd like to see Congress do about them. There is a lot of work that needs to be done beyond standing on a street corner, waving at cars that honk when they drive by.
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
Two or three times a week, Guy and Heidi Burgess, the BI Directors, share some of our thoughts on political hyper-polarization and related topics. We also share essays from our colleagues and other contributors, and every week or so, we devote one newsletter to annotated links to outside readings that we found particularly useful relating to U.S. hyper-polarization, threats to peace (and actual violence) in other countries, and related topics of interest. Each Newsletter is posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.
NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....
