What makes one protest movement succeed and another fail? An article by Helen Pearson in today’s Guardian called “Stand up and be counted: six ways to protest that will make your voice heard” attempts to give a factual answer to that question.
Among its conclusions is this one:
A body of research shows that non-violent protests appear more effective than violent ones. “That’s one of the most robust findings,” says Mueller, who published a handbook for activists this year (The New Science of Social Change: A Modern Handbook for Activists). But when authorities violently repress protests, it backfires and appears to strengthen movements.
Omar Wasow, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, saw this in a study of the 1960s US civil rights movement. He found that when protesters were violent, it prompted news stories focused on crime and disorder, and shunted votes to the Republican party, which was viewed as promoting law and order. A wave of violent protests after Martin Luther King’s assassination in April 1968 even tipped the election to Republican Richard Nixon, Wasow concluded.
“Violent protests provoke a reaction in favour of law and order” seems an obvious point to make – though it never hurts to have some facts and figures to back up the obvious, as the work of Omar Wasow provided. In 2025 Wasow’s findings would be not be deemed controversial by most on the Left or the Right.
Not so in 2020. I knew that name “Wasow” was familiar. A little Googling found me this article by Matthew Yglesias from July 2020, writing in Vox:
“The real stakes in the David Shor saga”
On May 28, David Shor, a political data analyst, sent a controversial tweet. Soon after George Floyd’s death, alongside peaceful mass protests there was a substantial amount of looting and vandalism in Minneapolis and a few other cities. Shor, citing research by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, suggested that these incidents could prompt a political backlash that would help President Donald Trump’s bid for reelection. At the same time, he noted that, historically, nonviolent protests had been effective at driving political change “mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage.”
The tweet was characterized as “concern trolling” by the podcast host Benjamin Dixon, while Ari Trujillo Wesler, the impresario behind a popular organizing app, denounced it as “anti-Blackness.”
The following day Shor apologized for the tweet; shortly thereafter, he was dismissed from his job.
The crazy stuff didn’t end there:
. . . in fact, many Democratic Party professionals believe the backlash to his tweets was deserved. Indeed, though Shor has found a new job in progressive politics, one of the conditions of his employment is that he can’t reveal who’s hired him — lest his new employers face the same criticism Civis did. And all accounts of the internal situation at Civis confirm that clients and partners did in fact complain about him and his tweet to the company.
Shor’s tweet, as originally reported by Jonathan Chait, became a topic of discussion on the Progressphiles email list, a widely used networking list for progressive data operatives, and he was soon kicked out of the group. The group’s moderators described Shor’s tweet as “racist” and the criticism he got on Twitter for it as a “much deserved call in.” They also alleged that by arguing with his critics on Twitter, he had “encouraged harassment that led to death threats.”
Shor’s so-called “racist” tweet consisted of quoting factual research by a political scientist – one who is of mixed race himself. Shor’s aim in tweeting it was to help the Black Lives Matter protests and other Democrat causes be more effective. Why were the American Left in 2020 so desperate to believe that violent protest worked better than peaceful protest that they punished one of their own merely for pointing out the tactically useful fact that it did not?
Contemplating the errors made by one’s political enemies during a bout of insanity is fun and easy. It is much harder to spot the errors made by one’s own side due to it currently being the one with its fingers stuck in its ears chanting “La-la, I can’t hear you”. Any suggestions as to what People We Like are currently refusing to see?
I would disagree that peaceful protests are the most effective.
If you want examples from the UK, look at the rallies organised after the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents where the firearms certificate holders peacefully and law abidingly rallied to demonstrate their opposition to the law changes (which were prepared a long time in advance by the Home Orifice – not a spelling mistake). This is despite in both cases being caused by the Police, deliberately in Thomas Hamilton’s case, failing to follow both the law and their own internal procedures. Jack Straw after banning handguns stated that he was convinced that this would make the streets safer (how well has that worked out, eh? Do you feel safer?).
Similarly, and particularly relevant at the moment, look at the – shall we say – unease about the so called “Grooming” gangs (grooming here being a politically correct term for rape) and the authorities’ reaction.
Contrast that with the “Poll Tax” riots. Does the UK or England have a “Poll” tax?
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=poll+tax+riots&iax=images&ia=images
No, only when the government feel threatened do they back down. Otherwise, it is a case of let the plebs have their little temper tantrums and their protest rallies. They can be safely ignored as they are carried out by those disgusting law abiding tax payers who are too polite to resort to violence.
I think that the studies quoted have been put out to convince people not to resort to a more kinetic form of protest.
The violent, protracted, destructive pillaging and rioting in Minneapolis o/b/o G.Floyd is a good example of one end of the peaceful/not-peaceful continuum of protest etiquette.
It entirely transformed Minneapolis/regional politics. Amazingly to me, it pulled city gov and politics more leftward than the leftward place it already occupied. It made believers of casual socialists, and (there being so few conservatives within the city), if anyone was scared rightward, they didn’t register on the meter.
This was after a long period of mostly peaceful protesting, which never really changed anything. It mostly provided a performative outlet for proud and demonstrative progressives.
So, for effectiveness, I’d vote for violence.
It occurs to me (too late to edit) that “best” depends on the goals.
If you want to convince other people of your views, share information, appear to reasonably argue a position, you go for peaceful acts. You do informational picketing and the like.
But if you want to rally your own troops – get them fired up, shove that adrenaline through their veins – violence always gets people enthused.
So, “which is better?” is like, what’s better, the color blue or a steak dinner? Better for what?
@ bobby b. – I think it should be clearer that the rioting in MSP did not ‘pull’ city government and politic further leftwards – to use ypur own term, it ‘scared’ them further leftwards. This was the more-or-less overt goal of city and State leadership, which enabled and even encouraged the violent rioting with the goal of obtaining more apparent ‘support’ by fear of continuing violence and destruction, which could only be halted (it was claimed) by the introduction of even-more- leftward policies. Support our positions even-more-fervently, or the city gets it, about sums it up.
llater,
llamas
I suspect there are several types of protest. Non-violent protest can work if enough people are seen to be concerned – it’s people voting in an opinion poll with their feet. Protests like Just Stop Oil are destined to fail if you want to motivate people… not enough protestors are involved, no matter how ‘eye catching’ their stunts are.
But you can’t have a proper witch hunt without pitchforks and burning torches (or the modern equivalent). Violent protests skip over justification straight to an exercise of animal spirits. And animal spirits cannot be maintained long enough to affect mainstream politics. Unless the ‘spontaneous’ protests are carefully planned.
I suspect protests only work if they are pushing against an already open door – or – if they are the precursor to revolt or rebellion.
YMMV.
Any research on mainly peaceful protests by ‘liberals’?
Hard to say, since it depends on the selection criteria for “We”. I’m used to seeing a declaration that people are refusing to see x as a rhetorical device for setting up the speaker as a downtrodden speaker of truth to power, usually deployed about views that are rather common in a large population.
If the criteria for “We” is “The posters & commentors on this website”, it’s still tricky. There’s lots of arguments in these comments, from patents to mathematical models. Hence, I have a hard time saying what “We” actually “see”, in order to say what “We” are “refusing to see”.
“Nonsense, CayleyGraph2015. This site is the most lockstep, doctrinaire echo chamber of agreement you’ll ever see…”
OK, fine, I’ll come up with something. How ’bout, “There’s no point commenting on the finer points of studies without reading the studies themselves, since there’s so many technicalities lost in academic reporting (even before considering how often journalists screw up) that you can’t really tell what the study was supposed to say from articles about the studies”.
Even about that, though, this site has plenty of regular commentors who haven’t posted yet; maybe it’s because most of them (“We”) actually do “see” this point. For those who have posted, I don’t know if they’ve pulled up the studies or not. Even if I read the studies themselves (I have not) and it clearly contradicted their characterizations thereof, well, everybody makes mistakes, and it’s not like they owe me an effort worth paying for.
If non-violent protest works, then I presume that everyone on here from the US is in favour of taking everyone’s guns away?
I mean, you don’t actually need them, do you, if you can get what you want simply by asking nicely and politely?
———–
This reads like a standard Guardianista liberal piece, whereby they get to couch themselves in a veneer of civility, but don’t have to put themselves in any actual danger. “Well, I wrote a strongly worded letter, and I marched with a placard, and they simply ignored us, Ronald! Welp, time to put the kettle on and forget all about it! Nowt more that one can do and we’re just going to have to accept it!”
Non-violent protest works if and only if (and there is a wealth of studies on this) the powers that be believe that the first step is “I’m asking nicely at the moment” and the next step is “I can ask…less nicely…next time.”.
(note: this is a neutral post, this counts for any politically-motivated type of protest, right or left)
I think the premise of the question is wrong. I think the reaction Shor got was not because people believe, or want to believe, that violent protests work, but simply because any criticism of the protesters/rioters was considered to be siding with the enemy. It’s the same phenomenon where a climate science gets called a “denier” when he disputes that global warming is responsible for the increase in frequency and severity of hurricanes, on the grounds that there has been no such increase. It doesn’t matter how vociferously he says climate change is real and catastrophic; saying it’s not responsible for a particular hurricane, or hurricanes in general, is siding with the enemy.
The Left has long been able to engage in political violence without harming its causes. The violence doesn’t usually instigate change, it represents mindsets that already prevail in the existing power structure. Two exampes are the 1999 Seattle WTO riots and the like-minded Occupy Wall Street hooliganism. Much of the leftist landscape in academia and elsewhere treats the business sector as a hostile force that must be tamed in order to guarantee that they provide jobs and fund the government. (The Pacific Northwest is especially prone to this mindset; a century ago the International Workers of the World were an exceptional powerful force there.)
The trouble with political violence is that, nowadays, it hurts only the middle & working classes, not the ruling class.
In fact, the ruling class stands to profit from it: the BLM riots must have generated a lot of income for Walmart, Amazon, and Google, by destroying small retail businesses.
In this sense, political violence is effective.
An unrelated thought: You get more of what you incentivize.
If the ruling class represses non-violent protests, but caves in to violent protests, that means giving violent protesters an incentive: expect more violent protests in the future.
Only an insane ruling class could cave in to violent protests; but unfortunately some Western ruling classes are insane.
Of course, rewarding non-violent protests can also lead to escalation.
Frankly, knowing a bit about civil wars in China, i have to wonder what the best course of action would have been in Tiananmen Square.
I’m not sure this is true.
The actions of our city and county people since the riots have not been the actions of people who have been scared by the violence.
They have celebrated it, exulted in it. They have always been on the side of the BLM types, and the riots seemed to have empowered them to move more leftward.
Plus, the riots seem to have awakened many otherwise desultory voters into happiness, and they now work harder for the DSA than they did previously. (DSA = Democratic Socialists of America, who now hold about 1/3 of the Mpls city council.)
So, I see no evidence that anyone has been scared by the riots, that they will now give in to them out of fear of future riots. Maybe those people are willing to be more confrontatively socialist because they think that other people will let them get away with more out of fear. But there aren’t that many of those “other people” here.
Minneapolis isn’t like most of the rest of the country. Remember, Minnesota elected Governor Timmy Walz by dint of huge support within the metro area, and in spite of low support “outstate.”
It’s like the Renaissance Fair of woke.
Good point.
Richard Nixon and most Republicans were strongly PRO (not anti) “Civil Rights” – indeed a higher proportion of Republicans in both House and Senate voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats did – and President Eisenhower had been strongly pro Civil Rights in the 1950s – using such “peaceful” means as the 101st Airborne Division to enforce them.
The idea that Martin Luther King was some sort of rebel against the American establishment is false – at least not for most of the time, as the American establishment itself was very pro Civil Rights – as the 1954 nine-to-zero Supreme Court decision showed, and that was before anyone had heard of Martin Luther King. Indeed Governor Tom Dewey of New York (then the most important State) how outlawed discrimination, including private commercial discrimination, back in the 1940s.
It is true that Martin Luther King got into bad (Communist) company in later life and started to use certain chemicals and laugh at forced sexual activity (according to the FBI transcripts – although other people contest this), but for most of the time the Federal establishment had been strongly on his side.
Peaceful protests work fine when the powers that be are really on your side.
Paul: a higher proportion of Republicans in both House and Senate voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats did. But was not the proportion of Northern Republicans voting for the act lower than Northern Democrats, and likewise for Southern Republicans and Southern Democrats? I think this is called Simpson’s Paradox; ISTM that these days it’s hard to find a text book describing the paradox which does not use exactly this instance as an example.
The Tea Party consisted of middle class Americans assembling peacefully. Wherever they went, they obtained permits and left the place cleaner than when they found it.
For their troubles, they were spied on, audited, and compared to homosexuals dropping their genitals into someone’s mouth.
In the end, they accomplished nothing.