show of force

The masses are often overruled. How often do they act against the interests of the people they represent? Clear majorities want a decent minimum wage of $17/hour. Majorities support a host of other downright leftist policies. Most americans say government should run a universal healthcare program. These majorities often hold up across political parties and the urban/rural divide. But even with our broad support, we haven't achieved these goals yet. Why not? Our achievements, from the civil rights era to queer liberation, all came from protest. ACT UP forced drug manufacturers to lower the cost of HIV medications. They shamed the government into funding AIDS research and expanding who they studied. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was an organized boycott that lasted more than a year. It began nearly a decade before Rosa Parks' famous act of resistance. Their struggle continued until the supreme court ruled segregation on buses was unconstitutional.

These victories and countless more were the result of organized mass protest. But these days we hold protests pretty often. The top five largest protests in american history were all about one guy. There are days when it feels like large protests happen and then the fight disappears. Why is that? What made the protests of old so effective?

ACTing UP

Aldyn Mckean was the cofounder of ACT UP in New York City in the 1980-1990s. His recommendations for protest are simple.

Any group that wishes to use civil disobedience or direct action to achieve change must:

1. make absolutely clear what change is desired, usually by listing specific demands;
2. target a group or individual with the power to bring about the desired change;
3. design actions so that the cost of resisting change is perceived by the person/group in power to be greater than the cost of giving in.

Movements in my lifetime haven't always had all three characteristics. Without them, we risk having the media mischaracterize our struggles. Or we direct our attention to people who may be sympathetic but don't see themselves as the solution. Or we show up en masse in every major city and then disperse.

Mckean named two ways people can take action against those in power. Protestors can create problems for people in power that won't go away until they give in. Or they can educate the public to either embarrass people in power or threaten the power they have. I found an interview with him and Terry Gross that made me feel very old, very young, and very grateful for my activist ancestors.

These tactics can shift public opinion or threaten the powerful with consequences. They are representatives of the same thing: power. We want to force (or urge) people with institutional power to take action.

the fire next time

What's missing from the above is something I bet activists didn't even think to describe. Their protests carried a sense of urgency, a feeling that this change can't wait. That may manifest as anger or sincere passion. We saw in the lessons from Montgomery an unrelenting steadfastness. We saw on the streets of New York a fight for survival against an invisible killer. We saw in movements past a persistence that may last years, decades, or even centuries.

Around the world, protests still serve as a demonstration of human power. They are one way we can force people with power to change. But to be effective, we need to stand together, demand action, and refuse to let up. Mckean put it so well that I found his quote more than once while researching this essay. "Make it more costly for those in power to resist than to give in."