The Loud Minority

Why Protests Matter in American Democracy

Daniel Q. Gillion

• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780691201726
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

How political protests and activism influence voters and candidates The "silent majority"—a phrase coined by Richard Nixon in 1969 in response to Vietnam War protests and later used by Donald Trump as a campaign slogan—refers to the supposed wedge that exists between protestors in the street and the voters at home. The Loud Minority upends this view by demonstrating that voters are in fact directly informed and influenced by protest activism. Consequently, as protests grow in America, every facet of the electoral process is touched by this loud minority, benefiting the political party perceived to be the most supportive of the protestors' messaging.Drawing on historical evidence, statistical data, and detailed interviews about protest activity since the 1960s, Daniel Gillion shows that electoral districts with protest activity are more likely to see increased voter turnout at the polls. Surprisingly, protest activities are also moneymaking endeavors for electoral politics, as voters donate more to political candidates who share the ideological leanings of activists. Finally, protests are a signal of political problems, encouraging experienced political challengers to run for office and hurting incumbents' chances of winning reelection. The silent majority may not speak by protesting themselves, but they clearly gesture for social change with their votes.An exploration of how protests affect voter behavior and warn of future electoral changes, The Loud Minority looks at the many ways that activism can shape democracy.

1

Ideological Protests

THE PROTEST TIES THAT BIND US TOGETHER

We don’t accomplish anything in this world alone … and whatever happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one’s life and all the weavings of individual threads from one to another that creates something.

—SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

It might not seem that we relate to one another amid the elevator music and earplugs we use to provide ourselves comfort in those daily moments of loneliness. But we do feel a profound need to connect with the world around us. Seeing our personal situation through the life experience of others gives us a sense of belonging and shared happiness. And seeing others’ hardship also fills us with grief. This is the relation to others that protest fosters. Protesters lay out their concerns, reveal their lived experience, and place their hardship and strife on full display for the American public with the hope that they connect with the broader community. This showcase of human experiences is not ignored. Rather, protests appeal to our desire for connection and work to garner buy-in from the nation. The connection between protests and the public becomes the weaving together of life experiences that ultimately produces electoral outcomes. While not referring specifically to activism, Sandra Day O’Connor’s words encapsulate this sentiment; the whole tapestry of protests reflects how our connection to one another can influence electoral behavior that shapes American democracy. When protesters gather to voice their concerns, these protests solicit a shared sense of purpose from others in society and encourage them to see the world in the way that the protesters do.

This chapter theorizes the significance of protest and its influence on American democracy through the electorate. It delves into the causal mechanisms by which activism is linked to voter activity. The theoretical framework fits within a larger discussion of political behavior and democratic deliberation. This theory, referred to as “the ties that bind,” recasts our understanding of protests, transitioning from a focus on protests as belonging to one specific, isolated event or movement to considering a network of protest activities that address concerns across a host of issues. In doing so, this theory argues that multiple protests can become unified under a shared political ideology to both inform and mobilize the voter base, irrespective of the coordinating efforts of protest organizers. This theoretical framework describes how multiple protest responses to societal events energize the electorate, how this shift in the electorate’s interest presents opportunities for incoming politicians looking to challenge the incumbent, and how this new political landscape shapes voting outcomes. Finally, I describe the social conditions needed for protesters’ activism to strengthen voters’ party loyalties, which in turn establishes the foundation for future electoral action.

Serious Doubts and Questions about the Role of Protest

There is an important conversation taking place about protest in America that includes the voices of scholars, political pundits, and even activists themselves. At the heart of this discussion is a valid question: Are the old-faithful actions of canvasing the streets and demanding change from anyone who will listen effective? Simply put, do protests work? This question surfaces periodically as protest increases in prevalence. Nevertheless, it is startling that this generation questions the effectiveness of protest, considering the extent to which it has lived through or been educated on the successes of previous protests that brought widespread societal change. Still, doubts persist in the most public of forums. Nathan Heller (2017), a writer for the New Yorker, titled an opinion piece, “Is There Any Point to Protesting?” Perhaps in an effort to sensationalize his point, or possibly a product of genuine pessimism, the opening line was even less hopeful: “We turn out in the streets and nothing seems to happen. Maybe we’re doing it wrong.” Suggestions have been offered on how to do it “right.” David Leonhardt, writing for the New York Times on National Football League (NFL) protests, implored protesters to change their tactics from the controversial move of kneeling during the national anthem as a demonstration against racism to a more modest approach of wearing T-shirts. The suggestion here is that the mild version of tacit resistance that comes with wearing a T-shirt, which can also be mistaken for simply a fashion statement, is more agreeable to the sensitive palette of the American public.

Pessimism surrounding the impact of protest has surfaced even among political activists. This question of validity nags at individuals as they ponder whether their sanguine aspirations to bring about change have been squandered on a futile routine of walking for miles, carrying provocative banners, and holding up politically charged posters. Micah White (2017), a prominent organizer for the Occupy Wall Street movement, conceded the failure of protests in the title of a piece in the Guardian: “Occupy and Black Lives Matter Failed.” His piece goes on to claim that “the people’s sovereignty is dead and every protest is a hopeless struggle to revive the corpse. It is time to try a different method.” White suggests that protest groups broaden their appeal to new demographics and become more inclusive because their issue-based activism has not brought the transformative social change that is desired from the movement.¹

Even among academic scholars, the foggy cloud of doubt has thickened. Mark Lilla, a public intellectual and historian, offered a stern criticism of protests when reflecting on the results of the 2016 election. He believed that the entire enterprise of protest as a means of effecting change was a lost art. Lilla (2017, 111) writes, “Protesting, acting up, and acting out will not do it. The age of movement politics is over, at least for now. We need no more marchers. We need more mayors. And governors and state legislators and members of Congress.” Protests have come to be seen by critics as too reactionary and spontaneous, belonging to a form of folk politics that does not allow for the complex strategies and abstract thinking needed to achieve long-term goals and institutional change on a global scale (Srnicek and Williams 2015).

This suggestion seems overly harsh and contradictory in relation to the successes seen as a result of historical protests. Yet the contradiction between previous protests’ achievements and contemporary pundits’ pessimism is rooted in our evaluation of success. One issue that must be addressed and agreed on, in particular, is the definition of what “winning” looks like for protest activity and the accompanying social movements. Efforts to establish this definition might fail to garner a consensus, but we can agree on what it is not. Success through protesting is not one single thing: it is not just electing new officials; it is not just convincing elected officials to consider a new perspective on an issue; and it is not just enlisting a greater portion of the public to cast their vote in elections. Success can take a variety of forms. The multiple tentacles of political protest and their influence cannot be traced to a specific politician winning a campaign or piece of legislation being passed, though these events would certainly constitute wins. But there are other protest victories that emerge along with shifts in public opinion: mobilization efforts, agenda setting, the appearance of new candidates in the political arena, and the list goes on. Protest movements often have multiple goals and unintentional benefits (Andrews 1997).

The sway that protests have on political officials is undeniable; it is also visible on each branch of the federal government (Baumgartner and Mahoney 2005; Gillion 2012, 2013). Traditionally, presidents of the United States have been responsive to protest actions. Liberal protest activities increase the probability for activists to garner favorable discussions, press conferences, and State of the Union addresses from the president. Presidents also respond to protesters with direct action by issuing executive orders and memos directing cabinet members to address the issues voiced by protesters. Congressional leaders reflect on the issues that are occurring in their backyards, observing the content of protest actions, and adapting to the changing political and social climates in their districts. Accordingly, congressional members cast roll call votes in Congress that are in alignment with the prevailing sentiment in their districts, often coinciding with the message of protests taking place in their districts. Even Supreme Court justices are attuned to protest activity. Social movement organizations provide helpful information to the court by writing amicus briefs on important issues facing the United States. The salience of protest issues also increases the perceived importance of the topic and thus increases the chances that the Supreme Court will find space on its ever-increasing docket to hear a case related to a given issue (Gillion 2013).

Scholarship on the influence that protest can have on shaping political attitudes and the actions of voters is more limited than protest’s impact on government, but several theories suggest a strong link. In both the social movement and public opinion literatures, grassroots movements are commonly viewed as viable means for shaping citizens’ political attitudes. Protest activities can influence voters’ perceptions through what Taeku Lee (2002, 69) refers to as “mobilizing public opinion,” where citizens are informed by their peers. This bottom-up approach to receiving information can be more influential on citizens than the top-down delivery of the views that come from political elites. Informative cues from like-minded groups can shape citizens’ understanding of issues (Page and Shapiro 1992). In relating political issues to the personal details of life, interest groups can provide the missing pieces of information that voters need to make fully informed decisions (McKelvey and Ordeshook 1986). The reason for this is citizens’ engagement in interest groups, especially those that rely on protests, expresses some level of discontent that a portion of the nation has with the status quo. When this discontent offers insight into current policies or a politician’s record, protest activities can inform individuals’ voting decisions (Lohmann 1994, 518). Protest activists are well positioned to influence voters directly by discussing issues with neighbors at home or colleagues in the workplace, or indirectly by drawing citizens’ attention to a salient issue (Claassen 2007, 126).

Evidence abounds on the political effectiveness of citizens demonstrating in the streets to voice their concerns. Whether or not a different approach, as White suggests, could bring larger or more clearly delineated victories is another matter. Still, this does not negate the fact that today, as they are, protests are indeed working. The underlying mechanism of how they work to mobilize the electorate and thus shape political outcomes remains a black box, and requires greater discussion and a clear theoretical framework.

Theory of Ideological Protests in America and the Ties That Bind

PROTEST NARRATIVES

My theoretical claims begin by shifting focus from a discussion of the influence of protest at the national level to protest at the local level, because citizens are likely more attentive to protest behavior occurring within their own communities. Local protests contribute to a larger understanding of people’s own social environment, which can be informed by “casual observations,” meaning simple observations conveyed by their surroundings—neighbors’ dress, home, or behavior, for example (Cho and Rudolph 2008). These observations accumulate over time as well as repeated interactions and experiences in what Brady Baybeck and Scott McClurg (2005) refer to as the “slow drip of everyday life.” The social context established in citizens’ communities becomes the foundation of the social learning process that shapes their political preferences (McPhee 1963; Sprague 1982). Though we often think of politics at the national level, many of the perspectives that citizens hold about politics stem from their local social environment, which later influences their voting behavior (Eulau and Rothenberg 1986; Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995; Kenny 1992). Some have come to recognize the social environment as a vehicle for increasing voter turnout by establishing norms of participation and providing social networks to mobilize potential voters (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). Even simply being informed of the political engagement of people in one’s community can increase one’s own proclivity to vote (Großer and Schram 2006).

I argue that protest can become a part of the social learning process and act as an avenue for social communication. In particular, protest may serve as an informative cue that voters use to evaluate specific candidates in addition to social conditions. Because protest places issues on the political agenda and makes certain topics salient, protest has the potential to shift voters’ evaluation of political candidates. Moreover, protest activities can educate the public on the particular details of an issue and unique ways it affects their community. Finally, protest can act as a mobilizing force that draws passion from constituents, heightening their interest in a relevant topic and increasing the likelihood that they turn out on Election Day. Steven Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen (1993, 218) contend that had “social movements been as active in mobilizing voters in the 1980s as they were in the 1960s, even leaving the social structure and the condition of individual voters unchanged, reported voter participation would have fallen only 2.6 percent, rather than 11.3 percent.” Thus protests may not only be effective in shaping the opinions of habitual voters as they make electoral decisions but activism is also a resource for inspiring voters to remain engaged—or begin to engage, if they had not done so previously.

Political protest functions as another form of public opinion that informs citizens on important issues impacting their own communities as well as those around the world. It is difficult for citizens to be informed on every single issue occurring in the United States, and virtually impossible to give equal attention to each of them. Protests provide a filter for citizens, weeding out less significant issues and highlighting the most salient ones—and studies have shown that this takes place. When demonstrations occur in the United States, the issues voiced in those protests rise in importance on Gallup’s list of what Americans...