In a democracy protest is good for the soul
Tribune News Service
For the last several months, I have organised a weekly 'Stand-Up for Democracy' rally/protest on the busiest street corner in my hometown. On Fridays at 5:30 pm., students, teachers, townspeople, and senior citizens come together, hold signs, and wave at passing drivers, some of whom honk their horns in solidarity. I live in a very progressive town, where last November, Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, beat President Donald Trump by a margin of more than nine to one. Some of my friends ask, 'Why bother?' They think that we are preaching to the choir or that the president and his colleagues are impervious. These are, in a sense, the wrong questions. Protest is a democratic practice, valuable everywhere, regardless of its immediate impact. That is why it was so important that millions of Americans did their own Stand Up for Democracy events on June 14. While liberals took heart at those numbers, some conservative commentators called them 'utter nonsense.'
Writing in The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley argued, 'The well-funded protests are being fueled by Democratic leaders, who are resuming their claims that citizens must either protest... or accept tyranny in the U.S. Turley went on to call the No Kings day rallying cry, 'Democracy is dying'... an absurdity...., since every indication is that our constitutional system is operating precisely as designed.'
'Precisely as designed'? While I respect Prof. Turley, who is a well-published legal scholar, I don't share his Panglossian view of our current situation. And neither do millions of other Americans. New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke for many of them when he wrote that 'over the centuries, people built...(c)onstitutions to restrain power....Trumpism is threatening all of that. It is primarily about acquiring power...It is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed.'
While Brooks admitted that 'I don't naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I'm not covering as a journalist,' he concluded, 'this is what America needs right now.'
I agree. Developing a coordinated national movement to preserve democracy is an urgent priority. In the meantime, however, people should not wait to make their voices heard. But they need to be realistic about what protesting can and cannot do. That realism requires that those who protest understand that no matter how many of us hold rallies to express our devotion to democracy, we are unlikely to change the minds of those who support Trump. Some, like Turley, will continue to believe he is operating within the bounds of our constitutional system; others are happy with his autocratic tendencies. Conversion is, however, not the point, at least not at this time.
Commentators who urge people 'who are demonstrating to reach out to those who are not yet protesting and persuade them to join local groups that are fighting for our democracy' are offering a limited metric. Protesting is a democratic practice in and of itself. In some ways, it is like voting. It is a way of expressing an opinion, standing up for a point of view, rather than trying to change anyone's mind. Think of protest as a regular form of democratic participation, not an aberration or a departure from the routines of democratic life. Protest, Harvard's Stephen Jones says, 'inform(s) politicians of voters' concerns. Protest is an educational process which combats passivity.' If it is non-violent, Jones argues, 'it can deepen democracy's reach.... (and) at the heart of every democracy there is always a history of protest.' Vanessa Williamson, Senior Fellow at Brookings, puts it this way: 'Protest as an essential part of democracy, and...a critical political tool. So if you're thinking to yourself that in any given political fight, there's maybe a stronger party and a weaker party, for the weaker party, the way for them to win is to get people off the sidelines, right?'
That's what protests do, even when they are small and carried out in places like the progressive town in which I live. They are important because they make 'grievances and concerns and problems visible to others.' They are a way of being with others in a public arena. Courts have traditionally recognized that and accorded protests First Amendment protections. Gatherings on public streets, sidewalks, or parks constitute, they say, are a 'traditional public forum' where speech cannot be prohibited, except through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Protests enable members of a democratic community to express their thoughts, cheer on their side, make their voices heard, and combat despair. As the psychologist Radhule Weininger suggests, 'Taking action, especially collectively, can reduce feelings of helplessness....'
Weininger notes that 'when joining a rally, participants often report a stronger sense of control over their circumstances and future. Being surrounded by people with shared convictions creates a vital sense of community. Formerly frightened people feel less isolated and cultivate more agency. Moods are elevated and can transform from disheartened to energised and even joyful.' Unlike elections, where votes can be counted and the results known quickly, protests have a long and uncertain time horizon. That is as true for the No Kings protests as it is for any other. That fact is another reason why protesting is so important in a democracy. It helps people practice commitment, discipline, and patience. For those who want more, there is empirical evidence that non-violent protests ultimately yield results. Looking at demonstrations over the last century, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan Chenoweth found that nonviolent protests led to significant 'political change' 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests.
But they remind us that it takes 'around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.' Protest works, Professor Zeynep Tufekci explains, 'because they can undermine the most important pillar of power: legitimacy....Legitimacy, not repression, is the bedrock of resilient power.' Losing legitimacy, she adds, 'is the most important threat to authorities...because authorities can do only so much for so long to hold on to power under such conditions.' Protests, on her account, 'are a grab for attention: They are an attempt to force a conversation about the topic they're highlighting.... Successful protests are the ones that win that conversation and in the framing of the issue...' Protests are good for the soul. They can 'change the protesters themselves...when the cause is so powerful that the protesters don't calculate whether it works or not, but feel morally compelled to show up and be counted.'
Showing up and being counted, that's what democracy demands. That's why I'll be back, with whoever shows up, for Friday afternoons Stand Up for Democracy rallies/protests on a street corner in my progressive town.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
11 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Musk announces forming of 'America Party' in further break from Trump
The dispute between US President Donald Trump and his main campaign financier Elon Musk has taken another fractious turn when the billionaire announced the formation of a new political party, saying Trump's "big, beautiful" tax bill would bankrupt America. A day after asking his followers on his X platform whether a new US political party should be created, Musk declared in a post on Saturday that "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom. "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" he wrote. The announcement from Musk comes after Trump signed his self-styled "big, beautiful" tax-cut and spending bill into law on Friday, which Musk fiercely opposed. Musk, who became the word's richest man thanks to his Tesla car company and his SpaceX satellite firm, spent hundreds of millions on Trump's re-election and led the Department of Government Efficiency from the start of the president's second term aimed at slashing government spending. The first sign of investor dissatisfaction with Musk's announcement followed later in the day. Investment firm Azoria Partners will postpone the listing of a Tesla exchange-traded fund, Azoria CEO James Fishback said in a post on X. Fishback is asking Tesla's board to clarify Musk's political ambitions and said the new party undermines the confidence shareholders had that he would be focusing more on the company after leaving government service in May. Musk said previously that he would start a new political party and spend money to unseat lawmakers who supported the bill. Trump earlier this week threatened to cut off the billions of dollars in subsidies that Musk's companies receive from the federal government. Republicans have expressed concern that Musk's on-again, off-again feud with Trump could hurt their chances to protect their majority in the 2026 midterm congressional elections. Asked on X what was the one thing that made him go from loving Trump to attacking him, Musk said: "Increasing the deficit from an already insane $2T under Biden to $2.5T. This will bankrupt the country." There was no immediate comment from Trump or the White House on Musk's announcement. The feud with Trump, often described as one between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful, has led to several precipitous falls in Tesla's share price. The stock soared after Trump's November reelection and hit a high of more than $488 in December, before losing more than half of its value in April and closing last week out at $315.35. Despite Musk's deep pockets, breaking the Republican-Democratic duopoly will be a tall order, given that it has dominated American political life for more than 160 years, while Trump's approval ratings in polls in his second term have generally held firm above 40 per cent despite often divisive policies.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Democrats see Trump's big bill as key to their comeback
Steve Peoples and Hannah Fingerhut, Associated Press It is big and it is beautiful, President Donald Trump says. But for many Democratic leaders, the tax break and spending cut package passed by Trump's Republican allies in Congress on Thursday represents the key to the Democratic Party's resurgence. Even before the final vote, Democratic officials were finalizing ambitious plans for rallies, voter registration drives, attack ads, bus tours and even a multiday vigil, all intended to highlight the most controversial elements of Trump's "big beautiful" bill: deep cuts to the nation's safety net that will leave nearly 12 million more people without health coverage and millions of others without food assistance, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In political battlegrounds across Alaska and Iowa, Pennsylvania and California, Democrats have begun to use the bill against Republicans. Democrats are promising that the Republican president's domestic policy achievement to date will be the defining issue of every major election between now and next fall's midterms. "One thing is abundantly clear: Republicans own this mess and it's an albatross around their necks heading into the midterms," Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told the medeia. "This is the least popular legislation in modern history, and the more voters learn about it, the more they hate it. That's a clear directive for Democrats — we're going to make sure every single voter knows who is responsible." Even with early public opinion on their side, however, it's far from certain that the legislation will be the political winner Democrats hope. The Democratic brand remains deeply unpopular, the party has no clear leader, its message is muddled and core elements of the Democratic base are frustrated and drifting. Some of the bill's provisions will not take effect until after the 2026 election, so voters may not have felt the full impact by the time they vote. At the same time, it's unclear how many voters are paying attention to the Washington-based debate. The Democratic super political action committee Priorities USA warned this week that Democrats must work harder if they want their message to break through. "We can't just assume that because we're angry that the voters that we need to communicate with are angry. Everyone needs to step up and realise the enormous challenge that's in front of us," executive director Danielle Butterfield said. "We're nowhere near a good starting place." The bill provides for $4.5 trillion in tax breaks that were enacted in Trump's first term and would have expired if Congress failed to act. New breaks will allow workers to deduct tips and overtime pay. There are $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps and a major rollback of green energy investments. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the decade. Privately, some Democrats conceded that Republicans were smart to pass the bill on the eve of a holiday weekend when fewer voters would be paying attention. As some Democrats in Washington predicted a political backlash across America, the response was somewhat muted Thursday at a Democratic event in Iowa, barely 10 miles from the State Fairgrounds where Trump later drew thousands for an evening rally. An audience of roughly 100 people listened as local Democratic officials railed against the legislation and called on voters to oust Republican Rep. Zach Nunn, the local congressman, for supporting it. Audience member Michael Rieck, 69, said Iowa Democrats left him a message about the rally, but when he went online to learn more, "there was nothing." "I texted back to them that I didn't see any advertisement," he said. "They slowly corrected that. I'm still not impressed with what they did to advertise this event." Rieck said he wants to see different factions of the party better coordinate their message. Progressive activists were moving through Minnesota in a big green bus as part of Fair Share America's 29-stop "stop the billionaire giveaway" tour. The group is focused on Republican-led congressional districts where elected officials have largely stopped having in-person town halls with constituents. "We know we're fighting upstream," said Fair Share's executive director, Kristen Crowell. "But when people hear exactly what's in this bill, they're adamantly opposed." The bill is generally unpopular, according to polling conducted throughout the month of June, although some individual provisions are popular. For example, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that majorities of US adults support increasing the annual child tax credit and eliminating taxes on earnings from tips, and about half support work requirements for some adults who receive Medicaid. On the other hand, the poll found that majorities oppose reducing federal funding for food assistance to low-income families and spending about $45 billion to build and maintain migrant detention centers.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game
Noah Feldman, Tribune News Service Many legal commentators apparently believe that, in the term that just ended, the Supreme Court further enabled President Donald Trump. The court did, in fact, issue a series of conservative decisions that Trump likes. However, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court also simultaneously pursued a careful strategy aimed at preserving the rule of law in the face of Trump's unprecedented challenges to it. The court picked its battles, upholding a meaningful number of lower court orders that blocked unlawful Trump initiatives. At the same time, the justices worked hard to avoid a direct confrontation in which Trump might overtly declare his intention to ignore a court ruling. Even its most controversial recent decision — ending the Trump-era judicial practice of issuing universal injunctions against presidential action — may be understood as an effort to prevent lower courts from creating a direct conflict with the administration that might lead to a showdown the courts would lose. On this interpretation, Roberts wants to exercise his own careful judgment about when to go toe-to-toe with Trump. His goal is to avoid a constitutional crisis that could undermine the power of the judiciary for generations. Let me be crystal clear: I disagree strongly with essentially all of the ideologically conservative decisions the court issued this term. (You can read my columns on each of them to see why.) Yet these decisions, wrong though they are, were not the most important element of the Supreme Court's job since Trump took office. No, since Jan. 20, 2025, the court's essential function has been to fight for the preservation of the rule of law. That fight cannot be won simply by bluster, for a very specific constitutional reason: The Supreme Court has no direct enforcement power and no power of the purse. It is, as Alexander Hamilton famously wrote, 'the least dangerous branch' — which also means it is the least powerful. In the end, the Supreme Court has power only because the executive obeys it. If the president defies the courts, the only constitutional remedies available are congressional attempts to withhold funds (which is not going to happen under this Congress) and impeachment (good luck). Maybe — one can only hope — millions of people would go into the streets in defense of the rule of law. Maybe the financial markets would decline sharply. But these are extreme contingencies, and they might not work. Trump, more than any president before — even Abraham Lincoln in wartime — has shown he is prepared to openly violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States. His attacks on the judiciary, echoed by his vice president, are clearly intended to signal his openness to outright defiance. And in a direct constitutional crisis triggered by defiance of judicial orders, it's hard to say with confidence that Trump wouldn't win. So the job of the court over the last six months has been to hold the line. It has done so — not resoundingly, but cautiously, as befits judges who aren't politicians and don't have a constituency to rely on. When the lower courts blocked some of the president's efforts to freeze federal grant money and fire career government employees, the Supreme Court mostly left those orders in place. When District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to El Salvador without due process, the justices upheld the order — and he is now back in the US, albeit facing new criminal charges. When other detainees slated for deportation sought their day in court, the justices affirmed their due process rights. Of course, the court's majority hasn't stood up to the Trump administration in every instance. Sometimes that has been for technical legal reasons. But it is also because Roberts wants, ideally, to avoid a situation where Trump directly defies a court order. And if the confrontation must happen, Roberts and the other justices want it to be on an issue where the court's legal and rhetorical power is at its maximum. That means trying to pick an issue where the law is clearly against Trump; all nine of the justices agree; and no foreign actors outside the court's jurisdiction are necessary to effectuate the court's judgment.
