By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The “No Kings” rallies, organized by groups like Indivisible, saw an estimated seven million people participating nationwide, making it a record-breaking single-day protest. This movement’s success hinges on a localized approach, encouraging participation in communities rather than centralized events, which is reflected in the Harvard Kennedy School research indicating a rise in anti-Trump protests, particularly in traditionally conservative areas. A key factor for success, according to Erica Chenoweth’s research, includes nonviolent tactics, appealing to new demographics, and achieving momentum, but most importantly, a minimum of 3.5% of the population must participate. With the movement’s rapid growth in recent months, reaching this critical threshold of nearly 12 million protesters may be within reach.
Read the original article here
‘3.5% rule’: The anti-Trump movement is nearing an important threshold
The idea of the “3.5% rule” has become a focal point, drawing attention to the potential tipping point for movements against authoritarian regimes. The underlying principle suggests that when at least 3.5% of a population engages in sustained, non-violent resistance, the likelihood of challenging an authoritarian government significantly increases. It’s crucial to remember that this isn’t a hard and fast law but rather an observation based on historical patterns.
Recent events, such as the “No Kings” rallies, have brought this discussion into sharp focus. The reported turnout of nearly seven million people for these nationwide protests is impressive, reflecting a growing level of discontent. Indivisible, a key organizer, has emphasized the importance of local action, encouraging protesters to organize events within their own communities rather than traveling long distances. This focus on localized effort is key, indicating a deeper level of commitment and a potentially more sustainable form of resistance. However, a crucial point emerges: are these actions merely a starting point, or are they evolving towards a more impactful form of resistance?
Many believe that the current level of protest, while a positive sign, may not be enough to effect meaningful change. The argument is that more disruptive actions are needed to truly challenge the status quo. These actions could include shutting down businesses, blocking roads, or even general strikes, which would cause significant economic disruption. The concern is that the current approach, where people can participate in a protest and then return to their regular lives, lacks the urgency and sustained pressure necessary to force change. The belief is that things must worsen significantly, with more people suffering economically, before a true tipping point is reached.
The severity of potential economic hardship, fueled by policies, could become a catalyst for more widespread and sustained resistance. As economic conditions deteriorate, the belief is that a larger percentage of the population will become willing to take to the streets and demand change. This transition from individual actions to coordinated, disruptive tactics is seen as a necessary evolution. The need for a general strike is often mentioned as a key strategy. The concept of a general strike is a step up, involving a widespread refusal to participate in economic activities, with the potential to paralyze society and force those in power to take notice.
There is a sense that scheduled protests, while important for building solidarity, may not be enough on their own. The implication is that people must be prepared to make personal sacrifices and take real risks. The scale of the movement is critical. The “No Kings” protests drew a substantial crowd, representing a significant percentage of the voting population, but the challenge lies in sustaining this momentum and evolving it into something more disruptive. It is a sentiment that says what is needed is a level of disruption that makes it impossible to ignore the power of the people. This requires sustained and concentrated action, not just a series of events, and that this requires planning and is more difficult.
There is an awareness that, reaching this critical mass of 3.5% of the population, the anti-Trump movement will face increased scrutiny and challenges. It’s likely that efforts will be made to downplay or discredit the movement. This is where sustained effort becomes important, and requires careful thought.
The discussion also explores how a general strike may be a more impactful form of protest compared to traditional demonstrations. A general strike, where individuals simply stay home and abstain from economic activity, could be more appealing to people with family responsibilities and those concerned about the risk of violence or arrest. It highlights the need to move beyond simple demonstrations and toward actions that directly challenge the economic foundations of the current power structure.
It is worth noting that while the “3.5% rule” is often cited, the precise number and its implications are subject to debate. Some people believe that the actual threshold might be higher, perhaps even 5% or 10%, particularly when considering the need for actions that are more impactful. There’s a debate of whether the reported numbers of participants in the “No Kings” protests are accurate and whether the action was fully reported. The level of organization and disruption is critical. What needs to happen is action that can cause society to grind to a halt.
There’s the sentiment that the leadership is the greatest hurdle. There’s also the reality that the “No Kings” rallies may not have fully demonstrated the sustained level of disruption needed to achieve the movement’s goals. The emphasis is on building something that will truly challenge those in power, and the idea of a general strike as the ultimate goal. The idea of the impact is the key; a strike would hurt the wallets of those in power.