How movements can succeed or fail
Over the last two weeks, there have been protests on multiple college campuses led by students advocating for Palestine. The protests have been highly controversial and almost every pundit and commentator has had a hot take on it. There have been many debates online, on TV and in newspapers about where to draw the line on free speech versus public safety, what constitutes antisemitism, whether the tactics the protesters are using are counterproductive and so forth. All of those are legitimate points of debate and I have plenty of thoughts on those matters, but that’s not what I’m writing about here.
Reading about the protests and the many discussions they have started makes it worthwhile to look at what movements can do and should avoid doing to maximize their odds of succeeding. Examples of past movements that were successful include getting women the right to vote, the civil rights movement and equal rights for gay people. Movements that are still ongoing, but have had a lot success include efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, expand Medicaid and protect abortion rights.
Successful movements have shared some things in common. Some of those things are what they did and others are what they avoided. No two movements are exactly alike and none are ever centrally run.
I am not going to argue over the merits of Israel/Palestine here, but I think the protests on college campuses are highly likely to fail for many reasons. I will be using that and some other left-wing movements as examples of what not to do. I will also be using the anti-abortion movement as an example of what not to do. The vast majority of movements today are left-wing, which is why I will focus more on that than the right. For better or worse, the left is much more interested in policy and activism these days while the right, best exemplified by Trump, cares more about grifting, airing grievances and providing entertainment.
To be clear, the things movements should and shouldn’t do that I’m listing here are hardly exhaustive. They are just the biggest things I can think of off the top of my head. There are certainly many more things out there. There are also many others who are much better authorities than me on how movements can succeed or fail.
What successful movements do
The most important thing a movement needs to be successful is to have a concrete goal or goals that can actually be achieved. The civil rights movement is a case in point. Its goal was to end legal segregation and prohibit discrimination. That entailed many different things and took many different routes, but it was largely achieved. Discrimination in employment is illegal today because of the Civil Rights Act. Laws passed by states and localities that required segregation in all aspects of life are no more.
The movement for gay rights is another example. The goal was to have gay people be treated equally in the eyes of the law. That meant allowing gay people to have the same rights as straight people whether it was in employment, military service, marriage or anything else.
A problem the campus protesters have is it’s not clear what their aim is. Many of them have said they want their colleges to divest from Israel, but that’s not really possible. As this piece points out, colleges invest in many different types of funds that can’t be separated from companies that do business in or with Israel. Even if colleges did divest, it would just mean someone else is investing because someone would have to buy whatever they sold.
Divestment proponents like to point to South Africa, but, to the extent it really had an effect, it’s the exception that proves the rule. Divestment might make the protesters feel good, but it won’t change the situation in Gaza.[i] Beyond divestment, it’s not clear what the protesters want. They love to shout slogans, but that’s not policy. What does it mean, for example, to “free Palestine”? There is nothing close to a consensus on that as far as I can tell.
If a movement’s goals are unclear, it’s not going to succeed. There has to be agreed upon goals that can be measured. Without that, a movement can easily devolve into showmanship. If someone enjoys protesting for its own sake, that’s their right. But if someone really wants to affect actual change in peoples’ lives that’s not going to work. Coming up with real solutions is much harder than shouting catchy slogans.[ii]
Another thing successful movements do is meet people where they are. The successful push for gay marriage is an example of that. It wasn’t long ago when gay marriage was illegal and very unpopular. That’s no longer the case, but it didn’t happen overnight. Those advocating for gay marriage successfully convinced people opposed to it to change their minds. They did it in part by showing empathy and making it clear that they understood the unease many people had with it.
Gay marriage was a novel idea and many people naturally fear new things. Those pushing to legalize gay marriage made the case that all they wanted was to be treated equally. Often times, arguments for gay marriage centered around promoting marriage and families, causes frequently championed by social conservatives. The point of all that was to reassure people who were nervous about gay marriage that it was okay and didn’t threaten them. Those advocating for gay marriage made it clear that they understood it was a new thing and just because someone opposed it didn’t mean they were evil.
The success the pro-choice cause has had since 2022 is another example of meeting people where they are. Since Roe v Wade was reversed, the pro-choice cause has won nearly every fight. It has had success in blue, purple and red states. It’s not surprising that it would win in blue or even purple states, but I doubt many people thought it would be winning landslide victories in Kansas and Ohio.
The people who ran the campaigns for abortion rights in those two states are probably solidly pro-choice and left-wing on most issues. But they were aware that most people there are not like that. The messaging they used reflected that reality. See here for some of the ads that were run in Kansas.
While pro-choice advocates think abortion is always morally right, the advocates in Kansas and Ohio knew that many persuadable people didn’t feel that way. They knew there were people who had moral qualms about abortion, but were uneasy about banning it. Rather than lecture them about why they were wrong, advocates reached out to them and told them they understood why they felt that way and that they could still vote for abortion rights.
Successful movements know when to keep pushing and when to take the win. It’s rare to find a movement for something that is popular on every aspect of it. For example, the pro-choice cause is very popular, but not everything about abortion is popular. Support for abortion later in a pregnancy is not as widely supported as abortion early on.
The pro-choice movement has so far been very smart and strategic in how they have approached abortion in states where it’s banned, but allow for ballot initiatives. As I mentioned in a recent piece, though, some groups seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. There are efforts in some solidly red states that currently ban abortion to get initiatives on the ballot. However, they don’t go as far as pro-choice advocacy groups want and so some are not supporting those efforts.
In Arkansas, there is an effort to get an initiative on the ballot to legalize abortion up to 18 weeks. For that to happen in Arkansas would be incredible. Arkansas is not just a red state, it’s very religious. It’s one of the few states where the pro-choice cause could be at a disadvantage. Legalizing abortion up to 18 weeks is a position more likely to win than the position of pro-choice advocates.
FYI, allowing abortion up to 18 weeks would make more than 95% of abortions legal. If pro-choice groups had any sense at all, they would take that as a huge win. Unfortunately, some of them don’t have any sense and the national pro-choice groups are not supporting the initiative. Sure, 0% of abortions will be legal if the initiative fails, but at least those groups will feel good about how righteous and pure they are.
Environmental groups are another example of not knowing when to take the win. As I wrote about earlier, Biden has made climate change a priority and signed the first ever comprehensive piece of legislation addressing it. That’s a big win, but you would never know that from how some of those groups are acting. Rather than taking the win and trying to help Biden get reelected, they’re making new demands and pushing him to do things that will undermine his chances of winning.
Not knowing when to take the win is a problem for two reasons. One is that continuing to push further risks overreaching and producing a backlash that will undermine previous gains. The other is it’s a great way for a movement to wear out its welcome. If a movement pushes things too far, it risks angering people in positions of power and losing its seat at the table and the influence that comes with it.
What successful movements also do is broaden their coalition as much as possible. Movement leaders are often highly ideological, but very few people are. It’s possible to assemble a broad coalition of support for a particular cause even if its supporters do so for completely different reasons. What movement leaders have to remember is that it’s the ultimate goal that matters, not the reason people have for supporting it. If someone, for example, supports clean energy because it makes them money and they couldn’t care any less about climate change, that’s fine with me and it should be fine with anyone who cares about that cause.
Successful movements must have credibility. People have to believe advocates really are in favor of what they claim to be. When a movement is seen as insincere or hypocritical, it’s going to be hard to convince people of the righteousness of its cause. That’s a problem the anti-abortion movement has. Its leaders come heavily from the religious right. As I wrote about recently, the religious right has been thoroughly discredited by supporting Trump after decades of lecturing everyone about morals and family values.
The problem of lacking credibility is one the campus protesters have and so do many others advocating for the Palestinian cause. Only a small minority of them believe this, but there are advocates who believe what Hamas did on October 7 was justified or refuse to condemn it. Many of those same people call what is happening in Gaza genocide.
There’s a major inconsistency with claiming to be fighting for human rights while refusing to condemn what Hamas did or, worse, justifying or excusing it. You can’t go around saying your movement is all about human rights when you only care about the suffering of some people. It’s entirely possible to believe Israel’s response to Hamas has been unjustified while also condemning the latter and making it clear they’re bad and need to go.
What successful movements don’t do
In the case of those advocating for Palestine, a problem they have is that their cause is, very often unfairly, associated with extremists. At protests, it’s not uncommon for someone to be shouting something antisemitic or justifying violence. That’s not the view of a vast majority of advocates for Palestine, but it’s critical for movements to do everything possible to not be associated with people like that.
At a large, public protest, anyone can show up and act horribly. There is no way to prevent that. While movement leaders and groups can’t stop all bad actors, they aren’t helpless either. What groups involved in pushing for a cause can do is police their own ranks. If a member or leader is saying or doing something that is not what the group supports, they can and should be kicked out.
For example, at Columbia, one of the student protest leaders recorded a video on social media where he said Zionists deserve to die. The linked to article quotes another student who is involved in the protests saying that is not who they are or what they are about. If that is the case, then they should expel him and make it clear that anyone who says things like that is not welcome. Many things are beyond the control of any group, but who their leaders and members are is one thing they can do something about.
The movement for criminal justice reform had a similar problem beginning in 2020. Criminal justice reform had been on a winning streak for years and had achieved some very important victories. But many of its advocates were on the wrong side of public opinion when they endorsed defunding the police. Making matters worse was the tendency among some in the criminal justice advocacy world to deny or downplay the surge in crime that happened in 2020-21.
Being associated with extremists is a great way to alienate almost everyone. It can take a popular or potentially popular cause and make it toxic. In the worst case scenario, a movement becoming associated with extremists can mean the opposite of its goal winds up happening.
Related to avoiding becoming associated with extremists is keeping your eye on the ball. A movement has to be disciplined and stick to its mission. For example, those who are advocating for abortion rights should stick to it and not talk about anything else. The same is true for those advocating for climate change, immigration, criminal justice reform or any other cause. A successful movement must build a broad coalition of support to succeed and taking positions on issues having nothing to do with its mission is a great way to undermine that.
The unwillingness to stay focused has been a problem for almost every left-wing advocacy group lately. There are many criticisms I have of that crowd and that is one of the biggest. It has become fashionable in left-wing advocacy circles to see everything as being connected. That idea is often called “intersectionality.” What it means is abortion is connected to criminal justice, which is connected to gay rights, which is connected to climate change, which is connected to immigration, which is connected to Palestine, etc. It’s patently absurd, but it has taken hold in that world and every group infected by it has become Lord of the Flies.
Since the war in Gaza began, examples of intersectionality have been plentiful. Advocates for gay rights have come out in favor of freeing Palestine. The same is true for groups advocating for action on climate change. Some unions have even joined the fray.
That is a terrible move on those groups’ part. Palestine is its own issue. It has nothing to do with gay rights, abortion, climate change or organizing workers. What’s happening in Gaza has nothing to do with what happened to George Floyd.
When groups whose mission has nothing to do with an issue take a position on it, they risk alienating supporters and potential supporters. They also risk becoming all-purpose advocacy groups. Trying to advocate for everything inherently limits their appeal and reduces the number of people they can reach.
A movement has to stick to its core mission and not deviate from it no matter how tempting it is. I’m sure in the left-wing advocacy world, particularly in New York and DC, everyone knows everyone. If all the other groups are taking positions on every issue there is, it’s hard to be the odd one out. But it has to happen for groups to stay true to what they were created to fight for.
A problem the campus protesters have had is that the focus of almost all of the media coverage has been about the protestors themselves. Very little of the coverage of the protests has mentioned what is going on in Gaza and what is being done or could be done about it. That’s another thing for a movement to avoid. A movement must draw attention to the cause, not to the cause’s advocates.
If the focus is on advocates and groups’ behavior, then it’s not on what they are advocating for. The goal of advocacy and protesting should be to get attention and gain support for a cause. Anything that distracts from that is a failure on the part of those advocating for whatever the cause is.
[i] Leaving aside the merits of divestment, I disagree strongly with comparing Israel to South Africa under apartheid. The latter was unambiguously evil and no legitimate or rational case could be made for it. Criticize the Israeli government all you want, but it’s not in the same galaxy as South Africa’s government was. Agree with supporting Israel or not, there is a legitimate and rational case to be made for it.
[ii] Pro tip, if you’re going to use slogans, their meaning should be self-evident. If you have to explain what a slogan means, it’s a bad slogan.