I believe you offer sound advice here and in later posts about protest. However, I believe you need to provide more historical context for the decision-making process an individual undergoes about whether to take to the streets in opposition to authoritarianism.
Peer-reviewed research has shown that visible, public protest is a lynchpin to weakening authoritarians. Without this context, I fear your writing does more to frighten people away from acting than it does to prepare them. I fear this may undermine, even in a small way, the ongoing efforts to get people out there.
I encourage you to take a tone that incorporates this politico-historical work into deciding whether to protest or not, any time, anywhere.
A recent discussion I have found useful is "Democracy on the Line: How We Got Here and How To Stop an Authoritarian Takeover," A conversation between Heather Cox Richardson (Boston College), Steven Levitsky (Harvard University), Senator Doug Jones (Center for American Progress) on the significance of what is happening to American democracy and how we can prevent authoritarianism from taking root. (https://www.americanprogress.org/events/dropping-anchor-what-we-can-do-to-stop-drifting-to-authoritarianism/)
Thank you for your thoughtful comment — it’s clear we’re aligned on the fundamental truth that visible, collective protest is essential to challenging authoritarianism. I deeply respect the body of research both you, and the panel refer to, and I’m especially glad it mentions Erica Chenoweth’s work. It’s been foundational to so much of our shared understanding about the power of nonviolent resistance.
That said, part of my role here is to build on that work by applying it to the terrain we’re currently navigating — which, as even Chenoweth now cautions, is markedly different from the one that shaped the 3.5% rule. I’ve covered this in an earlier post, but I’ll briefly flag a few core issues for context: the original data set ends in 2006, before predictive policing, digital surveillance, or algorithmic disinformation were in widespread use. That 3.5% threshold has since been broken *without success* more than once, and Chenoweth has issued cautionary updates urging us not to treat that figure as a formula. (Again, I referred to this, with links, in my previous post https://loricorbetmann.substack.com/p/resistance-is-not-one-size-fits-all ) Protest movements now face a radically different risk environment, which changes the organising calculus in crucial ways.
To your point about tone: I absolutely take seriously the concern that hard truths could dissuade people from acting. It’s something I wrestle with daily. But I also believe I have a duty of care. Tracking real-time developments, what I see unfolding demands we get more strategic, not more upbeat. If I err on the side of caution, it’s because people’s safety is on the line, and in this environment, optimism without adaptation can compromise people's futures.
I believe people are brave enough to handle the truth, if we tell it to them clearly — and give them tools to navigate it. So, what I aim to do is help people act wisely. To know when to show up, how to show up, how to care for themselves, and just as importantly, how to sustain pressure through other means when mass visibility carries heightened risk or diminishing returns. Street protest is only one piece of the puzzle — Erica Chemoweth’s more recent work points to several others.
Thanks again for engaging with care — I’ll keep doing the same.
Thanks Lori, I appreciate the resources and will spend time with them in the coming days.
As a new subscriber, I have not yet gotten into the archive of your posts; I look forward to doing so. I did read your previous post and loved the image of widening the field.
I do think we're in a time when protest will become increasingly risky. I guess I'm wishing for a post about the reasons, philosophical or otherwise, that guide people to choose their paths of action, risky or otherwise. I've done some solid soul searching and my deepest beliefs guide the parameters I've set for myself. But mine may be different from some else's.
I believe discussions about these-- beliefs *and* parameters-- would help people know *how* to widen the field in which they stand; they may offer ideas that help people move beyond outrage or anger or fear and delve more deeply into what they believe, what they hope for.
You gesture toward this is your post "How to Resist Strategically on 14 June." Yet you do it from a perspective of caution, of examining how an individual's actions might hurt etc. That's really important. But sometimes, deeply held values and beliefs provide an essential counterpoint to caution. They can inform the discussions one has with loved ones about *why* they are choosing their action paths, and what the loved ones can do to support or respectfully decline to support those paths, for example.
*That's* the kind of thinking I would like to read about here and elsewhere. In a small group I am lucky enough to be working with, we will soon begin talking about what we can/will beyond (or alongside of) protest. What are the feelings and beliefs that underpin the *why* of action for them?
I believe we can't make tough decisions without a strong foundation we can trust. So we'll be talking as a group about what those foundations are. I think that will enrich our work together. These are also discussions I'm having with family and friends. Some of my closest people do not agree with me-- that's their prerogative. But I am clear with them that there is more than can engage in than hand-wringing. Ican offer ideas and information, but it's *their* work to figure out what that is.
Are you familiar with Pramila Jayapal's Resistance Lab? I love that it moves offers a model of how to undermine authoritarianism beyond protest. The group I participated with did some great brainstorming about specific actions that grow out of the information she presented. https://www.youtube.com/live/_xMpZmLwdHw
OK, this is way too long and I fear I may be rambling. Apologies if it is and I am. I hope it broadens my initial response to your post.
Thank you so much for your generous, reflective comment Kay. I hear you—and I’m deeply grateful for the insight and clarity you’ve offered here.
You’re absolutely right that my post on How to Resist Strategically on 14 June leaned heavily on caution. At the time of writing, No Kings was showing five separate protests planned for DC alone, and I was seriously concerned about the implications. I was worried that a convergence in the capital might trigger exactly the kind of trap the NSSE designation was designed to set. In the end, I was hugely relieved to see that all protests avoided DC. That felt like a collective act of wisdom and restraint.
You're right to point out that while caution is sometimes necessary, it isn't always sufficient. Deeply held beliefs and values can be a powerful counterweight, moving us to act even when the risks are high. But we also need to recognise that they can also create deep internal conflict. For many people, that pull toward action is constrained by real and serious limits: the colour of their skin, gender identity, caregiving responsibilities, health, legal status, physical ability. Sometimes the risk is simply too great, even when the cause feels non-negotiable. That tension is real — I’ve felt it in my own conversations. But this is all part of the work. Navigating the space between belief and risk, alignment and divergence is where so much clarity can emerge. I’m grateful for your nudge, because it’s helped clarify that this is a conversation that we should open up more fully in a future post.
Finally, undermining authoritarianism beyond protest is actually one of the key threads I’ve been quietly working on behind the scenes. The post "Why Resistance Is Not One Size Fits All" was my first attempt to open that conversation gently, even while the focus stayed on protest. Your comment affirms that the time is right to take it further. I’ll be continuing in that direction, and I hope you’ll stay in the conversation, Kay. I’m so grateful for your voice.
No apology necessary Kay — I’m delighted you’ve returned to this discussion, and look forward to having the time to properly absorb your contribution. Unfortunately that won’t be tonight or most of tomorrow, but I’ll be sure to get back to it over the weekend.
NLG Legal Observer program- this is helpfuol for protests because legal observers do literally just that- they observe and document to help protect the rights of protesters.
I was in the Ohio chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild’s Legal Observer training last night, and this info is specific to Ohio- ALWAYS check your own state's laws as well as those for the city/county where you are protesting!!! In Ohio, it’s a felony to wear a white mask at protests. If someone wants to wear a mask, their best bet is to wear a dark one ***in Ohio****.
June 11
Lori,
I believe you offer sound advice here and in later posts about protest. However, I believe you need to provide more historical context for the decision-making process an individual undergoes about whether to take to the streets in opposition to authoritarianism.
Peer-reviewed research has shown that visible, public protest is a lynchpin to weakening authoritarians. Without this context, I fear your writing does more to frighten people away from acting than it does to prepare them. I fear this may undermine, even in a small way, the ongoing efforts to get people out there.
I encourage you to take a tone that incorporates this politico-historical work into deciding whether to protest or not, any time, anywhere.
A recent discussion I have found useful is "Democracy on the Line: How We Got Here and How To Stop an Authoritarian Takeover," A conversation between Heather Cox Richardson (Boston College), Steven Levitsky (Harvard University), Senator Doug Jones (Center for American Progress) on the significance of what is happening to American democracy and how we can prevent authoritarianism from taking root. (https://www.americanprogress.org/events/dropping-anchor-what-we-can-do-to-stop-drifting-to-authoritarianism/)
Kay,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment — it’s clear we’re aligned on the fundamental truth that visible, collective protest is essential to challenging authoritarianism. I deeply respect the body of research both you, and the panel refer to, and I’m especially glad it mentions Erica Chenoweth’s work. It’s been foundational to so much of our shared understanding about the power of nonviolent resistance.
That said, part of my role here is to build on that work by applying it to the terrain we’re currently navigating — which, as even Chenoweth now cautions, is markedly different from the one that shaped the 3.5% rule. I’ve covered this in an earlier post, but I’ll briefly flag a few core issues for context: the original data set ends in 2006, before predictive policing, digital surveillance, or algorithmic disinformation were in widespread use. That 3.5% threshold has since been broken *without success* more than once, and Chenoweth has issued cautionary updates urging us not to treat that figure as a formula. (Again, I referred to this, with links, in my previous post https://loricorbetmann.substack.com/p/resistance-is-not-one-size-fits-all ) Protest movements now face a radically different risk environment, which changes the organising calculus in crucial ways.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Erica%20Chenoweth_2020-005.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzQSEpI9oqU
To your point about tone: I absolutely take seriously the concern that hard truths could dissuade people from acting. It’s something I wrestle with daily. But I also believe I have a duty of care. Tracking real-time developments, what I see unfolding demands we get more strategic, not more upbeat. If I err on the side of caution, it’s because people’s safety is on the line, and in this environment, optimism without adaptation can compromise people's futures.
I believe people are brave enough to handle the truth, if we tell it to them clearly — and give them tools to navigate it. So, what I aim to do is help people act wisely. To know when to show up, how to show up, how to care for themselves, and just as importantly, how to sustain pressure through other means when mass visibility carries heightened risk or diminishing returns. Street protest is only one piece of the puzzle — Erica Chemoweth’s more recent work points to several others.
Thanks again for engaging with care — I’ll keep doing the same.
Thanks Lori, I appreciate the resources and will spend time with them in the coming days.
As a new subscriber, I have not yet gotten into the archive of your posts; I look forward to doing so. I did read your previous post and loved the image of widening the field.
I do think we're in a time when protest will become increasingly risky. I guess I'm wishing for a post about the reasons, philosophical or otherwise, that guide people to choose their paths of action, risky or otherwise. I've done some solid soul searching and my deepest beliefs guide the parameters I've set for myself. But mine may be different from some else's.
I believe discussions about these-- beliefs *and* parameters-- would help people know *how* to widen the field in which they stand; they may offer ideas that help people move beyond outrage or anger or fear and delve more deeply into what they believe, what they hope for.
You gesture toward this is your post "How to Resist Strategically on 14 June." Yet you do it from a perspective of caution, of examining how an individual's actions might hurt etc. That's really important. But sometimes, deeply held values and beliefs provide an essential counterpoint to caution. They can inform the discussions one has with loved ones about *why* they are choosing their action paths, and what the loved ones can do to support or respectfully decline to support those paths, for example.
*That's* the kind of thinking I would like to read about here and elsewhere. In a small group I am lucky enough to be working with, we will soon begin talking about what we can/will beyond (or alongside of) protest. What are the feelings and beliefs that underpin the *why* of action for them?
I believe we can't make tough decisions without a strong foundation we can trust. So we'll be talking as a group about what those foundations are. I think that will enrich our work together. These are also discussions I'm having with family and friends. Some of my closest people do not agree with me-- that's their prerogative. But I am clear with them that there is more than can engage in than hand-wringing. Ican offer ideas and information, but it's *their* work to figure out what that is.
Are you familiar with Pramila Jayapal's Resistance Lab? I love that it moves offers a model of how to undermine authoritarianism beyond protest. The group I participated with did some great brainstorming about specific actions that grow out of the information she presented. https://www.youtube.com/live/_xMpZmLwdHw
OK, this is way too long and I fear I may be rambling. Apologies if it is and I am. I hope it broadens my initial response to your post.
K
Thank you so much for your generous, reflective comment Kay. I hear you—and I’m deeply grateful for the insight and clarity you’ve offered here.
You’re absolutely right that my post on How to Resist Strategically on 14 June leaned heavily on caution. At the time of writing, No Kings was showing five separate protests planned for DC alone, and I was seriously concerned about the implications. I was worried that a convergence in the capital might trigger exactly the kind of trap the NSSE designation was designed to set. In the end, I was hugely relieved to see that all protests avoided DC. That felt like a collective act of wisdom and restraint.
You're right to point out that while caution is sometimes necessary, it isn't always sufficient. Deeply held beliefs and values can be a powerful counterweight, moving us to act even when the risks are high. But we also need to recognise that they can also create deep internal conflict. For many people, that pull toward action is constrained by real and serious limits: the colour of their skin, gender identity, caregiving responsibilities, health, legal status, physical ability. Sometimes the risk is simply too great, even when the cause feels non-negotiable. That tension is real — I’ve felt it in my own conversations. But this is all part of the work. Navigating the space between belief and risk, alignment and divergence is where so much clarity can emerge. I’m grateful for your nudge, because it’s helped clarify that this is a conversation that we should open up more fully in a future post.
Finally, undermining authoritarianism beyond protest is actually one of the key threads I’ve been quietly working on behind the scenes. The post "Why Resistance Is Not One Size Fits All" was my first attempt to open that conversation gently, even while the focus stayed on protest. Your comment affirms that the time is right to take it further. I’ll be continuing in that direction, and I hope you’ll stay in the conversation, Kay. I’m so grateful for your voice.
No apology necessary Kay — I’m delighted you’ve returned to this discussion, and look forward to having the time to properly absorb your contribution. Unfortunately that won’t be tonight or most of tomorrow, but I’ll be sure to get back to it over the weekend.
Warmly,
Lori
Some additional information from the National Lawyer's Guild (NLG).
https://www.nlg.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/KYR-zine.pdf
Know your rights if pulled over- just because...
https://www.nlg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Legal-Steps-Choices-MSLC.pdf
KNow your rights if you are arrested
https://www.nlg.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Know-Your-Rights-Booklet-2022.pdf
Know your rights for protesting
https://www.nlg.org/massdefenseprogram/
NLG Mass Defense program
https://www.nlg.org/massdefenseprogram/los/
NLG Legal Observer program- this is helpfuol for protests because legal observers do literally just that- they observe and document to help protect the rights of protesters.
I was in the Ohio chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild’s Legal Observer training last night, and this info is specific to Ohio- ALWAYS check your own state's laws as well as those for the city/county where you are protesting!!! In Ohio, it’s a felony to wear a white mask at protests. If someone wants to wear a mask, their best bet is to wear a dark one ***in Ohio****.
Also, some additional resources for Ohio folks: https://ohionlg.com/know-your-rights/
Thank you again! I've restacked this. 😊
Thanks!!!!! <3 That is amazing!!!!
Thank you Lori.
You're welcome Mariane.