Political activism follows many of the same principles as traditional advertising. In both cases, you want to -

a. Reach people who are receptive to your message, and can act on your message (i.e. can afford your product, can influence legislature).

b. Optimize your message to persuade or influence said people.

Considerations like these led many protestors to DC last week. They wanted to influence the Senators who would decide Kavanaugh’s fate.

That brings us to the first part of this article. Are these protests actually a cost-effective (or at all effective) form of political activism?

Part 1: The Ineffectiveness and Inefficiency of Mass Protests

Protestors on Capitol hill (Getty Images)

Many thousands of people flooded the streets and government buildings of DC to protest Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. High profile Democrats and liberal groups assisted with funding and organization. Hundreds were arrested, including comedian Amy Schumer. When two women confronted Flake in an elevator and passionately shared their stories of sexual assault, it seemed like a watershed moment that could put a stop to the confirmation.

But, despite the protestors’ best efforts, Kavanaugh comfortably coasted to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush was the GOP’s closer here. He made pivotal calls to Senator Collins, Senator Flake, and other Senators. A former president with a historically low approval rating upon exiting office, who had led the country into the least popular war in US history, had successfully pushed the least popular Supreme Court confirmation in history. Bush’s legacy seemed to tip the balance more than public protest or national opinion.

Anthony Kennedy swearing in Kavanaugh for the Circuit Court (on left), and for the Supreme Court (on right)

Even before Kavanaugh, mass protests in the US did not have a good track record. Occupy Wall Street has done little to stop widening wealth inequality. The Vietnam protests didn’t prevent that war from dragging on long after the White House knew it was a lost cause. The Womens’ Marches of 2017 and 2018 have seemingly not led to significant shifts in attitudes on gender issues. The 2018 Women’s March was just a fraction of its 2017 strength, so the movement failed even to maintain energy among its supporters.

There can also be a high entrance cost for political protests. The participants must disrupt their normal routine, and often have travel expenses. This disruption can be manageable for 1–2 days, but it becomes a real burden if the protests extend for weeks or months, like for the Vietnam and Occupy Wall Street protests. In stark contrast, for the American public at large that the protestors want to influence, these protests cause little to no disruption to their personal lives. The protestors are just a crowd on a TV/smartphone that can easily be turned off.

This is not to say mass protests aren’t at all important. They let like-minded people feel connected and involved. They can influence the national dialogue at times. But protests do often seem to be woefully inadequate for changing public opinion or government policy. They seem to especially flounder in times of extreme partisanship, where direct confrontation can lead to non-leftists simply bunkering down.

While there are limitless ways activists could spend their time and resources, one idea is for them to engage independents and conservatives on an individual level. Whether that means going door to door, attending public venues, or just having civil and substantial conversations on the internet.

In these engagements, a key goal should be sharing information and knowledge. This knowledge by no means has to be “liberal” in nature. The core of Trump’s political strategy is to destroy society’s shared set of facts, to make lies just as valid as truths. Sharing non-partisan reality impedes that goal.

There is not a high burden of political knowledge for this strategy, either. It’s okay if an activist is unable to explain the emoluments clause, or Trump’s collusion with Russia. It could be very helpful to just share basic information, like that false rape accusations are rare, and that Christine Ford’s memory gaps were just like we’d expect. Or just pick somewhere to start on Trump’s ever growing list of thousands of lies.