The American Opposition Has a Mandate. Will They Accept It?
After millions marched, the real test begins: Will the movement—and its leaders—follow through?
It feels anticlimactic to master the game of chess and face down Vladimir Putin only to get stumped by tech issues on a livestreaming platform… and yet here we are. Substack Live continues to vex us. I’m very sorry that last night’s broadcast on the Russia-Iran axis didn’t work out—we missed you! We’ve communicated with the Substack team and it looks like the issue has been resolved, so we’re going to try again—join us Live today at 5pm ET/2pm PT.
We do a fair bit of (fair) criticism here at The Next Move. So to mix things up, we’re going to start with some positivity. Even a Russian dissident is capable of such things!
Five million people protested across the United States over the weekend—for liberal democracy and the rule of law and against a wannabe strongman. That’s 1.5% of all Americans taking part in a coordinated action. In some cities, the share of the population that took to the streets was even greater. Take, for example, Philadelphia, where roughly 100,000 went out—equal to 7% of the city of 1.5 million. Participants waved the stars and stripes and channeled this nation’s best values. It represented a powerful split screen next to Trump’s flaccid display of authoritarian impotence along the military parade route in DC.
Credit where it’s due—I have little to quibble when it comes to what actually took place this weekend. The protests were thoughtful, patriotic, and peaceful.
But I do have some thoughts on what comes next.
First: This can’t be a one-off.
In order to have a long-term impact, mass demonstrations need to be a sustained phenomenon. They should be happening at a regular cadence—ideally weekly. Attendees can’t go to a march, grab a selfie for their Instagram story, feel good about themselves, and wash their hands of their civic responsibility. Of course, not every person will have time to join in at every event, but as protests become more frequent they can absorb some degree of churn.
Next, sharpen the ask.
The theme of the recent protests—supporting American democracy—was pitch perfect. The message, however, was a little scattered. For the first round, I’ll give that a pass—the objective at this stage in the game was to raise visibility and emphasize that the status quo is not normal—something successfully accomplished by the No Kings rallies. The next step needs to be to refine that messaging. In Russia, our appeal was clear: we wanted the government to hold free and fair elections. Protesters here in the US will have to ask themselves—what, specifically, are we calling for? “Democracy” is a system, not a demand.
The object of the protests will also need to be strategically defined.
I wrote last week that admonishing Trump and his most loyal sycophants is an empty gesture. The president and his inner circle are unburdened by guilt. They feel vindicated by their return to power. Still, there are those with influence who could do something yet remain paralyzed by inaction, namely the Democratic leadership. Senator Chuck Schumer actually did show up to a demonstration in New York—the bare minimum. Yet Hakeem Jeffries evidently failed to pass even that basic threshold.
At this point, politicians have no excuse for fence-sitting. The opposition’s elected representatives have a mandate for hearings, investigations, and—where necessary—lawsuits. Every single day. The No Kings protests approached the 3.5% rule—the notion, advanced by Harvard’s Erica Chenoweth, that no government can withstand a protest movement mobilizing 3.5% of the population. Naturally, there are exceptions and even Chenoweth concedes that this is more “a tendency, rather than a law,” but the underlying point is sound: Get enough people peacefully resisting the administration and something will have to budge.
Of course, it won’t be easy. Here’s a preview of what lies ahead:
With Russia and Iran making a mockery of Trump’s posturing as a “peace candidate,” domestic policy—specifically, immigration—remains the president’s last card. We know from Los Angeles how the president will proceed. Launch deportation raids that disrupt immigrant communities and trigger protests in Democratic jurisdictions. Do everything possible to pick a fight with municipal and state authorities and provoke a violent response. Then send in the troops—National Guard, Marines—why not Army and Air Force next?
Meanwhile, tragedies like the assassination of Democratic state legislator Melissa Hortman in Minnesota are predictably unpredictable—we can’t know what exactly will happen or when, but we can know that disruptive events will send things off course. Trump, we must be clear, had nothing to do with the killings, but the president and his allies will eagerly use such episodes to sow doubt and fear.
While there were absolutely some incidents of rioting, California failed to deliver the big explosion Trump was hoping for. No matter—he’s taking a scattershot approach now, with raids planned across several major cities, all blue. True, a civilized nation needs to enforce its laws—including on immigration. What Trump is doing is not that—it’s transparently partisan, with Trump talking about going after the “Democrat Power Center” while avoiding raids in friendly states and sensitive industries, wielding ICE as his own personal political weapon. Events in LA revealed the contours of what authoritarian provocation looks like in America.
This past weekend’s nonviolent protests provided one ingredient for the antidote. The demagogues won’t stop. It’s essential that you don’t either.
Related Content
I Resisted Putin in Russia. Here’s the Right Way to Protest.
UPDATE: 33,000 views, hundreds of likes and restacks—what a response! Thank you for your readership and engagement. With upcoming demonstrations across the United States, it’s imperative that this appeal for strategic, nonviolent protest reach as many people as possible. I’ve addressed a number of your comments and questions
Responding to Your Comments on the LA Protests
Amid ongoing demonstrations against the Trump administration and ICE in Los Angeles, I laid out the following argument on Tuesday: Go out, stand up for what’s right, but keep it peaceful—both because it’s the right thing to do and because it’s a sound political strategy. And for the sake of your freedom and your self-respect: get some real opposition le…
He is correct. We need to grow the movement to an overwhelming proportion of the population/electorate.
Or the joy we had on No Kings day won’t be allowed in the future.
So get your signs built and get your butts out on the streets! 🚫⚠️🛑🔜☮️⛔️👑
As I am wont to do, let me parse Garry's generally accurate comments.
With regard to "this can't be a one-off," there has been talk (and some initial action) on making these protests bi-weekly. Garry's suggestion of weekly is obviously hopelessly aspirational, if well-intended. But bi-weekly COULD work. As Garry also points out, what is equally important is that, at some point, they must GROW. Certain "anniversary" dates could be used for this purpose; i.e, with larger, more "vigorous" and targeted protests on those dates.
With regard to "sharpen the ask," I would replace that with "force our elected reps to do their jobs." Inundate - and I mean REALLY inundate - every elected lawmaker's (both federal and State, and maybe even municipal) email, mailboxes, answering machines, etc. with written demands for accountability and transparency by this administration. As one example, it is way past time that Congress shut down DOGE - since it was never legally created (only Congress can create a governmental or quasi-governmental agency - which they did not do here), and is essentially a rogue agency that has no business existing AT ALL, much less doing the things it is doing. And that is just one of many specific "asks" (demands) that need to be made.
One thing NOT brought up is ending the phony collegiality that exists in legislatures. Stop using the term "honorable" if the elected official is not. And stop with the phrase: "The Great State of...." If a Democratic lawmaker is addressing a lawmaker from a "failing" State, they should say, "To my dishonorable colleague from the failed State of Mississippi, which has the lowest education rate in the country...," or similar. Can you imagine the effect this would have? It would be more than just an empty gesture, particularly if done consistently. Phony collegiality is no collegiality at all.
Lawmakers must also stop refraining from calling out elected officials who brazenly lie. And while I don't think it needs to rise to the level of the type of actual fistfights we have occasionally seen in legislatures in other countries, maybe we even need a little bit of that - or something close. A mass walk-out. Or the opposite; having every Democratic rep get out of their seats and stand together facing their colleagues, blocking the cameras. We need DRAMATIC moves, not "business as usual" (since there is NOTHING usual about what is happening).
Another thing not mentioned is the role of the media here. The left and mainstream media MUST take the gloves off, particularly vis-a-vis Drumpf, but also re his inner circle of sycophants (Noem, Patel, Bondi, Leavitt, RFK Jr. et al). Questions - and especially responses - must be sharpened. If Mr. Drumpf lies, the media needs to say, openly and at that moment, "Mr. President, you are a liar," and tell him why. This needs to be done consistently. Lies need to be called lies. No more kid gloves. This is especially true of Karoline Leavitt. Even if a given news source loses its seat in the press pool for calling her a brazen liar, it needs to be done. In fact, if every left and MSM news source did this, and every one of them lost their seats in the press pool, this would speak volumes to the body politic. And it is likely to radically increase the number of people going to the (hopefully by now) bi-weekly protests.
Another thing that Garry does not account for - which works in our favor - is the ongoing and increasing reports that "rifts" and "splits" are occurring among and between MAGA and GOP conservatives; i.e., both intra and inter. Consider that quite a number of MAGA members were protesting along with the "libtards." And it was a goodly number, one that could be helped to grow. MAGA is already being disproportionately adversely affected by the tariffs - and they know and feel it (in their pockets, their businesses and their livelihoods). And don't forget that GOP lawmakers were so afraid of their constituents that they refused to show up for town halls - allowing Democrats (who were warmly welcomed, by the way) to fill in.
Finally (and please forgive the morbid phrasing here), who is most likely to "benefit" from the recent murders in Minnesota? While there will always be a small fraction of MAGA extremists who may be openly gleeful about it, the vast majority are NOT prone to violence. They may have different "politics" than those of us on the left, but I doubt that THEY are happy that political assassination is now being identified with their movement. This leaves an opening for a "gentle nudge" by the left (and it must be gentle; anything too hard, and they will simply dig in deeper).
With regard to the Minnesota murders, the GOP already thinks the left is a bunch of crazies, so they cannot be unworried about the possibility that THEY (and/or their families) could be targeted as well. Many of them may not say so, or continue to put on a brave face, but you can bet that most GOP lawmakers are just as unnerved as Democrats over this incident. I only wish they had enough collective spine to come out - strongly, as a group - and say so.
There is plenty of work to do. But we are on the right track. Yes, protests need to continue - and hopefully grow. "Asks" must be sharpened. Lawmakers must be held to account, even if that means doing away with bogus collegiality. The media must do their part - MUCH more actively and FAR more courageously and brazenly. The rifts within MAGA and the right must be used to our advantage.
We can do this.