Has Protesting Actually Accomplished Anything in the Past 20 Years?
The efficacy of protest in driving change has been a topic of much debate over the past decades. Many argue that the impact of modern protests is increasingly less effective, with technology and strategic campaigning counteracting traditional protest methods. This article explores whether protests have accomplished anything significant in recent times and delves into various observations and examples to support this analysis.
The Declining Effectiveness of Protests
Many believe that protests, especially of the recent years, have lost their edge. The use of technology and strategic campaigns, such as those seen in the Brexit and Cambridge Analytica scenarios, have rendered traditional protests less impactful. In essence, modern protest may be viewed as an exercise in futility, given the sophisticated countermeasures deployed by those in power.
False Sense of Achievement
While protests can garner public attention and sometimes lead to short-term gains, their long-term impact is often questionable. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court's weakening of Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections could mean that protests, despite garnering media attention, may not lead to lasting change. Protests may merely serve as a temporary distraction from the systemic issues at play.
Lessons from History
Historically, protests have had more significant impacts. The Civil Rights era, for instance, saw swift changes due to the novelty of protests and the absence of similar tactics. However, relying on protest alone is a risky strategy in today's climate. Modern governments have developed sophisticated countermeasures, often unseen by the general public, which can undermine protest efforts.
Examples and Fallacies
The Black Lives Matter movement is a prime example of a protest that has achieved significant success through fundraising. Despite this, the effectiveness of protests is often clouded by hypothetical scenarios and fallacious reasoning. For instance, attributing changes in policy to a protest that coincides with a predefined outcome can lead to the False Cause fallacy. Similarly, the success of Trump's nomination in the 2016 election, which many attributed to the Chicago protests, turned out to be a fluke and not a definitive victory for protests.
Watered-Down Protest Movements
Another reason why protests may not be as effective as they once were is the sheer frequency and repetitive nature of them. Over time, people tend to ignore recurring protests, leading to frustration among activists. This frustration often results in more radical actions, such as violence and more frequent protests. In essence, the constant novelty of protest movements has diminished their initial shock value and effectiveness.
The 1980s as a Turning Point
The 1980s marked a significant turning point in the effectiveness of protest movements. One of the key events was the failed Air Traffic Controllers' strike under Ronald Reagan. Reagan's use of the 'national interest' clause to fire the striking workers set a precedent for breaking unions, a tactic still used today. This event, among others, signaled a shift in the way governments and corporations viewed protest and effectively dampened its effectiveness.
Conclusion: A Strategic Game of Propaganda
Overall, it appears that the strategic use of propaganda and advanced countermeasures has made traditional protests less impactful in driving social change. While protests can still garner attention and achieve short-term goals, the long-term effectiveness is questionable. Governments and special interest groups like Cambridge Analytica are more adept at using technology and counter-protest tactics to diminish the impact of modern protests. Regardless, the underlying issue of systemic inequities still exists, and more innovative and strategic approaches may be necessary to achieve lasting change.