Resistance Mobilization and U.S. Democracy

• In Event: Movements and Democracy in Contemporary Context

Abstract

Immediately following President Trump’s inauguration, protest demonstrations surged across the country. To date, over 27,000 protests involving over 13 million people have taken place as part of a diverse “Resistance” movement (Tarrow and Meyer 2018; Lind 2019; Perkins and Leung 2020). While it might be presumed that protests are an effective vehicle to bring about social change, studies of the precise impact of protests on political processes, policy outcomes, and public attitudes have produced inconclusive or contradictory findings. This analysis begins with a simple question: did the Resistance make a difference? In answering this question, this investigation not only explores the extent to which Resistance agitation shaped Democratic electoral outcomes and policy outcomes, it also clarifies a set of theoretical propositions regarding movement impacts more generally.

In considering how movements matter, the divergent outcomes of two prior struggles are instructive. In late 2011, Occupy Wall Street jolted the status quo with encampments in cities and towns across the United States. With a strident message about rising economic inequalities, a substantial surge in social media attention, and many hundreds of news stories, the movement appeared destined for significant accomplishments. Yet, only a few months later, it had largely disintegrated, barely leaving a trace. By contrast, on the political right, the contemporaneous Tea Party movement developed a broad-based grassroots organization that endorsed candidates, won some notable electoral victories, and successfully pressured Republican officials to take hardline positions across a range of policies (Parker and Barreto 2013; Skocpol and Williamson 2013). These outcomes suggest that large-scale protests do not automatically bring about political change. To do so, as the Tea Party demonstrated, the development of extensive organizations and use of effective tactics is critical. Here, the contrast between Occupy and the current anti-Trump Resistance is most stark. Unlike Occupy, in which activists rejected the formation of coherent organizations and instead concentrated on spreading awareness on social media platforms, major elements of Resistance mobilization have deliberately sought to construct an effective political apparatus to sway public opinion, put pressure on public officials, and win elections. Indeed, while the Resistance movement is diverse and loosely articulated, many of the key organizers of anti-Trump activism were former Democratic staffers from Congress, the Obama White House, or aligned with Democrats in state governments, and therefore they possess critical information about how to acquire and wield political leverage (Brooker 2018). Sometimes explicitly drawing lessons from the Tea Party, these activists have sought to build a grassroots political organization to challenge Republican office-seekers in a host of electoral contests, push the Democratic party leftward, and enact a pro-democracy reform agenda.

Using Perkins and Leung’s protest event data, which documents the magnitude of resistance mobilization across localities, this investigation considers two main types of impacts: shifts in party vote-shares in House races from 2014 and 2016 to 2018 as well as outcomes of statewide referenda on democratic processes (such as the adoption of automatic voter registration, non-partisan commissions for drawing district boundaries, etc.). Specifically, it assesses the extent to which Democratic over-performance in recent election cycles can be attributed to robust Resistance mobilization. Also to be explored is the extent to which the issue focus of local protest (e.g., civil rights, immigration, environment, etc.) has a differential impact on the dependent variables. In addition to new theoretical insights on movement outcomes, this research documents how well-organized resistance activism may be contributing to a broader renewal of US democratic capabilities, particularly by pushing successfully for expanded access to the franchise. These gains appear to reinforce the argument that broad-based civil resistance can be a dramatic force behind the expansion of democratic rights (Chenowith 2011; Gillion 2020). While there is a compelling comparative and historical argument that the Trump presidency represented a threat to the vitality of US democracy (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018; Lieberman 2018), the analysis here suggests that this administration stoked a broader movement of democratic renewal with some hopeful and far-reaching implications.

Authors

• Joseph E. Luders, Yeshiva University

• Matthew Incantalupo, Yeshiva University