The Double-Edged Sword: Why Modern Protests Shift Culture and Force the Issue, But Need a Strategy to Win National Change

Visibility is Not Victory: The Critical Steps to Convert Protest Energy into 2024 and 2026 Policy Wins.

In his recent post, Steven Beschloss challenged us to consider a fundamental question: “Will You Stand Up for the Right of Peaceful Protest?”

For those of us who have stood in the streets—from the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras to the contemporary fights for climate and civil liberties—we know this right is the beating heart of democracy. But as we defend that right, we must also critically examine what modern movements actually achieve.

The 21st-century American street protest is powerful yet increasingly complicated. It can successfully shift public opinion and cultural norms, occasionally win policy changes at state and local levels, but it rarely produces sweeping federal legislation.

The greatest impact of protest today is making issues impossible to ignore—forcing them onto the political agenda, often only to watch them stall in a gridlocked Congress.

The Jordan Metaphor: Protest as Performance

Protest is the necessary Michael Jordan demanding attention, but on its own, it rarely wins the championship. For sweeping policy change, the movement needs its Scottie Pippen (legislative champions), its cast of strong supporters, its Phil Jackson (savvy political organization), and a full team of institutional support to secure the federal trophy. It is the brilliant solo performance that requires strategic and leadership performances to convert it into victory.

Winning the Culture, Losing the Capitol

American protests have proven their immense power in the cultural sphere:

• Marriage Equality (1990s-2015): A masterclass in shifting public opinion, leading to nationwide legalization. It required decades of sustained public visibility that made acceptance the new norm. Yet, as we painfully note in Iowa, that endurance is fragile, shattered by continuing attacks on civil rights and gender identity protections.

• #MeToo (2017+): Rapidly changed workplace sexual harassment policies across major industries, achieving nationwide change without major federal legislation—success through cultural saturation.

These movements prove the primary success of modern protest often comes through cultural exposure rather than direct legislative action.

The Policy Plateau

When protests focus directly on federal policy, results are limited:

Fight for $15 (2012+)

• Raised minimum wages in numerous cities/states (NY, Seattle, CA).

• Failed to secure a national $15 minimum wage, demonstrating the limits of localized pressure.

March for Our Lives (2018)

• Prompted gun safety legislation in states like Florida.

• Achieved only limited national success with the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act—far less sweeping than initial demands.

Standing Rock (2016)

• Temporarily blocked the Dakota Access Pipeline.

• The ultimate reversal of that block demonstrated the movement’s vulnerability to executive action. However, local efforts (like those in Iowa) used protest alongside regulatory and legal strategies to slow, if not stop, the damage. These local efforts were outstanding –combining legal, grassroots, legislative, and regulatory strategies. These were state, not national responses; although Iowa was able to build up on regional protests and efforts in the Dakotas.

The Peril of Success: When Images Are Weaponized

The 2020 George Floyd protests and the broader Black Lives Matter movement achieved rapid, localized police reform measures. But the sheer visibility—and occasional violence, a tiny fraction of overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations—created a powerful counter-narrative.

This is where Beschloss’s call is most relevant. The images of 2020’s unrest were strategically harvested. Political campaigns, notably Donald Trump’s, routinely used curated photos and video clips of the most destructive moments, stripped of context, to justify policies aimed at increasing federal presence and cracking down on civil disorder. The movement’s own images are leveraged not to advance reform, but to generate a narrative of chaos demanding a “law and order” response.

The irony is profound: the protests forced the issue onto the national agenda, but the political backlash, fueled by weaponized imagery, now threatens the ability to protest freely in the future.

June 18th. How to Elevate the Win Beyond the Moment

If raw protest energy is necessary but insufficient, how do we operationalize it to meet the immediate goals of fighting threats to Democracy, eroding support for Trump, and winning the fall elections?

The key is in translating visibility into political viability.

1. Localize the Threat (Reaching Everyday Americans)

Threats to democracy—like attacks on voting rights or gender identity protections—feel abstract to many. We can localize the protest’s message:

• Connect National Threats to Local Impact: We can and have shown how these national threats to public schools and libraries affect school board policies, local library funding, and city council decisions. Local pushback is notable and successful at times.

• Utilize Town Halls: Grassroots groups, like those successfully organizing in Iowa, must turn demonstrations into confrontational town halls. Speak up to candidates and elected officials with specific policy demands, forcing them to take a public stand on core democratic issues. There are many start up groups working on this idea. In Iowa, one example is www.grassrootsIowaNetwork.com

2. Sustain the Pressure (Winning the Fall and 2026)

The energy of a day like June 18th must be converted into durable political machinery:

• Year-Round Organization: Emulate the long-term success of the Civil Rights movement with training schools and institutional pressure. Convert initial marchers into voter registration volunteers, primary challengers, and legislative lobbyists. As groups like those listed on www.grassrootsiowanetwork.com are demonstrating, the gap must be bridged between marching, campaigning and governing.

• Clear, Policy Demands: Move beyond broad aspirations for “justice.” Present candidates with affirmative, positive goals and drafted legislative language on democratic reforms (e.g., specific election protection bills). Vague calls are easy to ignore; concrete proposals are harder to dismiss. Advocacy groups can work together to agree on proposals, both read and utilized by everyday Americans.

3. Erode Support by Exposing the Strategy

We must proactively counter the political weaponization of protest images. When politicians cite photos of unrest, our movements need to be ready to pivot the discussion immediately back to the substance of the threat to democracy and the overwhelming peace of the protests. This ensures the public conversation remains focused on the issue, not the image.

The Imperfect, Indispensable Tool

The history of 21st-century protest confirms its status as an indispensable yet imperfect tool.

As we defend the right to assemble and speak out—a defense Beschloss correctly notes is paramount—we must be clear-eyed about what it can achieve. It remains the engine of cultural change, but its true power in the current political landscape is only unlocked when it is married to sophisticated organization, clear political strategy, and an aggressive plan to convert visibility into legislative and electoral victories.

The question isn’t whether we should protest. The question is: How do we make our protests matter beyond the moment and into the halls of Congress and the ballot box?

What’s your experience with modern protest movements? Have you seen local successes that didn’t translate nationally? Share your thoughts in the comments.