Democracy Diary: 3.5% to make change
Surviving disaster requires noticing when you've left normal
Subscriber Marian joined the conversation in response to the recent post It’s Too Late: No Legislative Paths Forward, in which I suggested that maybe hunger strikes were the best next step. Marian, thank you so much for your response:
“Disagree. Why would hunger strikes do any good? The right-leaning people with the most power in this country have demonstrated that they don't care if individuals die from COVID-19, or gun violence, or any number of other causes. Why would they care if people started keeling over from hunger? If you really want to know What to Do, I recommend Teri Kanefiled's list of Things To Do at https://terikanefield.com/things-to-do/ Pick one or more of those things, and get crackin'. Kanefield is an author & attorney with a very clear-eyed perspective on the events of the day.”
True, the right doesn’t care about the health or death of an individual hunger striker, or even a group of them. What I was assuming was that such steps would be part of a broader movement of nonviolent resistance. People in the streets, protesting nonviolently, reliably cause positive social change – in fact, any time 3.5% of the people in a population have engaged in non-violent protest, they’ve achieved their aims. That’s the context in which I assumed hunger strikes might be effective, as one part of that sort of civil movement.
I think that sort of civil movement is necessary because some of the more traditional items suggested in Kanefiled’s next steps only make sense in a representative democracy – which the US is, increasingly, not. But the research shows that those who act most effectively in a disaster are those who realized most quickly that the normal rules no longer apply. More about that tomorrow.