For the last several months, I have organized a weekly “Stand-Up for Democracy” rally/protest on the busiest street corner in my hometown. On Fridays at 5:30 pm., students, teachers, townspeople, and senior citizens come together, hold signs, and wave at passing drivers, some of whom honk their horns in solidarity.

I live in a very progressive town, where last November, Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, beat President Donald Trump by a margin of more than nine to one. Some of my friends ask, “Why bother?” They think that we are preaching to the choir or that the president and his colleagues are impervious.

These are, in a sense, the wrong questions. Protest is a democratic practice, valuable everywhere, regardless of its immediate impact.

That is why it was so important that millions of Americans did their own Stand Up for Democracy events on June 14. While liberals took heart at those numbers, some conservative commentators called them “utter nonsense.”

Writing in The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley argued, “The well-funded protests are being fueled by Democratic leaders, who are resuming their claims that citizens must either protest… or accept tyranny in the U.S. Turley went on to call the No Kings day rallying cry, 'Democracy is dying’… an absurdity…., since every indication is that our constitutional system is operating precisely as designed.”

“Precisely as designed”?

While I respect Prof. Turley, who is a well-published legal scholar, I don’t share his Panglossian view of our current situation. And neither do millions of other Americans.

New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke for many of them when he wrote that “over the centuries, people built…(c)onstitutions to restrain power….Trumpism is threatening all of that. It is primarily about acquiring power…It is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed.”

While Brooks admitted that “I don’t naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I’m not covering as a journalist,” he concluded, “this is what America needs right now.”

I agree.

Developing a coordinated national movement to preserve democracy is an urgent priority. In the meantime, however, people should not wait to make their voices heard.

But they need to be realistic about what protesting can and cannot do. That realism requires that those who protest understand that no matter how many of us hold rallies to express our devotion to democracy, we are unlikely to change the minds of those who support Trump.

Some, like Turley, will continue to believe he is operating within the bounds of our constitutional system; others are happy with his autocratic tendencies.

Conversion is, however, not the point, at least not at this time.

Commentators who urge people “who are demonstrating to reach out to those who are not yet protesting and persuade them to join local groups that are fighting for our democracy” are offering a limited metric. Protesting is a democratic practice in and of itself.

In some ways, it is like voting. It is a way of expressing an opinion, standing up for a point of view, rather than trying to change anyone’s mind.

Think of protest as a regular form of democratic participation, not an aberration or a departure from the routines of democratic life. Protest, Harvard’s Stephen Jones says, “inform(s) politicians of voters’ concerns. Protest is an educational process which combats passivity.”

If it is non-violent, Jones argues, “it can deepen democracy’s reach…. (and) at the heart of every democracy there is always a history of protest.” Vanessa Williamson, Senior Fellow at Brookings, puts it this way: “Protest as an essential part of democracy, and…a critical political tool. So if you’re thinking to yourself that in any given political fight, there’s maybe a stronger party and a weaker party, for the weaker party, the way for them to win is to get people off the sidelines, right?”

That’s what protests do, even when they are small and carried out in places like the progressive town in which I live. They are important because they make “grievances and concerns and problems visible to others.”

They are a way of being with others in a public arena. Courts have traditionally recognized that and accorded protests First Amendment protections. Gatherings on public streets, sidewalks, or parks constitute, they say, are a “traditional public forum” where speech cannot be prohibited, except through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

Protests enable members of a democratic community to express their thoughts, cheer on their side, make their voices heard, and combat despair. As the psychologist Radhule Weininger suggests, “Taking action, especially collectively, can reduce feelings of helplessness….”

Weininger notes that “when joining a rally, participants often report a stronger sense of control over their circumstances and future. Being surrounded by people with shared convictions creates a vital sense of community. Formerly frightened people feel less isolated and cultivate more agency. Moods are elevated and can transform from disheartened to energized and even joyful.”

Unlike elections, where votes can be counted and the results known quickly, protests have a long and uncertain time horizon. That is as true for the No Kings protests as it is for any other.

That fact is another reason why protesting is so important in a democracy. It helps people practice commitment, discipline, and patience.

For those who want more, there is empirical evidence that non-violent protests ultimately yield results. Looking at demonstrations over the last century, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan Chenoweth found that nonviolent protests led to significant “political change” 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests.

But they remind us that it takes “around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.”

Protest works, Professor Zeynep Tufekci explains, “because they can undermine the most important pillar of power: legitimacy….Legitimacy, not repression, is the bedrock of resilient power.” Losing legitimacy, she adds, “is the most important threat to authorities…because authorities can do only so much for so long to hold on to power under such conditions.”

Protests, on her account, “are a grab for attention: They are an attempt to force a conversation about the topic they’re highlighting…. Successful protests are the ones that win that conversation and in the framing of the issue…”

Protests are good for the soul. They can “change the protesters themselves…when the cause is so powerful that the protesters don’t calculate whether it works or not, but feel morally compelled to show up and be counted.”

Showing up and being counted, that’s what democracy demands. That’s why I’ll be back, with whoever shows up, for Friday afternoons Stand Up for Democracy rallies/protests on a street corner in my progressive town.

_____

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

_____

©2025 The Fulcrum. Visit at thefulcrum.us. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.