Effectiveness of Protests in Influencing U.S. Public Policy
More Discussion on Protests in Light of what is Happening in LA
Related Articles: National Guard Deployment to LA and Violent Protesters.
In late August 1968, tens of thousands of anti-Vietnam War demonstrators flocked to Chicago during the Democratic National Convention, hoping to pressure the party for a peace platform. The city’s mayor, Richard J. Daley, had vowed to maintain “law and order,” deploying 23,000 police and National Guardsmen in riot gear. Tensions exploded on the night of August 28: officers in helmets and gas masks charged crowds in Grant Park and along Michigan Avenue, hurling tear gas and swinging clubs with alarming ferocity. Protesters scattered in panic as streets of downtown Chicago turned into a battle zone, choked with gas and screams. Eyewitnesses recalled “unrestrained bloodshed and chaos” as police beat young demonstrators even after they fell to the ground, leaving many bloodied. So much tear gas was fired that it wafted up 25 floors to Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s suite at the Hilton hotel, where he watched the bedlam unfold on the streets below. Amid the melee, protesters defiantly shouted “The whole world is watching!” – a cry picked up by TV cameras as America witnessed the chaos live on the evening news.
The carnage continued for days. After four nights of clashes, 668 protesters had been arrested and hundreds injured. Scenes of police clubbing unarmed youths and dragging people by their hair played across television screens, offering “a view of a nation apparently tearing itself apart”. What organizers had intended as a peaceful anti-war rally had descended into what an official inquiry later branded a “police riot”. Crucially, the violence backfired against the protesters’ cause. While many young Americans were radicalized by the brutality, a broad swath of the public was alarmed by the disorder. A Gallup poll showed 56% of Americans approved of the police action against the demonstrators. As historian Charles Kaiser observed, the spectacle of “young [college] students fighting with policemen in Chicago” proved terrifying to many older Americans, who were “completely freaked out” by what they saw as a “spectacle of anarchy”. Instead of winning hearts and minds to the anti-war movement, the Chicago unrest galvanized a backlash. Law-and-order candidates seized the moment – the images of street violence were “as useful to Richard Nixon’s campaign as anything else that happened in the whole year,” helping Nixon ride a promise of restored order to victory that November. In the end, the protesters’ immediate goals went unmet (the convention rejected the peace plank, and the Vietnam War ground on), even as their legitimacy was undermined in the eyes of a frightened public. The lesson of Chicago 1968 became a cautionary tale: when a protest turns violent, it can swiftly undermine its own cause, eroding public sympathy and bolstering the very forces it meant to challenge.
How Protests Influence Policy: Key Mechanisms
Social scientists have identified several mechanisms by which public protests can translate into policy influence:
Raising Awareness (“Signaling”): Protests shine a spotlight on an issue, signaling its importance to the broader public and media. By demonstrating widespread concern, protests expand awareness that a problem exists and needs a solution. For example, mass demonstrations can force an issue onto the news agenda, framing it as urgent and legitimate. This increased media attention and public visibility can put new topics on the policy table.
Shaping Public Opinion (Cultural Impact): Effective movements change how people think and talk about an issue. Sociologist Kenneth Andrews notes that protests often have cultural power to “shape public opinion, language and everyday behavior”. If a movement introduces new terms or reframes a debate (e.g. Occupy Wall Street’s “the 99% vs. 1%”), it can shift public attitudes. Such shifts build sympathy and support for the movement’s goals, making it politically safer for lawmakers to act. However, cultural influence alone may not suffice if it isn’t paired with concrete pressure for change.
Disruption and Costs to Elites: Some protests use disruptive tactics (strikes, civil disobedience, unrest) that raise the political or economic costs of maintaining the status quo. The idea is that if protesters can disrupt business as usual – for example, by causing economic losses, traffic blockages, or threats to incumbents’ electoral prospects – political elites feel pressured to make concessions. One scholar argues protest can “threaten to raise political and material costs to elites,” thereby increasing the likelihood that leaders will grant policy concessions to appease protesters. This “threat” mechanism was evident in some labor and urban protests (discussed below) that prompted leaders to act in order to restore order or stability.
Community Empowerment & Organization: Protests can build organizational capacity and empower marginalized groups. Through rallies and marches, people gain solidarity and motivation to engage in politics beyond the protest itself. Strong movements often leave behind organizations (advocacy groups, unions, civic networks) that continue lobbying for policy change. This long-term organizing is crucial; Andrews observes that movements combining cultural, disruptive, and organizational strength tend to have more lasting impact. In contrast, a protest that is a one-off event without follow-up may fade without policy gains.
Agenda Setting and Political Access: Large protest campaigns sometimes translate into influence within institutions. They can inspire sympathetic politicians to champion the cause or prompt congressional hearings and studies on the issue. Protests also serve as “signaling” mechanisms to politicians – showing there is voter intensity around an issue – which can sway elected officials who fear re-election consequences. In some cases, movements align with political parties or candidates (or spawn new ones) to achieve their aims through legislation.
These pathways often work together. For instance, Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in recent years both elevated police reform in public discourse and pressured city governments for concrete changes (like new police oversight boards), while also energizing voters concerned with racial justice. Likewise, the women’s suffrage movement early in the 20th century used widespread demonstrations to put voting rights on the national agenda and employed organized lobbying/picketing campaigns that directly pressured President Woodrow Wilson and Congress. In short, protests influence policy by winning hearts and minds and by making it costly for authorities to ignore popular demands.
Non-Violent vs. Violent Tactics: Which Is More Effective?
A central question in protest strategy is whether non-violent protests are more effective than violent or destructive protests in achieving policy change. Historical evidence and scholarly studies overwhelmingly suggest that non-violent, peaceful protests tend to be more successful at influencing public policy (or at least at building long-term support for change) than violent protests. Key reasons include public perception and the response of moderates and authorities:
Public Sympathy and Media Framing: Peaceful protesters are more likely to win sympathy from the general public and positive media coverage, whereas violence or looting by protesters often generates a backlash. Political scientist Omar Wasow’s research on 1960s civil rights protests found that non-violent demonstrations attracted news coverage emphasizing civil rights and injustice, which helped garner support for the movement, ultimately aiding sympathetic politicians. In fact, peaceful protests in 1964 not only contributed to the passage of the Civil Rights Act but also to a landslide reelection for President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had aligned himself with the civil rights cause. By contrast, incidents of protester-initiated violence in the late 1960s shifted media narratives to “law and order” – alienating the broader public. Like in the introduction, Wasow finds that looting or riots during 1967–68 protests were exploited by opponents and likely “tipped the 1968 election” in favor of Richard Nixon, who ran on a law-and-order platform. In short, violence by protesters often undermines their legitimacy in the eyes of observers, reducing political willingness to concede to their demands.
Mobilization vs. Backlash: Recent studies in social psychology back this up: non-violent protests are better at mobilizing support – they increase identification with the movement and inspire bystanders to join or approve of the cause. Violent tactics, on the other hand, tend to scare off potential supporters outside the movement’s core. One large review notes that while normative, peaceful protests spur participation and sympathy, more “radical” or violent actions decrease public support and subsequent turnout at protests. Violent protest images circulating in the media can confirm people’s worst fears about a movement, making it easier for authorities to justify crackdowns. For example, during the 2020 George Floyd protests, early episodes of rioting and property destruction led some commentators to invoke the chaotic imagery of 1968 – which initially bolstered calls for a harsh response. However, as protests remained overwhelmingly peaceful in the following weeks, public support for the Black Lives Matter message actually grew, resembling the broad sympathy that nonviolent civil rights marches received in 1964.
Policy Response: Non-violent movements often find it easier to translate their moral high ground into concrete policy wins. Governments are more likely to negotiate or offer reforms when a protest movement is non-violent, partly because the movement has public legitimacy and partly because non-violence signals a desire for inclusion in the political process rather than a threat to overthrow it. Violent movements, in contrast, can prompt a security-centric response (repression or simply ignoring demands under the premise of not “rewarding” violence). An influential global study by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan found that nonviolent campaigns worldwide were about twice as likely to achieve their stated political goals as violent campaigns, in large part due to their superior ability to attract mass participation and erode support for the status quo. This general pattern seems borne out in U.S. history as well. For instance, the nonviolent tactics of the Civil Rights Movement (boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides, marches) directly led to bipartisan legislative victories in the 1960s, whereas sporadic violence (riots) in the late 1960s led to few policy victories and instead fueled a conservative backlash.
Important nuance: Non-violent protest is not always immediately effective, nor is violent protest always totally counterproductive – context matters. In some cases, limited disruptive actions (strikes, property damage, aggressive demonstrations) have forced issues onto the agenda when polite pleas were ignored. A 2023 research review notes that when the target audience (e.g. political elites or resistant publics) is initially very opposed to a movement’s goals, more disruptive protest tactics – even those that break norms – can sometimes prod authorities to enact policy changes simply to restore order. For example, during the 1960s, some urban riots and militant protests did spur government investigations and modest anti-poverty initiatives (the establishment of the Kerner Commission, funding for urban programs, etc.), as leaders hoped to address underlying grievances. Similarly, militant labor strikes in the 1930s, while sometimes involving violence, put immense pressure on factory owners and the government, leading to pro-union legislation (discussed below). However, these gains often came at the cost of public divisiveness and were limited compared to what broad, peaceful coalitions achieved. Overall, sustained non-violent organizing has proven the more reliable path to broad policy change, whereas violence tends to be a high-risk strategy that can backfire by undermining the movement’s credibility.
Historical Examples of Protest Impact on Policy
To understand protest effectiveness, it’s useful to look at notable U.S. protest movements from 1900 to the present and their outcomes. Below are several major examples, highlighting whether and how they influenced public policy or political decisions:
Woman Suffrage Movement (1910s): Suffragists combined peaceful protest marches, vigils, and civil disobedience to demand women’s right to vote. Groups like the National Woman’s Party (NWP) relentlessly picketed the White House and Congress in the 1910s – a non-violent but confrontational tactic that landed many women in jail. These actions successfully pressured President Woodrow Wilson and lawmakers to support the 19th Amendment, which was finally ratified in 1920 and granted women the vote. This is a clear case of sustained, organized protest achieving a fundamental policy change. The NWP’s strategic use of banners and public demonstrations kept the issue in newspapers and signaled that denying women the vote was causing domestic unrest even as the U.S. fought for democracy abroad (World War I). The suffrage movement’s victory shows how non-violent protest and moral appeals (framed in terms of American ideals of freedom) moved a once-radical policy idea into reality.
Labor Protests and New Deal Reforms (1900s–1930s): The early 20th century saw frequent labor strikes and protests by industrial workers seeking better wages, hours, and the right to unionize. Some of these confrontations turned violent (sometimes due to police or company crackdown, other times due to militant strikers). In the short term, strikes could be dangerous and disruptive, but over time labor unrest created pressure for legislative reforms. Key New Deal policies under President Franklin D. Roosevelt – such as the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act) protecting union rights, and laws establishing minimum wage and overtime pay – were passed amid the backdrop of mass labor actions. Historians note that without the grassroots pressure of workers, these reforms likely would not have been so sweeping. As one commentator put it, “there would be no Labor Day to celebrate without the sit-down strikers” who forced recognition of unions. In other words, protests by workers raised the cost of maintaining harsh labor conditions and helped convince elites that granting labor rights was preferable to continued industrial chaos. While some strikes involved property destruction or clashes (violent incidents that sometimes turned public opinion against unions temporarily), the overall labor movement mixed disruptive tactics with organized negotiation, yielding significant policy concessions in the 1930s.
Civil Rights Movement (1950s–1960s): This is often cited as a model of effective, non-violent protest achieving major policy change. Civil rights activists led by figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used strategies of non-violent resistance – marches, boycotts, sit-ins, freedom rides – to expose the injustice of segregation. These protests were deliberately peaceful, even when met with violent repression. The contrast between dignified, non-violent protesters and brutal responses (police dogs, firehoses, mobs) created powerful media images that shocked the nation and built support for federal action. Historian Kevin Gaines notes that civil rights leaders embraced nonviolence and Christian ideals to claim the “moral authority” in a hostile climate, aiming to win over the hearts and minds of white Americans. The strategy worked: protests from Montgomery (1955–56 bus boycott) to Birmingham (1963 campaign) to Selma (1965 voting rights march) rallied national public opinion behind the cause of equality. This public pressure, combined with savvy political lobbying, directly led to landmark legislation – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 – which “achieved formal equality and citizenship” for Black Americans by outlawing Jim Crow segregation and securing voting rights. In addition, the movement’s momentum led to other policy advances (e.g. the Fair Housing Act 1968). It’s important to note that non-violent protest was crucial to these successes: it kept the moral focus on civil rights and made it politically tenable for moderates in government to side with the movement. After 1965, when frustrations in Northern cities boiled over into violent riots, the movement’s image became more fraught – some antipoverty policies were enacted in response (such as President Johnson’s War on Poverty programs and the Kerner Commission recommendations), but the late-’60s riots primarily triggered white backlash and a conservative turn, slowing the pace of further reforms. Thus, the civil rights era illustrates both the high effectiveness of sustained non-violent protest (in securing major legislative change) and the limiting effect of violent unrest (which provoked “law and order” politics and diluted public sympathy).
Vietnam War Protests (1960s–1973): Opposition to the Vietnam War sparked one of the largest sustained protest movements in U.S. history. Starting on college campuses and spreading nationwide, anti-war protests included peaceful marches (e.g. the 1969 Moratorium, 1971 Vietnam Veterans Against the War demonstration) as well as more confrontational acts (some protests escalated into clashes with police or, in a few cases, incidents like draft-office break-ins). Did these protests influence policy? While debates continue, there is evidence they had significant impact. They helped sway public opinion against the war – by the late 1960s a majority of Americans believed U.S. involvement was a mistake, a shift that protest chants, teach-ins, and media coverage of demonstrations accelerated. This change in public sentiment constrained political leaders. Protesters literally surrounded the Pentagon in 1967 and flooded Washington D.C. repeatedly, signaling that a large segment of the populace demanded an end to the war. Facing re-election pressure and ongoing unrest, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek another term and that he would seek peace negotiations – a decision attributed in part to the war’s unpopularity and fierce domestic opposition. His successor, President Nixon, publicly disparaged the protesters but nevertheless felt compelled to gradually wind down U.S. troop levels to defuse dissent, even as he expanded bombing temporarily. One tangible political effect: the 26th Amendment (1971) lowering the voting age to 18 was passed amid arguments that if 18-year-olds were subject to draft and protest, they should also have the vote – a reform accelerated by the protest movement’s moral logic. Ultimately, the anti-war movement did not immediately stop the war (Nixon only ended U.S. combat operations in 1973, and the war fully ended in 1975), and historian’s opinons on its effect are mixed. Notably, protests helped force the end of the military draft in 1973 and made continuation of an open-ended war politically untenable. At the same time, violent offshoots (such as the rioting at the 1968 Democratic Convention, or radical groups like the Weather Underground engaging in bombings) arguably undermined the broader anti-war cause by provoking public backlash. Polls showed many Americans disapproved of the more unruly protests, which the Nixon administration exploited to rally a “silent majority” in support of its policies. So the Vietnam era shows both sides: mass peaceful protests did influence leaders and policy trajectory, but violence within the movement hurt its credibility and likely prolonged the US’s involvement.
Women’s Liberation and LGBTQ Rights (1960s–1970s): Social movements advocating gender equality and gay rights also used protests to push policy changes, with varying tactics. In 1968, for example, feminists protested the Miss America pageant, drawing attention to women’s rights in a theatrical but non-violent way. The broader Women’s Liberation movement held marches (like the Women’s Strike for Equality, 1970) that helped build support for policies such as Title IX of 1972 (banning sex discrimination in education) and an Equal Rights Amendment (which ultimately fell short of ratification). Here, protests were part of a strategy alongside legal advocacy and consciousness-raising; they kept women’s rights in the headlines and signaled to politicians that a growing number of voters (including newly enfranchised young women) demanded equality. For LGBTQ rights, a notable catalyst was the Stonewall uprising of 1969, essentially a violent protest (a spontaneous riot against police harassment at a gay bar in New York). Stonewall did not immediately change laws – in fact it was a reaction to oppressive laws – but it is credited with igniting the modern gay rights movement. In the aftermath, organizers formed gay rights groups across the country, and peaceful demonstrations (pride marches, rallies) became annual events. Over the next decades, this activism led to gradual policy changes: discrimination ordinances in some cities in the 1970s, the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder (1973), and much later, major victories like the legalization of same-sex marriage (2015). Stonewall’s case is complex: a burst of unrest galvanized a community to organize, but it was the sustained, mostly non-violent activism post-Stonewall that actually achieved policy changes. It underlines that even when an initial act of resistance is forceful, enduring change usually requires continuous, organized (and often non-violent) effort.
Anti–Iraq War Protests (2003): On February 15, 2003, millions of people around the world – including large crowds in U.S. cities – marched in opposition to the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq. These protests are often cited as an example of a case where protests failed to achieve their immediate goal. Despite the unprecedented scale of demonstrations (the New York Times called it the “second superpower” of world opinion), the Bush administration proceeded to launch the Iraq War in March 2003. One commentator reflecting on that global protest noted, “the march…did not stop the war”. In the U.S., while the anti-war rallies signaled widespread skepticism, the government was not swayed – possibly because leaders were resolute on their course and believed public opinion would rally once the war began. Over time, the war became very unpopular and protests continued, but initial policy was not averted. The Iraq War protests demonstrate the limits of protest: without enough leverage over decision-makers (and in the absence of immediate electoral consequences, since Bush wasn’t up for re-election until 2004), even massive protests may be ignored. That said, those protests did contribute to an enduring anti-war sentiment in the public and arguably affected later political dynamics (e.g. they pressured some politicians to oppose the war and may have influenced the 2004 Democratic primary and the 2006 midterm elections when war opposition helped Democrats). Still, as a direct policy outcome, the Iraq War protests underline that protest alone, especially when up against determined policymakers, can have limited effect – timing, political context, and other power dynamics matter greatly.
Tea Party Movement (2009–2010): Not all influential protests in U.S. history have been progressive or left-wing. The Tea Party was a conservative grassroots protest movement that emerged in 2009, opposing taxes and government expansion after the financial crisis and election of President Obama. On April 15, 2009 (Tax Day), Tea Party activists held coordinated rallies across the country. While these rallies were peaceful, some were quite boisterous and drew on anger at elites. A Harvard study of the Tea Party’s initial protests found that cities with larger Tax Day rallies saw lasting political effects: greater local Tea Party organization, increased public support for the Tea Party’s anti-spending positions, and ultimately more votes for Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections. Incumbent members of Congress from districts that had big Tea Party protests even shifted their voting records to align more with Tea Party conservatism, “voting more conservatively in Congress” in response to the protests. In this case, the protests did not immediately change a specific law, but they built a political movement that strongly influenced policy outcomes – helping elect numerous lawmakers who then blocked certain policies (for instance, stronger climate legislation and public option health care were stymied) and pushed budgets in a more austerity-oriented direction. The Tea Party’s success was rooted in political pressure mechanisms: they signaled voter discontent to the Republican Party, shifted the Overton window on spending, and threatened incumbents with primary challenges. This shows that protests can be effective across the spectrum if they mobilize people and connect with electoral politics. The Tea Party also illustrates how sustained, organized peaceful protests (often town-hall meetings, marches, and demonstrations) can translate into tangible political clout, whereas fringe violent incidents (like an isolated incident where one extremist attacked a government facility) were widely condemned and played no role in the movement’s success.
Occupy Wall Street (2011): Occupy Wall Street began in 2011 as a non-violent protest encampment in New York’s financial district, decrying economic inequality and corporate influence. It soon spread to dozens of cities with the rallying cry, “We are the 99%.” In terms of immediate policy change, Occupy did not force new laws or reforms during its short lifespan – critics called it a failure for not achieving specific demands. It lacked a formal policy platform and eventually the encampments were dismantled without legislative victories. However, Occupy’s influence can be seen in the realm of discourse and agenda-setting. The movement fundamentally changed the national conversation about inequality: its messaging about the “99% vs 1%” “permeates political discourse… cementing notions of economic inequality squarely in D.C. policy debates”. After Occupy, polls showed rising public concern about wealth gaps, and politicians (from President Obama to candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) adopted much more populist language on economic issues. Some concrete outcomes occurred indirectly: cities like New York later passed higher minimum wage laws and other measures addressing inequality, spurred in part by the public awareness Occupy generated. Economists like Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz argue that Occupy “precipitated an understanding” of corporate excesses that paved the way for subsequent movements targeting financial sector misdeeds, student debt, and more. Moreover, Occupy inspired a new wave of youth activism and showed that peaceful mass protest (including novel tactics like leaderless, consensus-based camps) could gain global attention. In summary, Occupy Wall Street was effective in shifting public opinion and political rhetoric, even if it fell short of immediate policy wins. Its fate also underscores the importance of organization – as Kenneth Andrews observed, Occupy achieved cultural impact but lacked the organizational structure to convert that into “lasting institutional changes”.
Black Lives Matter (2013–present): The Black Lives Matter movement began in 2013 as a hashtag and grew into a nationwide protest movement against police brutality and systemic racism, especially after high-profile police killings of Black Americans. BLM has seen multiple waves of protest, most notably in 2020 after the killing of George Floyd, when an estimated 15–26 million Americans participated in demonstrations – perhaps the largest protest wave in U.S. history. These protests were overwhelmingly non-violent (studies found roughly 90% of the 2020 racial justice protests were peaceful), though isolated incidents of rioting and looting did occur and were heavily reported. Policy impacts: On one hand, BLM protests clearly succeeded in putting police reform and racial justice at the top of the national agenda. They led to tangible policy changes at local and state levels: within 2020, at least 30 states and many cities enacted police reforms, such as bans on chokeholds, stricter use-of-force standards, mandating body cameras, and other accountability measures. Many cities also established or strengthened civilian review boards for police oversight – in fact, a sociological study of 170 U.S. cities from 1990–2018 found that protests against police violence significantly increased the chances that a city would create a powerful civilian review board to oversee the police. The same study found that protests were associated with lower subsequent rates of police killings of civilians in those cities. Another analysis corroborated this: in places with regular BLM protests from 2014–2019, police killings dropped by 15–20% compared to trends in cities without protests. Researchers suggest this is because protests raised public scrutiny and prompted changes in policing practices (more body cameras, community policing, or in some cases officers pulling back from excessive enforcement). These findings indicate that BLM protests have saved lives and pushed policy, even if indirectly. On the national stage, BLM also pressured federal action – the Justice Department reformed some policies, and although the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (a major federal reform bill) stalled in the Senate, President Biden issued executive orders on police accountability. BLM’s influence on politics is notable: it shifted public opinion (in mid-2020, polls showed a majority of Americans supporting the movement’s calls for reform, though opinion was polarized along partisan lines) and it became a factor in elections (candidates had to address police reform in 2020; some argue the summer 2020 protests galvanized turnout among both supporters and opponents). On the other hand, the BLM movement also illustrates challenges: the presence of any violence can undermine a protest’s message. For instance, while peaceful marches after George Floyd’s murder led to a swell of support, the scattered riots early on allowed opponents to paint the movement as dangerous – echoing the 1960s pattern. This arguably tempered some white Americans’ sympathy and gave political fodder to “law and order” rhetoric. Moreover, some of BLM’s more radical demands (like “defund the police”) encountered public resistance and were not broadly implemented – in many cities, initial budget cuts were later reversed. In sum, BLM has been effective at raising awareness and securing incremental policy changes (especially at local levels), validating the power of mass protest, but its ultimate policy legacy is still unfolding. Crucially, it reaffirms that non-violent protest can pressure authorities into reform (e.g., Minneapolis banned chokeholds within days; Confederate symbols were removed nationwide), whereas violence mainly risks backlash. The sustained, nationwide, diverse, and largely peaceful nature of BLM demonstrations in 2020 made them one of the most impactful protest waves in recent U.S. history in terms of shifting the public conversation on racism and policing.
Conclusion: Protest and Policy in Perspective
Looking across the past century, protests in the United States have often been catalysts for public policy change or important political shifts, though their effectiveness depends on context and tactics. Major social improvements – from expanding voting rights, to labor protections, civil rights, environmental safeguards, and more – have roots in protest movements that forced issues onto the agenda and would not have occurred as quickly (or at all) without public pressure from below. Protests can influence policy directly (by pressuring lawmakers through disruptive action or moral appeal) and indirectly (by changing public opinion or empowering reformist political coalitions).
Non-violent protests emerge as a particularly potent force: they are more likely to attract broad support, avoid alienating the undecided, and translate into constructive political action. History shows that when protesters maintain non-violent discipline – even in the face of aggression – they often win the narrative and gain allies (as seen in the civil rights movement’s triumphs and the broad sympathy for peaceful protesters in 2020). Research confirms that non-violent movements have higher success rates because they can mobilize larger numbers and create consensus for change. On the flip side, violent protest tactics have tended to undermine the cause by provoking public backlash and justifying governmental repression, with few examples of lasting positive policy outcomes resulting from violence. Even where violence forces a response, it usually does so at a steep cost to societal cohesion and the movement’s public legitimacy. American politicians from the 1960s to today have frequently been able to sidestep or crack down on protests characterized by violence, whereas they have had to negotiate with or concede to large, peaceful movements enjoying public moral support.
That said, protest alone is seldom enough. The most successful movements pair street demonstrations with follow-up actions: voter registration, lobbying, legal challenges, coalition-building, and maintaining a presence in the political process. As former President Barack Obama wrote during the 2020 protests, “the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both.” The legacy of U.S. protest movements is that they open the window for change – through media attention, public opinion shifts, and direct pressure – but actual policy change often requires converting that energy into concrete political power or negotiations.
In summary, protests have been a driving engine of reform in modern American history, proving effective at influencing policy under certain conditions. Peaceful mass protests have achieved notable policy victories (from civil rights laws to environmental regulations) by winning over the public and putting pressure on leaders. Even when they don’t immediately “win,” protests can shape the political landscape (e.g. Occupy’s impact on inequality discourse, or anti-war protests signaling public disapproval). Violent unrest, by contrast, more often illustrates a symptom of grievances without yielding constructive solutions, and may even set back the cause via backlash. The enduring lesson is that, in the United States, non-violent collective action – sustained, strategic, and backed by public empathy – has proven far more effective in nudging society and government toward change than has violence. Protests that capture the national conscience or threaten the ballot box are the ones that policymakers ultimately cannot ignore.
Notes: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.
Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow us on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.