When do protests work…and when don’t they?

This timely new article from Omar Wasow in the American Political Science Review hints at how the protests in Minnesota may affect public opinion.

Wasow studied how protests during the Civil Rights Movement affected media coverage, elite discourse, public opinion, and voting. This chart from the article summarizes the key points:

Wasow chart.png

The ultimate impact of protests may depend not only on the actions of the protestors, but also the actions of the state (police, military, etc) in response.

When the protests were violent the media tended to use words like “riot,” “disorder,” “night,” and “violence.”  The story became about the violence, not the underlying cause of the anger that sparked the violence, and that drove voters toward what Wasow calls “the dominant group-aligned coalition.”  In other words, violence as a form of protest tended to backfire.

When the protest was non-violent and the state response was non-violent, that sometimes worked in protestors’ favor, but more often the media didn’t afford those protests much coverage and the public paid little attention because mutual non-violence is, unfortunately, boring. There were exceptions to this, such as the March on Washington, but they were, indeed, exceptions.

What worked most effectively in moving public opinion in the protestors’ direction was when the protest was non-violent and the state response was violent. The effect was amplified when there were photographs or video that documented the state’s violence and drove home the message viscerally, such as in Birmingham, Alabama.

Wasow discusses his research in this Twitter thread.

It is unclear what this means for Minnesota. On the surface, Wasow’s research suggests public opinion will move against the protestors. Although America likes the theoretical idea of the right to protest, we don’t like actual protests very much. Martin Luther King is lionized today, but near the time of his death 2/3 of Americans viewed him unfavorably. Colin Kaepernick’s peaceful protest quickly became less about police brutality and more about the sacredness of the national anthem -- and suddenly the protester became the bad guy.

A confounding factor may be that the triggering event, the killing of George Floyd, was captured on video in clear and dramatic fashion. Perhaps that will make a difference. Plus, this is 2020, not 1968. The media and political landscapes are dramatically different.

Nonetheless, assuming the events of the past week will galvanize Americans for the cause of civil rights seems naïve. It appears unclear how it will all play out.