I also felt that Sen. Schumer missed the moment - that his calculations did not include the effect on activists, current and potential. But I wondered what you thought about his argument that going into shutdown would enable the dismantling of what was left of the professional class of the government because Trump/Musk would then have complete carte blanche to label everything as nonessential, with no compulsion to ever end the shutdown. He also said (at one point, to Chris Hayes on his MSNBC show) that he could say funding for the courts was also nonessential, which would hamstring the judicial efforts to hold the Administration at bay (though I haven't heard that again).
It's not like there is some negotiation that will prevent bad things from happening. That's Columbia-University-type thinking. (What is it about New York City that generates such dopes? Chuck Schumer, Katrina Armstrong, Eric Adams, Andrew Cuomo...)
Most normal people are still thinking the situation is just politics within the typical range of possibilities.
Like most people, I felt this way initially, and secondarily. But I then read the logic that while a a shutdown is in effect (after two weeks anyway) the courts shut down. It can be argued that given the scared-into-submission GOP members of congress (scared for their families' safety from right-wing thugs, apparently) the courts are our only remaining guardrails, and indications are they have been moderately resolute in rising to the occasion (so far). In a shutdown, OMB - Russell Vought - decides who is 'essential' and can return to work. So, fine, the military, homeland security, DOJ/FBI, hmm, ... maybe no one else IS essential. The captive congress can string the closure along for months, during which time trump has above-average authority to reprogram funds within very broad categories and no courts to stop him. This is the nightmare scenario I think the few 'yes' Dems had in mind. To me it would help explain why relatively so many of them don't expect to seek reelection in 2026. They could have voted their truest feelings with no political repercussions. Surely they all knew this would infuriate the base, and maybe they weren't sure they wanted to give the other side any ideas. Just curious what your take is on this... Schumer does allude to this in his recent interview with Chris Hayes. See https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/2024/05/how-a-u-s-government-shutdown-impacts-courts-access-to-justice/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJJqshleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTH227k5kic4r7dgGDcBqKHm1S6BSVQcnlQzg9EkAnSt0COxM4Q4QEFKPA_aem_1sGe7-chlb_S2im92utCtg .
yes, fine, 2024, but isn't it still true that the judiciary is largely closed during a shutdown? That's the core argument - they are all that is actively doing anything to stop Trump. The legislative branch is coopted and the executive filled with enablers. That, AND the elevated powers Trump HAS, through OMB, to control what gets done IN a shutdown. I'm not trying to minimize the outrage everyone felt when we were itching for a fight. Just trying to see if there was an actual strategy behind it. It may have been a trap. I think Schumer's plan is to see what the supposedly co-equal third branch of government can do. They can't do anything if they are shut down. Now, where I think we should put our outrage is in daily denouncing the emergent right-wing talk about impeaching judges, and the predictable - and effective - harassment OF judges from the online thug army. Let them DO their job. I think the SCOTUS will beOK with Roberts and Comey-Barrett as a swing faction.
I think there's good reason not to take Chenoweth/Stephan's numbers too seriously. It seems possible (likely?) that protest sizes are reflect the overall amount of resistance, rather than being a direct cause of the success of the protest. If that is the case, increasing ease of organizing (e.g., via social media) may lead to protest sizes that overestimate the amount of resistance in the population. There are valuable caveats in Tufecki 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/does-a-protests-size-matter.html) and Chenoweth's 2020 follow-up (https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Erica%20Chenoweth_2020-005.pdf).
Of course, this doesn't alter the central importance of leadership and action, and it's still compatible with any steps taken to increase participation and involvement.
That is interesting. I am wondering about exactly these kinds of questions. However, that may not be the important lesson.
My current thinking is that the key parameter may not be the exact fraction of the population, but more the fact that there is nonlinearity in the function. In biochemistry it's called cooperativity, in social media it's called a network effect, and in physics it's called a power law.
In other words, the idea is that as a movement grows, its impact grows out of proportion to its size. This is perhaps obvious, but Chenoweth and Stephan have data to quantify the magnitude of the effect.
Please post more information as you think relevant.
Yes, network effects seem likely, and a logistic-looking curve like the one from Chenoweth make perfect sense, given what we are looking at.
Given the size of the U.S., geographic dispersion of protests may be another important parameter to consider beyond percentage of participation.
Chenoweth’s article in the Guardian hints at this, but suggests a shift to different kinds (“more muscular”) of action, specifically boycotts and work stoppages.
Thank you for this. I'm Canadian. Like people around the world, I'm horrified by the gangsters and corrupted self-dealers running the U.S. Your analysis is helpful. The effectiveness of non-violent rebellion gives us hope that the numbers of resisters will grow. I live in Alberta, a Trumpist paradise where there are many who oppose the provincial government that is privatizing our universal healthcare, nourishing a small minority of Albertans who would like to become the 51st state. I'm hoping resistance here will reach a tipping point too.
I also felt that Sen. Schumer missed the moment - that his calculations did not include the effect on activists, current and potential. But I wondered what you thought about his argument that going into shutdown would enable the dismantling of what was left of the professional class of the government because Trump/Musk would then have complete carte blanche to label everything as nonessential, with no compulsion to ever end the shutdown. He also said (at one point, to Chris Hayes on his MSNBC show) that he could say funding for the courts was also nonessential, which would hamstring the judicial efforts to hold the Administration at bay (though I haven't heard that again).
What do you think?
It's not like there is some negotiation that will prevent bad things from happening. That's Columbia-University-type thinking. (What is it about New York City that generates such dopes? Chuck Schumer, Katrina Armstrong, Eric Adams, Andrew Cuomo...)
Most normal people are still thinking the situation is just politics within the typical range of possibilities.
Like most people, I felt this way initially, and secondarily. But I then read the logic that while a a shutdown is in effect (after two weeks anyway) the courts shut down. It can be argued that given the scared-into-submission GOP members of congress (scared for their families' safety from right-wing thugs, apparently) the courts are our only remaining guardrails, and indications are they have been moderately resolute in rising to the occasion (so far). In a shutdown, OMB - Russell Vought - decides who is 'essential' and can return to work. So, fine, the military, homeland security, DOJ/FBI, hmm, ... maybe no one else IS essential. The captive congress can string the closure along for months, during which time trump has above-average authority to reprogram funds within very broad categories and no courts to stop him. This is the nightmare scenario I think the few 'yes' Dems had in mind. To me it would help explain why relatively so many of them don't expect to seek reelection in 2026. They could have voted their truest feelings with no political repercussions. Surely they all knew this would infuriate the base, and maybe they weren't sure they wanted to give the other side any ideas. Just curious what your take is on this... Schumer does allude to this in his recent interview with Chris Hayes. See https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/2024/05/how-a-u-s-government-shutdown-impacts-courts-access-to-justice/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJJqshleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTH227k5kic4r7dgGDcBqKHm1S6BSVQcnlQzg9EkAnSt0COxM4Q4QEFKPA_aem_1sGe7-chlb_S2im92utCtg .
The article you link is from May 2024, before the current round of events.
In the interview you mention, Schumer's plan appears to be for the people to rise up. Just like Les Miserables! https://www.huffpost.com/entry/msnbc-chuck-schumer-watches-awkward-montage_n_67dab906e4b00709f4a4c05f?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky
yes, fine, 2024, but isn't it still true that the judiciary is largely closed during a shutdown? That's the core argument - they are all that is actively doing anything to stop Trump. The legislative branch is coopted and the executive filled with enablers. That, AND the elevated powers Trump HAS, through OMB, to control what gets done IN a shutdown. I'm not trying to minimize the outrage everyone felt when we were itching for a fight. Just trying to see if there was an actual strategy behind it. It may have been a trap. I think Schumer's plan is to see what the supposedly co-equal third branch of government can do. They can't do anything if they are shut down. Now, where I think we should put our outrage is in daily denouncing the emergent right-wing talk about impeaching judges, and the predictable - and effective - harassment OF judges from the online thug army. Let them DO their job. I think the SCOTUS will beOK with Roberts and Comey-Barrett as a swing faction.
I think there's good reason not to take Chenoweth/Stephan's numbers too seriously. It seems possible (likely?) that protest sizes are reflect the overall amount of resistance, rather than being a direct cause of the success of the protest. If that is the case, increasing ease of organizing (e.g., via social media) may lead to protest sizes that overestimate the amount of resistance in the population. There are valuable caveats in Tufecki 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/does-a-protests-size-matter.html) and Chenoweth's 2020 follow-up (https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Erica%20Chenoweth_2020-005.pdf).
Of course, this doesn't alter the central importance of leadership and action, and it's still compatible with any steps taken to increase participation and involvement.
Thanks for all your efforts, Prof. Wang!
That is interesting. I am wondering about exactly these kinds of questions. However, that may not be the important lesson.
My current thinking is that the key parameter may not be the exact fraction of the population, but more the fact that there is nonlinearity in the function. In biochemistry it's called cooperativity, in social media it's called a network effect, and in physics it's called a power law.
In other words, the idea is that as a movement grows, its impact grows out of proportion to its size. This is perhaps obvious, but Chenoweth and Stephan have data to quantify the magnitude of the effect.
Please post more information as you think relevant.
Yes, network effects seem likely, and a logistic-looking curve like the one from Chenoweth make perfect sense, given what we are looking at.
Given the size of the U.S., geographic dispersion of protests may be another important parameter to consider beyond percentage of participation.
Chenoweth’s article in the Guardian hints at this, but suggests a shift to different kinds (“more muscular”) of action, specifically boycotts and work stoppages.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/28/protest-research-trump-musk
Thank you for this. I'm Canadian. Like people around the world, I'm horrified by the gangsters and corrupted self-dealers running the U.S. Your analysis is helpful. The effectiveness of non-violent rebellion gives us hope that the numbers of resisters will grow. I live in Alberta, a Trumpist paradise where there are many who oppose the provincial government that is privatizing our universal healthcare, nourishing a small minority of Albertans who would like to become the 51st state. I'm hoping resistance here will reach a tipping point too.