Is performative activism the way out of this mess?

Based on history, it's surprisingly effective. I have questions.

In my line of work I frequently hear from people who are deeply worried about the state of our country and feel overwhelmed by the constant bad news. They’re looking for outlets for their growing activist energy but also feeling helpless, thinking that there’s nothing they can do on their own that will make any difference.

I often tell people that what works for me is to keep it local and narrow the focus. As a community volunteer, I know my work has impact and often I can see it pretty quickly. Helping my community and my neighbors matters deeply to me and satisfies my need to do something. As for the national situation, focusing on one thing I care about (training women to run for office) helps keep me from panicking.

I encourage everyone who feels this way to pick one thing they feel passionate about—it could be immigration, due process, reproductive rights, you name it—and get involved working on that. Narrowing your focus to a single issue channels your energy and helps avoid the burnout and stress of trying to put out multiple fires at once.

In spite of this coping mechanism, I can’t help overthinking. I read commentaries and news articles, trying to find some signal in all the noise that indicates a way out of our descent into authoritarianism. I’ve become more cynical, frustrated that the opposition isn’t getting any traction. The never ending display of cruelty, criminality, and willful ignorance by the current administration is emotionally and intellectually grueling.

So I was surprised recently to find what might be that signal in the noise I was looking for. I’m skeptical, but hopeful that it’s real.

Last month Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times wrote a commentary with the tantalizing title, “Three Well-Tested Ways to Undermine an Autocrat.” At last, a how-to! But also, seriously?

Apparently, performative activism is the way out of this mess. Somehow I have managed to go through my entire life of public service without hearing about political scientist Gene Sharp and his 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action. Kristof uplifts Sharp’s premise that nonviolent activism—particularly humor, highlighting corruption, and focusing on a single, galvanizing event—is the key to bringing down Trump. I have questions.

First, humor. The idea is that mockery will undermine authority as the population loses respect for it. I get this in principle and Kristof gives several examples in his column of where humor in various forms has brought down (or at least frustrated) authoritarian leadership in other countries.

But what happens when the defiant mocking bumps up against the true believers? The MAGA world staunchly supports Trump and defends all he does. To me this indicates a complete lack of a sense of humor, not to mention poor critical thinking skills and deep denial of reality. This tactic doesn’t work on them now and probably won’t ever.

Bullies resent being laughed at. Resentment is a powerful emotion that isn’t prone to self reflection or self deprecation. So how humor and mockery would work against Trump and his followers is unclear to me. Does chiding them make them laugh at themselves and cause epiphanies of understanding? Or does it send them to their diaries and blogs to work on their manifestos? So far it seems to simply provoke retaliation—someone always pays for it eventually. Maine Governor Janet Mills knows a little about that.

Another tactic, pointing out corruption and hypocrisy, seems pointless. American society, aided by the media, has normalized both, and only the most egregious examples make the headlines. Outrage is as old fashioned as facts anymore. The emoluments clause of the Constitution doesn’t seem to matter. Trump once bragged he could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and still get elected. Turns out he was pretty much right.

A third tactic, focusing on one compelling, tragic act instead of the entirety of all the awfulness happening now, requires a tragic act to happen first. The US has already proven itself immune to such tragedies: if we were actually compelled to act as a result of a tragedy, we would have gun safety laws and thousands of children would still be alive today. The US is inured to the kind of tragedies that once spurred moral outrage and brought about change.

It doesn’t seem possible that approaches like nonviolent actions could work. I think it’s true that a growing segment of the US is realizing now that the emperor has no clothes. But pointing that out seems to fall on deaf ears. Maybe we need a song—where is Danny Kaye when we need him? Or Buffalo Springfield?

Another downside of this approach is clearly that it seems to take a very long time for these nonviolent tactics to reach the tipping point of undermining authority on a large scale. Meanwhile, while we wait for that to happen, people are being arrested and deported, losing their jobs, and increasingly facing violence.

Can we afford to wait as long as it takes for these tactics to work? I don’t think we can but I also don’t think we have much choice.

As a country, we are well on our way through the first third of Sharp’s list, numbers 1-54, Methods of Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion. The list seems linear or cumulative; the first 54 actions can start small and increase in effectiveness as group efforts grow. This is the logic behind groups like 50501 and Indivisible, the organizers of the Hands Off protests (April 5th) and No Kings protests (June 14th)—that each subsequent protest will grow in size until a critical mass of 3.5% of the population participates.

Why 3.5%? Turns out, this percentage is a tipping point which, once reached, will almost guarantee success. 3.5% of the US population is about 11 million people. No Kings Day saw a turnout of about 4-6 million people, and was arguably the largest single mass protest in American history. Presumably, if that many people actually participated, a substantially larger number of people most likely agree in principle with the purpose of the protests. So the next protest could be the one that moves the needle and gets results. Or will it?

The most likely scenario I see is that the protests will continue to grow, and in 2026 there will be a small blue wave. Voters will express their unhappiness with the current administration at the ballot box and potentially flip control of Congress out of the hands of Trump’s minions. A second wave could occur in 2028 that removes Trump from office (or prevents the election of his successor). I say could, because at the moment, there are no plausible alternative candidates for voters to rally around.

It’s hard not to feel helpless when the change needed is so great. But if you participated in a No Kings rally, chances are you felt some really positive, hopeful energy. That’s the energy we all need to harness to carry us through, and standing in community with vast numbers of patriotic Americans to defend our democracy is not at all performative. It’s real.