As I write, kids are planning to converge on Washington to demand action on controlling guns. Will they succeed where other such efforts have not? It would be tempting to believe that the rich and powerful, in this case, the NRA, are simply too rich and too powerful to fight. But this would be too cynical, and we would be paralyzed.
Another temptation is to believe that the rich and powerful are easy to defeat, because we have the facts on our side. This is not cynical enough. Nothing short of a great social movement is going to overcome the ability of the NRA to spend money on “independent” advertising during campaigns, recently identified as their most successful tactic.
For years, I have been arguing that progress in the toughest fights on public health policy only exists through social movements. Starting 150 years ago, we had more than a century of successful, progressive social movements, each of which won in spite of seemingly overwhelming opposition by the rich and powerful.
These efforts succeeded because they were social movements – widespread, coordinated and well-led efforts by committed and energized activists who wouldn’t give up:
150 years of Successful Progressive Social Movements
(dates are culminating events; movements take decades to work)
Abolitionism, 1865
Antitrust, 1890
Pure food and drugs, 1906
Conservationism, 1910
Universal suffrage, 1920
Labor low reform, 1935
Social Security, 1935
Child labor laws, 1938
Minimum wage, 1938
Civil rights, 1964
Healthcare for the elderly and the poor, 1965
Women’s rights, 1967
Fair Housing 1968
Environmentalism, 1970
Occupational safety and health, 1972
Superfund clean ups, 1980
Act-up AIDS activism, 1986
Black lives matter, 2013
MeToo, 2018
You can read a bit more about this in “Giving up would be a historical mistake,” at http://danswartzman.blogspot.com/2016/03/giving-up-would-be-historical-mistake.html.
I have been slowly developing a list of things that a social movement needs to be successful. My current list includes nine things:
1. Intensity – public health advocacy is all about generating and managing intensity. A social movement only wins if the issues it addresses and the positions it takes are viewed intensely by its members. When you see a leader of a social movement take a position that is a bit far out of the mainstream, it is likely an effort to generate and focus intensity. Example: environmental opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
2. Focus – You have to be able to explain the emphasis of your movement succinctly, and people involved need to be clear what they are fighting for. This requires focus. Example: the “Fight for Fifteen.”
3. Cohesion – The people within the movement need to believe that they belong to something, and their relationship to that “something” and the people within that “something” provides cohesion. Example: Black lives matter.
4. Structure – One of the most successful recent movements in the US is the Tea Party. One of the reasons they were successful is that right-wing big money stepped in and started to organize them. They have multiple layers of structures. Does the fact that they are being funded by conservative organizations make them “not” a social movement? No. Many social movements rely upon funding from the rich.
5. A constant infusion of energy – Physics tells us that any organized system will move from a state of organization to disorganization, without input of extra energy. Entropy. So, too, with social movements. There needs to be some source of a constant infusion of energy, in contributions, in volunteer energy. Example: the Sanders campaign in 2016, with millions of small donations.
6. A good narrative – By “good” I don’t mean acceptable to you and me. I mean that there has to be a narrative that explains why the movement exists, what it is trying to do, and how someone can help by joining. Example: the Trump campaign in 2016.
7. A supportive reaction from the media – If you are going to sustain a multi-year effort (and all of the movements mentioned above lasted for decades), it helps to have a supportive reaction from the media. At first, the Sanders campaign got very little good press. That continued for quite a while, and even when the media coverage began to shift, much of the mainstream media were still “pooh-poohing” his efforts. On the other hand, the media played a critical role in the success of the Trump campaign. Note that they were not substantively supportive, but all of the attention they gave and their lack of an effort to successfully counter his statements were critical to his success.
8. A bit of luck – It doesn’t hurt to have a bit of luck along the way. A member of the rich and powerful does something really stupid (think Romney’s talk about the 47% in 2012 or McCain’s picking Sarah Palin in 2008 and the impact of these two decisions on the Obama movement). A media story breaks that provides an infusion of interest or energy. World events work to support your narrative. Everyone needs a bit of luck.
9. Leadership – There is a view that big, important people are what move history. That is way too simplistic. But successful social movements have leaders. Those leaders are not sufficient to success, but they are necessary for success. Here is a blog on the importance of this:
“We have forgotten how transformational leadership works,” http://danswartzman.blogspot.com/2015/07/we-have-forgotten-how-transformational.html
So, lets see what happens with the Kids and Guns movement. They seem to have a good focus, and they seem cohesive. They are getting great media and have had some initial successes. Can they maintain their intensity? Will those great teens with obvious leadership skills be able to step up to the challenge of leading a multi-year effort? Or will others come along and fill that need?
I am energized by their efforts, and hopeful about the results.
