Protests are all the rage with the left today. It seems there has been a march for every word that has come out of President Trump’s mouth so far, and if you stay on social media, you can see the self-proclaimed activists patting themselves on the back with regularity.
Considering the amount invested in protesting so far, we’re forced to wonder. Has it been effective? Does protesting really accomplish anything? The real truth of the matter might be considered embarrassing for some.
Effectiveness
In the last four years, a number of prominent studies have reported on how effective protests are and what makes them more or less successful. Surprisingly, there is a general consensus among the results.
First and foremost, protesting has been found to be significantly less effective in the U.S. today than it was 60 years ago. In fact, during the Obama Administration, there are no examples of a protest movement in the U.S. decisively impacting legislation or federal policy.
Despite this ineffectiveness, international protests have had successful results during the same time interval. Ultimately, protests are really only effective at raising awareness. The rest of success comes from a dedicated, organize movement that either lobbies well or literally rebels.
Raising Awareness
If protests are more effective when they draw attention to an issue, then it makes it more clear why they don’t work in America anymore. Ultimately, the digital age has erased the need for physical demonstrations.
In the past (and presently in many foreign countries), a large-scale protest was the only way to create news. Getting the media to cover a march of thousands would get the issue broadcast nationally, and it would let the voting public know about a problem.
In the modern world, social media makes the spread of information easy, and media coverage just isn’t necessary to rally the masses. If the primary purpose of a protest is raising awareness, then it’s no wonder the method has become obsolete.
Creating Change
Since all of the planning and effort of large-scale protests can be easily replaced by a simple viral Facebook post or Tweet, it forces us to ask the question: is there a better way?
To answer that question, let’s consider the recent Women’s March on Washington. It was heralded as the largest protest in history, and so far it has had a null impact on the Trump Administration.
In the march, somewhere between 4.5 million and 5 million protestors participated across the country, and they averaged an investment of 5 hours of their day to protest. This amounts to 22.5 million man hours dedicated to an entirely ineffective activity. What could that same investment have done if focused to a more productive effort?
According to Habitat for Humanity, a single-family home can be built with an investment of 1400 man hours. That means a single Women’s March could have constructed 3,214 new houses.
When you consider there are just fewer than 50,000 homeless veterans in the U.S., each could have their own home constructed by volunteer efforts in 16 such marches. In other words, if four “marches” happened a year, it would take 4 years to completely eradicate the concept of homeless veterans in America.
Tackling Women’s Issues
If we apply that same mentality to the issues being protest during the march, then things get really interesting. If we assume that the protesters only earn minimum wage (the average wage is much higher), then their march was worth $163.125 million in raw labor.
This represents 30 percent of the federal budget for Planned Parenthood in 2016. If their primary goal was to ensure healthcare for women, then going to work for five hours instead of marching and donating those funds to Planned Parenthood would resolve the issue.
It gets even more extreme if you consider the complaints about the gender wage gap. We’ve addressed that issue in another conversation, but even if we assume the gap exists and is a problem, then the women’s march could resolve it with ease.
The largest union in the country is the National Education Association. It serves 2.7 million members, and they pay only $30 a year in dues. If the Women’s March members paid $30 a year (less than 5 hours at minimum wage), they could sponsor a union with 10 times the power of the National Education Association, and they would hold enough negotiating power to easily ensure that every Fortune 500 employer paid women equally.
Protesting was once a useful way to draw media attention to issues. Since that is no longer necessary, the efforts behind protests could easily be more productive, and as you can see, a pretty minimal effort could completely eliminate some of the left’s biggest complaints with modern America. Of course, that would require actual activism and a commitment to productivity.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
