Millions of people marching in the streets across the United States and 10,000 – 20,000 marching here in Spokane. The marchers are asking a fundamental question: How do we preserve democracy when so many of our neighbors seem willing to trade it for the promise of security?
It appears that there is a great deal of fear dividing our country in two. Why these fears, what needs to be done, and how can we do it? What do our readers think? What does our community think? What do others think?
This is a three part series. The first part describes the fears and what needs to be done to address them. The second part addresses why Black people should resist the loss of democracy, the third part deals with what needs to be done. Later articles can follow the progress of the Spokane fight for democracy.
The articles discuss various evidence-based approaches to enhance democratic resilience and social cohesion at government, institutional, and individual levels. They highlight the importance of economic interventions, leadership strategies, educational reforms, media responsibility, and personal engagement. The text outlines measures for specific demographic concerns while emphasizing the need for systemic changes and the importance of measuring success. Key factors for success include authenticity, inclusivity, patience, consistency, local focus, and bipartisan support.
Feedback from social media posts and interactions can be used to invite them to remove the fear, save democracy and participate in building a better community they want to live in.
Read the first article in the Fighting Fear series:
SUBSCRIBE: If you want suggestions on what we must do in addition to protesting in the streets, subscribe to 4comculture.com. Go to the top of the sidebar and send us your email address.
October 18th millions marched. They said NO TRUMP! In order to stop tyranny now what do you want to do?
When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.
The Scenario
A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.
This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy.
Can We Trust This Man?
Options for Grassroots Movements
In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:
Nonviolent revolutions have endured longer
Nonviolent Revolution
Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.
Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:
a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).
b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.
c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.
d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.
Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing
Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:
a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.
b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.
c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.
d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.
e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.
Seeking International Support
Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:
a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.
b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.
c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.
Violent Revolution as a Last Resort
While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:
Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
They may provide justification for increased repression by the regime.
Conclusion
In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.
The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.
It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.
When tyranny and revolution appear to be the choices, which do you think we ought to choose? The choice should be made with deep thought. If you keep your head in the sand and refuse to recognize the current conditions, you have chosen tyranny. But if you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.
If you want suggestions on what we must do in addition to protesting in the streets, subscribe to 4comculture.com. Go to the top of the sidebar and send us your email address.
Here’s a Burma-Shave-style series of signs with a **social justice theme**, ending with the message “No Kings.” Each line would appear on a separate sign, spaced out along a road:
Equal rights For every voice Justice fair Should be the choice No Kings
They hold the crown You hold the load Stand together Change the road No Kings
The power’s yours It’s in your hands Build a world That truly stands No Kings
Truth and love Will light the way No one rules We all have say No Kings
Each set of signs uses the rhythmic, rhyming style of the original Burma-Shave ads while conveying social justice themes like equality, collective power, and rejecting authoritarianism or hierarchical rule. The final line, “No Kings” delivers a punchy, memorable conclusion in the same way Burma-Shave signs ended with their product name.
Maybe you would like to add these to your protest signs.
Write your own rhyming verses and share them with us in a comment below.
This article is inspired by an audit of Dr. King’s unfinished business and a speech given by Michael McPhearson at All Saint’s Lutheran Church in Spokane Washington. The occasion was the commemoration of the the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This article is inspired by an audit of Dr. King’s unfinished business and a speech given by Michael McPhearson at All Saint’s Lutheran Church in Spokane Washington. The occasion was the commemoration of the the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Envisioning and Living the Future
To build a future worthy of our highest hopes we must describe what we seek. We must describe in ways that invite others to join us. This vision isn’t just rhetoric—it’s a lived practice. It means:
Justice for all and lifting up the disadvantaged must be at the center of our movement.
We are called to dismantle unjust criminalization systems and insist on equal protection under the law.
Our vision is not complete until we commit to ending poverty and systemic racism. We also must commit to ending the war economy that perpetuates suffering at home and abroad.
We must also end ecological devastation, recognizing that justice is inseparable from the health of our planet.
Identifying Allies and Adversaries
Dr. King taught us to discern between those who oppose justice and those who simply differ in approach.
Ask:
Do we share a vision for a world where the marginalized are protected?
Are we united in building bridges across lines of division?
Do we seek to transform the political, economic, and moral structures of society so all can live with dignity?
If we agree on these foundations, even if our strategies diverge, we are not enemies. True opposition lies in those who divide, dehumanize, or deny justice.
Building Unity and Integrity
Unity is not about erasing differences, but about uniting under a moral narrative that puts people first.
Our work must be non-partisan and sustained, recognizing that justice is not a one-time event but a continuous struggle.
Nonviolence is both our method and our message, ensuring our integrity is never undermined by hate.
Living the Principles
It’s easy to talk about justice and peace; it’s harder to live these values every day. We must:
Include even those who oppose us, for justice and peace must be for all, not just those we like.
Let love for humanity guide us, using our anger to fuel change, but never letting hate dictate our actions.
A Vision for All
We must unite—across race, religion, ideology, and background—if we share this vision. We are a time when hate, xenophobia, patriarchy, white supremacy, and fascism are on the rise. Our response must be a movement rooted in Dr. King’s principles:
Justice for all
Protection for the marginalized
Unity and nonviolence
Transformation of society’s core structures
A deep commitment to sustained, moral action
Closing Thought
We can use our anger to fuel us. However love for humanity must guide us as we build this new world. By grounding ourselves in these 14 principles, we honor Dr. King’s unfinished work and ensure our movement remains both visionary and actionable.
The psychological traits of true believers in mass movements can be observed in the followers of contemporary political figures like Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders.
The Psychological Makeup of the “True Believer” in Eric Hoffer’s Book
Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements” (1951) is a seminal work that examines the psychology of individuals who become deeply committed to mass movements, whether political, religious, or social. Hoffer’s analysis focuses on the motivations and characteristics of these “true believers” and the conditions that make mass movements thrive.
Key Psychological Traits of the True Believer
1. Discontent with the Present Self: True believers often feel a deep dissatisfaction with their personal lives. They see themselves as ineffectual, powerless, or insignificant and seek to escape this reality by merging their identity with a larger cause or movement [1]. Hoffer argues that this dissatisfaction drives people to seek meaning and purpose in something external, often leading them to embrace ideologies that promise radical change.
2. Desire for Certainty and Simplicity: True believers are drawn to movements that offer clear, black-and-white answers to complex problems. They crave certainty and are often intolerant of ambiguity or nuance.
3. Willingness to Sacrifice Individuality: Hoffer notes that true believers are willing to subordinate their individuality to the collective identity of the movement. This allows them to feel part of something greater than themselves, which can be empowering but also leads to fanaticism.
4. Frustration and Resentment:!Many true believers harbor feelings of frustration and resentment, often directed at society, elites, or other groups they perceive as responsible for their struggles. This resentment fuels their commitment to the movement and their willingness to fight for its goals.
5. Faith in a Glorious Future: True believers are often motivated by a vision of a utopian future promised by the movement. This vision gives them hope and a sense of purpose, even if it requires sacrificing the present [2].
6. Susceptibility to Leadership: Hoffer emphasizes that true believers are often drawn to charismatic leaders who embody the ideals of the movement and provide a sense of direction and unity.
Comparison to Modern “True Believers”
The psychological traits Hoffer identified remain relevant today and can be observed in the followers of contemporary political figures like Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders. While the specific ideologies and movements differ, the underlying motivations and behaviors of their most ardent supporters often align with Hoffer’s analysis.
Donald Trump: Many of Trump’s most devoted supporters exhibit traits of true believers, such as a strong desire for certainty, resentment toward perceived elites, and faith in Trump’s promises to “Make America Great Again.” His charismatic leadership and ability to channel frustration into a cohesive movement resonate with Hoffer’s description of mass movement dynamics.
Kamala Harris and Barack Obama: Supporters of Harris and Obama often emphasize their hope for a more inclusive and equitable future. While their movements may not exhibit the same level of fanaticism as others, the faith in their leadership and vision for change reflects some of the psychological traits Hoffer described, particularly the desire for a better future and identification with a collective cause [2].
Bernie Sanders: Sanders’ supporters often align with Hoffer’s analysis of frustration and resentment, particularly toward economic inequality and corporate power. His movement’s focus on systemic change and a vision of a more just society appeals to those seeking meaning and purpose through collective action.
Key Differences in Modern Contexts
While the psychological makeup of true believers remains consistent, modern mass movements are shaped by new factors:
Social Media: Platforms like Twitter and Facebook amplify the reach of mass movements, allowing true believers to connect and organize more easily. This can intensify the sense of belonging and reinforce ideological echo chambers.
Polarization: Modern politics is highly polarized, which can deepen the divide between opposing groups of true believers and increase the intensity of their commitment.
Polarization: Modern politics is highly polarized, which can deepen the divide between opposing groups of true believers and increase the intensity of their commitment.
Diverse Ideologies: Unlike the mid-20th century, today’s mass movements span a broader range of ideologies, from progressive to conservative, reflecting the complexity of modern societies.
Conclusion
Eric Hoffer’s insights into the psychology of the true believer remain strikingly relevant in understanding the dynamics of modern mass movements. Whether supporting Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, or Bernie Sanders, true believers today share many of the same psychological traits Hoffer identified: dissatisfaction with the present, faith in a better future, and a willingness to subordinate individuality to a collective cause. However, the tools and contexts of modern movements—such as social media and political polarization—have added new dimensions to the phenomenon.
During the last few weeks millions have taken to US streets in urban, suburban and rural communities. They came to express their disapproval of the direction the government is moving. But why are so many others so afraid that they would choose a dictatorship, a monarchy or a strongman government? How can this be changed?
Why these fears?
Why Blacks will resist the loss of democracy
What needs to be done?
How can we do it?
why these fears?
This is a complex sociological and political question. Let’s break down the various fears and concerns that may influence support for authoritarian or strongman leaders.
Economic and Class-Based Fears
Working Class Concerns:
Fear of continued economic displacement due to globalization and automation
Anxiety about declining manufacturing jobs and wage stagnation
Concerns about being “left behind” by rapid economic changes
Fear of losing social status and economic security
Middle Class Anxieties:
Worry about downward mobility for their children
Healthcare cost concerns
Education affordability fears
Housing market pressures
Cultural and Social Fears
Demographic Change Anxiety:
Fear of becoming a minority in traditionally majority-white communities
Concerns about rapid cultural change
Language and cultural preservation worries
Immigration-related anxieties
Traditional Values Concerns:
Fear of erosion of traditional family structures
Religious freedom concerns
Worry about changing gender roles and expectations
Demographic Breakdown
By Race/Ethnicity:
-White Americans (particularly rural/suburban): Higher rates of support often correlate with fears of demographic displacement, economic competition, and cultural change -Hispanic Americans: Mixed patterns, with some supporting strong immigration enforcement due to economic competition concerns -Black Americans: Generally lower support, but some concerns about economic competition and traditional values -Asian Americans: Varied responses, with some supporting merit-based policies and law-and-order approaches
By Gender:
-Men: Often drawn to strongman imagery and promises of restored traditional masculine roles -Women: More complex patterns, with some attracted to security promises while others concerned about reproductive rights and gender equality
By Age:
-Older Americans: Concerns about rapid social change and nostalgia for perceived “simpler times” -Younger Americans: Generally less supportive, but some attracted to anti-establishment messaging
LGBTQ+ Community Considerations
The LGBTQ+ community generally show slower support for authoritarian movements due to:
Historical persecution under authoritarian regimes
Concerns about rollback of civil rights protections
Fear of discrimination and marginalization
However, some subset concerns include:
-Security fears (particularly after incidents like the Pulse nightclub shooting) -Economic anxieties that may override other concerns -Single-issue voting on topics like immigration or taxes
Psychological and Social Factors
Authoritarian Personality Traits:
Preference for order and hierarchy
Discomfort with ambiguity and complexity
Desire for clear, simple solutions
Attraction to strong leadership figures
Social Identity Threats:
Fear of group status decline
In-group/out-group thinking
Zero-sum worldview (believing others’ gains mean their losses)
Media and Information Environment
-Echo chambers reinforcing existing fears -Disinformation amplifying perceived threats -Social media algorithms promoting divisive content -Declining trust in traditional institutions
Important Caveats
1.Individual variation: People within demographic groups have diverse views 2.Multiple motivations: Support often stems from combinations of factors 3.Context matters: Local conditions significantly influence attitudes 4.Temporal changes: These patterns shift over time with events and generational change
Why Blacks will Resist the loss of democracy
The fight against authoritarianism represents a continuation of a centuries-long struggle for true democratic participation and protection under law. CLICK HERE
This song inspired by Curtis Mayfield’s song of the 60’s is meant to bring unity, courage, and hope to challenging times.
People stay ready, there’s a movement to start, Bring your courage, your fire, your heart. You don’t need permission, just take your stand, The power’s in the people, hand in hand.
The chains might rattle, but they won’t hold tight, When love and resistance shine through the night. Truth’s our engine, hope the tracks we ride, We’ll break through the darkness, side by side.
People stay ready, there’s a storm ahead, You don’t need no ticket, just rise instead. Justice is calling, hear the freedom bell, We’re fighting for tomorrow, where all can dwell.
There’s no room for hatred, no place for fear, The time is now, the path is clear. Together we’re mighty, together we’re strong, We’ll write the future, where we belong.
So rise up boldly, let the world take note, Freedom’s the anthem, every voice a vote. People stay ready, the time has come, We’re building the future, for everyone.
People stay ready, there’s a movement to start, Bring your courage, your fire, your heart. You don’t need permission, just take your stand, The power’s in the people, hand in hand.
This song inspired by Curtis Mayfield’s song of the 60’s is meant to bring unity, courage, and hope to challenging times.
People stay ready, there’s a movement to start, Bring your courage, your fire, your heart. You don’t need permission, just take your stand, The power’s in the people, hand in hand.
The chains might rattle, but they won’t hold tight, When love and resistance shine through the night. Truth’s our engine, hope the tracks we ride, We’ll break through the darkness, side by side.
