In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles breaks down a claim that gets repeated constantly—and is flatly wrong: that protests don’t work.
Drawing on empirical research from Harvard political scientist Erica Chenoweth, Nate explains why nonviolent civil resistance is not only effective, but statistically more successful than violent movements—and why participation thresholds matter.
But this isn’t just academic theory.
Nate connects the research to something far more consequential: U.S. Special Operations doctrine. Civil resistance, population-based movements, and influence campaigns are not fringe concepts—they are studied, modeled, and incorporated into how modern military strategy understands power, legitimacy, and instability.
This episode covers:
* Why nonviolent movements succeed at higher rates than violent ones
* The critical 3.5% participation threshold—and what it actually means
* How large-scale protests shift pressure onto institutions like the military and political elites
* Why Special Operations Command studies civil resistance as part of the operational environment
* How protest movements intersect with psychological operations and influence campaigns
* What the No Kings 3.0 turnout suggests about where things may be heading
You don’t have to agree with a protest.
But dismissing protests as ineffective isn’t a serious argument—it’s a failure to understand how power actually works.
Protests don’t work? That’s not opinion—it’s empirically wrong. The data says otherwise. And so does U.S. Special Operations Command.
