You Aren't Outnumbered: You're Out

“We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized.”
— Malcolm X

Most Americans understand that politics and opposition is a pendulum, it spends time switching to extremes. But Americans have grabbed that pendulum (and politics in general) in a forceful way, and sometimes beyond civics in recent history. Our civic processes have become tribal sport—not exactly new territory for the US;however, the problem arises when any resisting movement is disorganized and not seen. The modern equivalent of that is today's mostly "online activism": effective resistance is a contact sport, and must involve what I call the "Power Dynamics of Protest." I worry Gen-Z'ers and Millennials, who are loudly-concerned about these times online, are utterly invisible to the greater world beyond social media bubbles. It seems like our younger people haven't figured out how to organize in the real world.

And why would they? Our country has only been in this territory of "arguing beyond our Civic process" a few times: 1861-1865, Women's Suffrage, or Civil Rights — to name a few. They were all territory where anger and viciousness threatened to dismantle our norms (and some did). Political Majorities, during times like this anyway, tell you that it's not as bad as you think it is. And sometimes that's true. Other times, majorities might say "you're overreacting" right after a controversial law passes, some norm crumbles, or an institution collapses.

So I get it: I see a significant portion of American society saying, "this time it feels different." I hear that a lot. People seem to be concerned the pendulum I mention above has been forcefully-grabbed by a minority. I've heard this on both sides. And here in 2025, it's the word "coup" all over again, as in 2020 and '21. And all I can say to any of that, is this:

I live in hope, and I believe (and belief is, after all, faith and hope-based) we aren't witnessing "the end of American Democracy", as so many people claim: but I am open to being wrong about that, what with everything going on. But if others sincerely believe the US is undergoing a power grab by a relative few...and things really are extremely dire—then I ask them three simple questions which I haven't heard anyone answer:

Do you ever intend to convince non "like-minded" people to your view, instead of just brushing people off as "lost" and un-winnable toward at least some of your concerns, or points-of-view? hint: if you can't convince at least some others outside of your core groups to an emergency -- you'll never organize to advance your cause.
Isn't it time to get out of the social media bubbles, stop posting memes, and pursue peaceful action?
Isn't it time to stop just "being right", and start being effective?

A possible 4th question any organizer (whichever side you're on) should ask themselves is: what does "effectiveness" look like?

I think before any organizer can answer the above questions—they really need to learn and understand the Power Dynamics of State in any human society. Well, if they want to be effective, anyway...

Force vs. Power: Understanding the Difference

Let's think for a second about the difference between Power and Force. These two words are often used together, and contrasted against one another. They're two very different methods of getting things done. Understanding this, and how established leaders in power wield either one of these (especially when it comes to peaceful protest), is something every activist leader better understand, if they're serious about organizing and being effective. Below is your lesson.

The difference between between power and force lies in the outcome: the result. Power (influencing those in the governing/ruling class, and leveraging the body politic) produces outcomes that generally fall into place without a lot of resistance. Force, on the other hand, also produces outcomes; however, force nearly always meets with resistance of some sort. True power typically doesn't need to apply coercion or Force. Force also usually produces outcomes other than what those using it (the ruling-class) wanted, or had in mind when applying it.

No one likes to be forced, after all, and most humans will seek ways to thwart whatever or whoever is trying to force something on them. And when force produces an outcome at all, that outcome will only stay in place for as long as the force can continue to be applied effectively. Once force goes away, or is removed, or is met with an opposing force; those being forced will naturally come up with ways to get around that force, or force back, or evade the punishment that it threatens. When this happens in a Republic bound by Democratic institutions, the outcome produced by force usually begins to unravel. That is your opening: if you're truly dedicated to your cause, will meet any burden to effect the change you are demanding, you must be willing to use non-violence and directly to invite the possibility of force being used upon you—strategically. I am sorry, but it's just how it is if you ever want to bring any effective or meaningful check against power.

In any Democracy power is, by its very nature, successful in hindsight. True power doesn't need to impose threats or penalties, as it inspires genuine agreement with majorities—which inoculates power-based outcomes against any meaningful resistance. That's the history, that's facts.

Force, by its own nature, isn't successful long-term—and it certainly isn't "powerful" in a Democratic society due to unpredictable outcomes and harms force can produce. Again: this is your opening if you are truly dedicated to whatever change you're trying to effect. Here's how, and why:

Access to true power lies in force-free communication, influence, and (in a Republic bound by Democratic institutions) exercise of true power usually happens within the society's agreed-upon norms. Once you're outside of those norms, weak power (not true power at all) usually will resort to force to stop resistance. Again: this is your opening. You likely cannot sway majorities to see any legitimacy in your cause, without this opening: you have to be willing to risk having force used against you. That is history, and the power dynamics of State, I'm afraid.

So verily I must say unto any organizer or peaceful protester, whatever your cause—when you're done talking about "being right" (whatever you're upset about) the domains of non-violent action and effectiveness are there to remind you: whatever you want, it will never be a comfort-zone. And I get it: nobody wants to contemplate having any kind of force of the State used against them. But contemplate, they must, and decide if any cause is worth the pain.

Managing, and Using, the Power vs. Force Dynamic in Peaceful Protest

The Force Dynamics of any State (how a government, and those running it, think about force vs actually using force) is a subject of long-study. In Republics bound by Democracy, the Dynamics of force get fairly simple, when you boil it all down: people in power, and effective opposition organizers alike, tend to understand that power lies in their numbers. Organizing a peaceful-movement is a kind of power itself, the power of numbers of people willing to suffer for the change they believe in. On one side, using the power of their numbers to avoid escalation and engage in win/win compromises is one positive use of power—and has been the norm in this country because of the institution of the ballot box, and the principle of "one man, one vote". It is rare that movements in our history endured violent struggle, but the potential is never zero (see Revolutionary War, Civil War, and Civil Rights eras—to name a few).

So a healthy power structure, in a healthy Republic (bound by Democracy) will leverage power to achieve win/win compromises and avoid escalation. The problem is that single-party rule may not go that route. And the higher the stakes, the more likely force may be leveraged by those in power (especially a majority that is a slim one, in a bitterly-divided society—such as ours).

Only peaceful non-violent protest, in high enough numbers, can inoculate movements from any deadly-aspects of force—but only if they're willing to risk inviting (and being subject to) deadly force in the first place. It's a terrible Catch-22, but this is the risk and poker bluff that protest and political movements have leveraged since time immemorial.

Ways to Manage the Force Dynamics in Protesting Weak or Corrupt Power

Any non-violent change requires one side to:

Be wholly and completely non-violent, and be committed to non-violence.
Be making your case to EVERYONE, not just people who agree with you (or those in the online world).
Be willing to risk and endure force used upon you (including bodily injury).
Be engaging with people who may hate, dislike, or don't agree with you..
Be engaging with like-minded people, when you do, in places you have not considered going into.

That last point illustrates my biggest complaint about these current movements: non-violent protest includes deep fraternization with police and enlisted military members, an age-old method of inoculating your movement from the deadly harms when force gets used. People in our police national guard will be the humans asked to employ force upon you, why not let them know and see that you're not about trying to "destroy society"? Too many movements isolate from, and attack, potentially sympathetic humans working in the police, military, etc. So I point back to #2 above: if your cause is right and just, why aren't you engaging EVERYONE in our society?

The Force Dynamics of Protest In Action

Those in power who are dependent on raw force occurring—such as violent crackdowns to maintain their power—will always risk collapse of their support and effectiveness. They may achieve momentary gains after invoking force; however, over the long term it generates more resistance—which undermines force's original objective. And that, in most Democratic societies, ultimately reduces power. I'm sorry if it sounds like I am boiling all this down to very simple math: but it is 100% the case that, if you aren't willing to organize and peacefully engage with power—while inviting the possibility of force—you're never going to move beyond the memes, banners, and social media noise of today.

The Takeaway (Or My Takeway...)

I believe in peace and never want to see any society (especially my own) endure harms from protesting. I do not support violence of any kind, and my purpose in writing this thinkpiece is to remind our younger people: if a perceived threat against our democracy (or any urgent issue, really) is real, and a cause is just...it is not enough to talk and continue being right about your complaint. You must make your case and convince people outside of your bubble—and that means organizing and dedication. If you believe power is being abused against you, or others, you must be willing to: a. never stop peacefully-engaging with others and making your case, and b. be willing to take non-violent protest and navigate the dynamics between Power and Force.

No matter what you believe, no matter your political persuasion, or whatever your cause: I hope we can all agree on the hope that our society moves on from this troubling era, in peace and prosperity. We have so many challenges with technology, economic disruption, and things humans need their governments and citizens to work-together on. I have no idea what the future brings, but I live in hope our country can somehow limp along to heal and meet that future together.

It's all I can do. Why? Because nobody has organized peacefully yet. Nobody outside of social media bubbles are trying to reach me. So I advise those that don't agree with me that we're going to be fine...to consider the following:

Are you failing to meet this moment, with peaceful action?

If your cause (whatever it is) is truly just: without effective means to spread your message beyond the social media bubble, you're just leaving potential like-minded supporters in the dark. If you never peacefully-organize and embrace non-violent pursuit of your goal—and are willing to accept the risk of force used against you—then what is the point? Sure, free speech is great, but why all the memes with no action? I get it—maybe you feel powerless. But the "Power Dynamics of Protest" tell you: you have power here, if you can peacefully organize and move to use it.

I mean...I am just one person, and I might be missing something: show me what I'm missing! It just seems that people only operate online about these issues -- which makes them not seem real to most people: they signal virtue, seek justice, or "defend democracy" exclusively in online spaces in language-only...a realm of non-action, traditionally. If outrage and just-causes exist only as self-expression online...then why no peacefully-organizing? If it's all only meme-making and online activism, what's the point? Are people willing to do the work to peacefully organize, and convince others to join them? Are you committed enough that you are prepared experience force, and potential harm, while practicing non-violence in response?

Just food for thought. It's possible I'm entirely wrong about these weird times we live in.

You Aren't Outnumbered: You're Out–Organized