Congratulations on the new Substack Aaron! Thank you for adding me as a subscriber. I always loved receiving your email updates and look forward to your future Substack articles.
I think your take of what's wrong with the Democratic party is spot on. I often find myself a bit unsure what exactly to ask of our current reps (for me that's Amo, Whitehouse, Reed). I do call them often with comments but this piece starts to get at more concrete requests I can provide in my calls.
I think a lot of us in Democratic districts feel like there's not too much reason to call our reps in these times. Yet your writing effectively argues the contrary. I'll call my reps today to ask that they embrace these recent protest movements, including No Kings, Senator Padilla, etc. ("iconic moments, images, stories, and press cycles").
If you can continue to include concrete "asks" we can use in our calls to our Democratic reps in future posts, it would really be appreciated!
Thanks for the kind words, Aaron! And that's a really great suggestion, will definitely try to do so, whenever I think there's a good ask. I'd say at this exact moment it's "please join the calls against us getting sucked into another horrific forever war!"
The “3.5% rule” is unscientific and historically ignorant. Avoid citing because it spoils your well-reasoned arguments and creates false expectations. By these standards the MAGA counterrevolution already won with a greater percentage. I've seen Chenowith's research for years and reject the methodology. Her example of the 1986 EDSA Revolution in the Philippines is a stunning irony. I was actually there. The only thing "people power" accomplished was to replace Marcos with Cory Aquino, another member of the ruling oligarchy. Violence, poverty and repression grew over the succeeding decades culminating in the dictatorship of Rodrigo Duterte, now incarcerated in The Hague awaiting trial for the extrajudicial murder of 20-30,000 Filipinos. The Marcos family is back charge. What revolution?
Thank you for sharing this, duly noted! It certainly is simplistic, even without knowing more about their methodological issues. Will look into more -- but for now I think the reference just stands in for the idea of "this was a lotta people who turned out on Saturday!"
The 3.5% rule is based on an analysis of over 100 movements that sought regime change; you cite just a single example. In addition, while your example does show one regime change led to another that was just as bad, the movement did technically bring down the current ruling party. That is precisely what the 3.5% rule was intended to measure; not whether the regime change was actually in a "positive" direction.
Also, when you say "By these standards the MAGA counterrevolution already won with a greater percentage" are you referring to the 2024 election results? Chenowith's percentages are not based on the number of people voting in elections; they're based on individuals participating in a protest movement. In any case, the vote totals for Trump and Harris differed by less than 2% points. Not really a resounding affirmation of either party...
Chenowith also fully acknowledges (in the above linked episode) that it's not the number itself that makes the change possible, it's what the number represents. For a movement to reach 3.5%, it has to involve many different networks of people who don't agree on everything but do share a common goal of removing the current ruling party/regime. And those multiple networks of people ultimately errode the pillars of support holding up the ruling regime. It is this extensive network and relationship building that ultimately leads the movement to succeed, not just the number of people directly involved in the movement.
One of the more common misunderstandings of the 3.5% rule is also that a movement won't succeed until it reaches 3.5%. There were many movements in Chenowith's research that succeeded in their objective with percentages of directly involved individuals lower than 3.5%. The 3.5% figure is just the minimum that worked for the entirety of their dataset. So, it's possible that such a movement in the US could succeed with fewer than 3.5% participation. Of course, it's also possible that it could fail with over 3.5% participation since we're only talking probabilities here.
"That is precisely what the 3.5% rule was intended to measure; not whether the regime change was actually in a "positive" direction." You are absolutely correct, and that's why 3.5% stands for populist regime change only. What comes afterwards is anyone's guess. That's not enough for me.
Aaron! Wondered where you went. Thrilled to hear you're working with a group that goes back to American original, consumer advocate, activist and true patriot, Ralph Nader. Thanks for switching your list to this platform. RI native and military brat,
Hi, Aaron, fully agree about contacting our reps. I've called and written Jack Reed so often that his staff now sends me PR the very few times he does speak out, but of course he was slow out of the box and has made no difference. Whitehouse and his staff are resolutely silent and Seth's team sends the same one-sentence response over and over. I say this to illustrate once again how tepid they are, not to discourage anyone from reaching out, bc we should make all the noise we can! The other big thing--our 4 incumbents must be primaried by strong progressives. (I only wish that could happen all at once.) I don't think even the most skeptical of us could have envisioned how much this country could have lost in only 5 months or how spineless most Dem responses would be.
Your analysis is much needed! And your writing is fantastic. You give it to us straight without sacrificing the emotion of it. Yours are some of my favorite pieces to read. Thank you for your work.
Congratulations on the new Substack Aaron! Thank you for adding me as a subscriber. I always loved receiving your email updates and look forward to your future Substack articles.
I think your take of what's wrong with the Democratic party is spot on. I often find myself a bit unsure what exactly to ask of our current reps (for me that's Amo, Whitehouse, Reed). I do call them often with comments but this piece starts to get at more concrete requests I can provide in my calls.
I think a lot of us in Democratic districts feel like there's not too much reason to call our reps in these times. Yet your writing effectively argues the contrary. I'll call my reps today to ask that they embrace these recent protest movements, including No Kings, Senator Padilla, etc. ("iconic moments, images, stories, and press cycles").
If you can continue to include concrete "asks" we can use in our calls to our Democratic reps in future posts, it would really be appreciated!
Thanks for the kind words, Aaron! And that's a really great suggestion, will definitely try to do so, whenever I think there's a good ask. I'd say at this exact moment it's "please join the calls against us getting sucked into another horrific forever war!"
Love this, keep it up. We need your voice -- and your clear "suffer no fools" truth telling -- in these times.
holy shit thank you Aaron, as always for being you and for saying what needs saying.
Nice post, Aaron. Please keep them coming.
Looking forward to reading more of you post!
The “3.5% rule” is unscientific and historically ignorant. Avoid citing because it spoils your well-reasoned arguments and creates false expectations. By these standards the MAGA counterrevolution already won with a greater percentage. I've seen Chenowith's research for years and reject the methodology. Her example of the 1986 EDSA Revolution in the Philippines is a stunning irony. I was actually there. The only thing "people power" accomplished was to replace Marcos with Cory Aquino, another member of the ruling oligarchy. Violence, poverty and repression grew over the succeeding decades culminating in the dictatorship of Rodrigo Duterte, now incarcerated in The Hague awaiting trial for the extrajudicial murder of 20-30,000 Filipinos. The Marcos family is back charge. What revolution?
Thank you for sharing this, duly noted! It certainly is simplistic, even without knowing more about their methodological issues. Will look into more -- but for now I think the reference just stands in for the idea of "this was a lotta people who turned out on Saturday!"
I respectfully disagree. I listened to a recent interview with Erica Chenowith by Pod Save America (https://crooked.com/podcast/the-3-5-protest-rule-that-could-bring-down-trump/) and found her arguments both scientifically sound and historically well grounded.
The 3.5% rule is based on an analysis of over 100 movements that sought regime change; you cite just a single example. In addition, while your example does show one regime change led to another that was just as bad, the movement did technically bring down the current ruling party. That is precisely what the 3.5% rule was intended to measure; not whether the regime change was actually in a "positive" direction.
Also, when you say "By these standards the MAGA counterrevolution already won with a greater percentage" are you referring to the 2024 election results? Chenowith's percentages are not based on the number of people voting in elections; they're based on individuals participating in a protest movement. In any case, the vote totals for Trump and Harris differed by less than 2% points. Not really a resounding affirmation of either party...
Chenowith also fully acknowledges (in the above linked episode) that it's not the number itself that makes the change possible, it's what the number represents. For a movement to reach 3.5%, it has to involve many different networks of people who don't agree on everything but do share a common goal of removing the current ruling party/regime. And those multiple networks of people ultimately errode the pillars of support holding up the ruling regime. It is this extensive network and relationship building that ultimately leads the movement to succeed, not just the number of people directly involved in the movement.
One of the more common misunderstandings of the 3.5% rule is also that a movement won't succeed until it reaches 3.5%. There were many movements in Chenowith's research that succeeded in their objective with percentages of directly involved individuals lower than 3.5%. The 3.5% figure is just the minimum that worked for the entirety of their dataset. So, it's possible that such a movement in the US could succeed with fewer than 3.5% participation. Of course, it's also possible that it could fail with over 3.5% participation since we're only talking probabilities here.
"That is precisely what the 3.5% rule was intended to measure; not whether the regime change was actually in a "positive" direction." You are absolutely correct, and that's why 3.5% stands for populist regime change only. What comes afterwards is anyone's guess. That's not enough for me.
Aaron! Wondered where you went. Thrilled to hear you're working with a group that goes back to American original, consumer advocate, activist and true patriot, Ralph Nader. Thanks for switching your list to this platform. RI native and military brat,
Lesley McLaughlin, Cumberland.
Hi, Aaron, fully agree about contacting our reps. I've called and written Jack Reed so often that his staff now sends me PR the very few times he does speak out, but of course he was slow out of the box and has made no difference. Whitehouse and his staff are resolutely silent and Seth's team sends the same one-sentence response over and over. I say this to illustrate once again how tepid they are, not to discourage anyone from reaching out, bc we should make all the noise we can! The other big thing--our 4 incumbents must be primaried by strong progressives. (I only wish that could happen all at once.) I don't think even the most skeptical of us could have envisioned how much this country could have lost in only 5 months or how spineless most Dem responses would be.
Hi Susan, thanks for all you do!
Well said, Aaron. I'm not quite sure how I got here, but very glad that I did.
Your analysis is much needed! And your writing is fantastic. You give it to us straight without sacrificing the emotion of it. Yours are some of my favorite pieces to read. Thank you for your work.
Thank you for adding me. Excellent post.