Basically, the OP article said that the main vehicles by which protest can drive social change are twofold:
- At a small scale, by galvanizing public opinion one way or another. A violent or disruptive protest can make the voters think the protestors are the “bad guys”, or a protest without clear cohesive demands can be too abstract to produce any real change, but a clear and cohesive protest can induce people to vote for the side they see advocated for, especially if there’s a violent police response to paint a clear picture of the protestors as the good guys and the establishment as the bad guys. That perception can swing elections.
- At a large scale, the awareness that there are millions of people ready to get in the streets for an issue can cause existing leaders to react differently on it, regardless of any voting in the equation.
It was always thus
This was the point of Thomas Jefferson saying that a little revolution every now and again is a healthy thing. If there’s ever a population that’s just sitting around assuming everything is gonna be okay because of “the leaders,” or just passively observing that the leaders aren’t good, and therefore, oh no!, or anything like that, that’s a recipe for bad bad trouble.
It’s you and me man