When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was jailed in Birmingham in 1963 for protesting segregation, he argued that nonviolent protest was meant to create a “constructive nonviolent tension”—a crisis so undeniable that it “inevitably open[s] the door to negotiation.” Such tension, he wrote, could lift people from the “dark depths of prejudice and racism.”
Today, that clarifying power is at work in a new context, helping define the true nature of the struggle unfolding across the nation. It is not simply a partisan fight, nor even a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. At its core, it is a clash between cultures of nonviolence and violence, with authoritarianism expressing the most extreme version of a will to harm.
That clarifying force has appeared in thousands of largely peaceful protests across the country. Millions have marched against ICE brutality, against the firing and union-busting of federal workers, and against cuts to essential programs in the national safety net—from health care and nutrition to education, housing and job training.
As the protests grew from three to five to seven million participants over several months, they raised awareness of harms inflicted by the Trump administration and helped energize voters in November elections. Their momentum contributed to the defeat of Trump-backed candidates and initiatives in states including New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Mississippi and California.
This sustained civic pressure also stiffened Senate Democrats’ resistance during a 43-day government shutdown triggered by Donald Trump’s refusal to negotiate over Medicaid cuts and increased Affordable Care Act premiums. In the standoff, the administration further clarified the violence at the heart of authoritarianism: Trump cut off food assistance for 42 million Americans, inflicting needless harm despite available funding.
The core impulses were unmistakable: threaten, inflict pain, force submission.
Ultimately, eight Senate Democrats voted to end the shutdown. One of them, Tim Kaine of Virginia, wrote a newspaper column explaining his decision—but by then, the deeper conflict had already been illuminated: a national reckoning between a culture of nonviolence and one defined by harm.
Andrew Moss is an emeritus professor of nonviolence studies and English at the California State University.
