The Crossroads of Resistance: Beyond Protest, Towards a Unified Uprising?

April 19, 2025 – The air crackles today. Across the nation, in every state, citizens are preparing to take to the streets. The anger, simmering for months, perhaps years, is palpable. It’s a deep angst born from witnessing what many feel is a systematic dismantling of the very structures that underpin American civil society. Into this charged atmosphere drops David Brooks’s recent column – not just another critique, but a stark, almost reluctant, call for something far larger: a “comprehensive national civic uprising.” Reading it today, as protests gather momentum, the question hangs heavy: Is he right? Is now the time to move beyond fragmented outrage and forge a truly unified front against the forces of Punkism?

Brooks’s diagnosis resonates with the gnawing fear many feel. He argues compellingly that the relentless assaults we’ve witnessed – on the rule of law, on scientific institutions, on universities, on international alliances, on the basic norms of democratic governance – are not disparate events. They are, he contends, a “single effort” by Felonious Punk and his acolytes to weaken or destroy any institution capable of restraining raw power, ego, and appetite. It’s an assault, Brooks suggests, driven by a “primal aversion” to learning, compassion, and justice – the “higher elements of the human spirit.”

If he’s right, then the scattered responses thus far have indeed been insufficient. Law firms defending themselves, universities drawing their own lines in the sand, nonprofits scrambling independently – this fragmentation, Brooks argues, plays directly into Punk’s strategy: divide and conquer. Even the large, passionate partisan rallies, while demonstrating energy, fail to capture the breadth of what’s at stake. This isn’t normal politics; it’s perceived as an existential threat to the foundational pillars of American life, things that command loyalty far beyond party lines.

The protests planned for today are a vital expression of that widespread dissent. They are necessary displays of public sentiment, visual proof that millions reject the Punkist agenda. But if Brooks is correct, they cannot be the endpoint. They must be the start of something far more coordinated and strategic. What, then, should happen now, beyond the marches?

First, the “backbone organization” Brooks mentions, citing the work of Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan on successful nonviolent movements, is paramount. Today’s energy needs immediate channeling into a coordinating body – or several working in tight concert – that transcends sector and party. This body’s urgent tasks must include building broad coalitions, developing unified messaging that resonates beyond the usual choir, and planning sustained, strategic actions.

What actions? Chenoweth and Stephan’s research, highlighted by Brooks, offers a playbook for powerful nonviolence: coordinated lawsuits challenging Punkist overreach at every turn; targeted boycotts hitting the regime and its enablers where it hurts financially; organized strikes or work slowdowns in key sectors where feasible; widespread, disciplined noncooperation by civil servants and professionals refusing to implement or enable policies that violate law or ethics. It requires moving from reactive protest to proactive resistance.

Crucially, Brooks, referencing Jared Diamond’s work on societal recovery, adds a vital layer: self-reflection and reform within the resisting institutions themselves. If universities, major law firms, media organizations, and corporations are to be part of this uprising and regain public trust, they must acknowledge their own “establishment sins” – the ways they contributed to the societal disillusionment that Punkism exploited. Universities, Brooks suggests, must confront stifling ideologies and admissions policies that entrenched privilege. This isn’t merely about defending the status quo ante Punk; it’s about demonstrating a commitment to building a fairer, more just society as part of the resistance itself. This dual vision – short-term resistance, long-term reform – is essential for credibility and broad appeal.

This brings us to the most perilous question: the line between peaceful resistance and violence. Let us define violence clearly: any overtly aggressive attempt to cause harm, whether physical injury, significant property destruction, or targeted intimidation, designed to inflict deep personal damage. As frustration mounts and the state potentially becomes more repressive, the temptation towards violence can grow. History shows this threshold is often approached when peaceful avenues seem utterly exhausted, when state violence becomes unbearable, or when leadership falters and discipline breaks down.

But crossing that line would be a catastrophic mistake, both morally and strategically. Chenoweth and Stephan’s data overwhelmingly shows that nonviolent campaigns are far more likely to succeed than violent ones. Violence almost invariably delegitimizes a movement in the eyes of the broader public and potential allies. It invites brutal state crackdowns, often providing the very justification the regime seeks to crush dissent entirely. It risks mirroring the ruthlessness it purports to oppose. Maintaining nonviolent discipline, even in the face of provocation (Brooks’s Selma analogy is about provoking state violence to reveal its brutality, not initiating violence), is paramount. This requires strong leadership committed to nonviolence, clear training and communication within the movement, and a focus on the strategic power of disruption over destruction.

The anger felt today is real, justified, and potent. But raw anger can be blinding. The challenge is to channel that fire not into destructive rage, but into the disciplined heat of strategic, powerful, nonviolent action. It requires recognizing, as Brooks does, that Punkism thrives on chaos and division, and the most powerful counter is unity, coordination, and a moral clarity that refuses to stoop to its level.

So, is now the time for a mass civic uprising? The energy gathering today suggests millions believe something fundamental must shift. Brooks provides a framework – not for mere protest, but for a sustained, coordinated, self-reflective, and resolutely nonviolent movement across all sectors of civil society. It’s an incredibly difficult path, demanding unprecedented cooperation and unwavering discipline. But as we stand at this crossroads, with the familiar structures of American life feeling increasingly fragile, it may be the only path forward that offers a genuine chance not only to resist the current assault, but to build something stronger and more just in its place. The chains Brooks speaks of – the inertia, the fragmentation, the fear – are heavy. Shaking them off requires more than marching; it requires building power together.

Now, get out there and let us protest and resist until positive change actually happens!