That’s an excellent point.
I was thinking of Kennedy and civil rights. He needed to get out in front of a popular movement that was threatening to explode if it wasn’t addressed.
It forced Kennedy to take positions he otherwise would not, and gave him the political capital to get things done.
So I think perhaps a better way to phrase it is that mass protests and civil disruption can put governments between the horns of a dilemma. Right now… banksters are not prosecuted because banksters can give governments and their leaders better reasons to not do so, then to do so.
We’d have to give them better reasons to do so, then to not do so. Legally and nonviolently. Yes…
However… some places do not allow peaceful protests. Or even dissenting opinions. What then?
