Activism thrives on moral conviction, but conviction alone does not produce change. Current responses to Elon Musk's acquisition of social platforms or Donald Trump's political maneuvers illustrate this dynamic. While both figures generate legitimate concerns, premature action against hypothetical threats depletes social movements. The resources of time, attention and outrage function as limited currencies in the political economy of protest.
Most large-scale political mobilizations gain momentum from specific, measurable harms rather than predictions. Consider veterans unable to access healthcare due to Trump-era VA policies, or potential aviation accidents following regulatory cuts. Such tangible outcomes create narratives that transcend ideological divides. The pain of concrete harm speaks louder than theoretical dangers.
The current political environment presents an avalanche of concerning developments. Yet protesting each troubling signal fragments resistance. When activists respond to every potential threat, they risk squandering public attention – the scarcest resource in contemporary politics. Like a battlefield commander choosing the ground for engagement, movement leaders must select their moments with care.
This strategic patience differs from passivity. It demands rigorous documentation of patterns, development of response capabilities, and maintenance of activist networks. The goal is readiness rather than constant deployment.
History illuminates the power of timing in social movements. The Montgomery Bus Boycott emerged from Rosa Parks' arrest, not from general opposition to segregation. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire generated labor reforms that decades of warnings about workplace safety had failed to achieve.
Trump's and Musk's patterns of behavior warrant close observation - their past actions often predict future failures. Yet protesting predicted harms presents challenges – it allows critics to dismiss concerns as paranoid, disperses energy needed for documented problems, and reduces credibility when dire predictions fail to manifest.
The wisdom of waiting lies not in comfort with injustice but in understanding how change occurs. When moments of clear harm emerge, prepared movements can respond with focused power rather than scattered outrage.
