Why Modern Protests Lack Passion and Impact

Have you ever noticed how some protests seem to burst onto the scene with fire and fury, while others barely flicker before fading away? I’ve been mulling over this lately, especially after hearing about the recent “Good Trouble” protests that promised to shake things up but ended up more like a whisper than a roar. It got me thinking: what’s changed in the world of activism? Why do some movements struggle to capture that raw, electric energy we’ve seen in the past?

The Fading Spark of Modern Protests

Protests have long been a way for people to come together, raise their voices, and demand change. But something feels different now. The “Good Trouble” demonstrations, which aimed to challenge certain political policies, didn’t quite hit the mark. Crowds were smaller than expected, social media buzz was nearly nonexistent, and the energy felt… well, flat. So, what’s going on? Let’s dive into the factors that seem to be dimming the spark of modern activism.

A Shift in Grassroots Energy

One of the most striking aspects of recent protests is the apparent lack of grassroots momentum. In the past, movements often grew organically, fueled by passionate individuals who felt personally invested in the cause. But today, something’s shifted. I’ve noticed that many modern protests seem to rely heavily on organized efforts rather than spontaneous, community-driven action. The “Good Trouble” events, for instance, were backed by a network of organizations, yet they struggled to draw crowds.

Activism thrives when it’s fueled by genuine passion, not just organized efforts.

– Social movement researcher

Why the disconnect? One theory is that the decline in easy funding for activist causes has forced organizers to lean on structured campaigns rather than authentic community support. Without that organic fire, it’s tough to get people to show up, especially when the cause feels abstract or distant.

The Media’s New Role

Here’s where things get interesting. I’ve always thought the media’s job was to report the news, not make it. But lately, it seems some outlets are stepping into the role of protest organizers. For the “Good Trouble” events, certain platforms went all-in, sharing schedules, maps, and calls to action before the protests even kicked off. It’s almost like they were trying to manufacture momentum where it didn’t naturally exist.

But here’s the kicker: it didn’t work. Despite the media’s best efforts, attendance was lackluster. In one city, organizers hoped for 10,000 protesters but only saw about 2,000. In another, just a few hundred showed up. Perhaps the most telling sign? The lack of chatter on social media. If a protest happens and no one’s tweeting about it, did it even make a dent?

The Funding Factor

Let’s talk money. Activism isn’t cheap—organizing rallies, printing signs, and spreading the word all require cash. In the past, some movements benefited from generous funding, often from large organizations or even government sources. But what happens when those funds dry up? According to some insiders, the flow of easy money for protests has slowed, leaving organizers scrambling to fill the gap.

Take this example: a company specializing in crowd recruitment was offered a whopping $20 million to drum up demonstrators for the “Good Trouble” protests. They turned it down, not because they didn’t want the money, but because they believed the effort would flop. And they were right. Without genuine grassroots support, throwing money at a cause doesn’t guarantee success.

Money can buy signs, but it can’t buy passion.

Who’s Showing Up?

Another curious trend caught my eye: the demographics of recent protests. I expected to see a sea of young, fiery activists, like we saw during the 2020 movements. Instead, many of the “Good Trouble” rallies were dominated by older participants—think retirees with time on their hands. This shift raises some questions. Are younger people less interested in activism today? Or are they just harder to mobilize?

One possible explanation is logistics. Retirees don’t have to juggle work schedules or childcare to attend a midweek rally. Plus, they might be more willing to show up for smaller incentives. Younger activists, on the other hand, often have tighter schedules and higher expectations for what’s worth their time. It’s a subtle but significant shift that’s changing the face of protests.

The Social Media Silence

In 2025, social media is the megaphone for any movement. Or at least, it should be. One of the most surprising things about the “Good Trouble” protests was how little they trended online. I scrolled through my feeds during the event, expecting to see hashtags and viral clips, but there was barely a peep. This lack of digital buzz is a huge red flag for any movement hoping to make an impact.

Why the silence? It could be that the protests didn’t resonate with a younger, tech-savvy audience. Or maybe the messaging didn’t hit the mark. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that a movement without a strong online presence is like a tree falling in an empty forest—no one hears it.

What Makes a Protest Successful?

So, what does it take for a protest to actually move the needle? I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I’ve come up with a few key ingredients that seem to make the difference. Here’s my take, based on what we’ve seen in successful movements of the past:

• Clear Messaging: A successful protest needs a focused, relatable cause that people can rally behind.
• Grassroots Passion: The energy has to come from the ground up, not from top-down organization.
• Digital Amplification: In today’s world, a strong social media presence is non-negotiable.
• Diverse Participation: Movements thrive when they draw a wide range of people, from young to old.

The “Good Trouble” protests missed the mark on most of these. Their messaging was vague, focusing on broad claims about “civil rights” without clear specifics. The grassroots energy was lacking, and the social media buzz was practically nonexistent. As for diversity, the heavy presence of older activists suggested a disconnect with younger generations.

The Bigger Picture

Stepping back, I can’t help but wonder: are we seeing the end of an era for large-scale protests? The “Good Trouble” fizzle might be a symptom of a broader shift. Maybe people are burned out from years of constant activism. Or maybe the causes being pushed don’t resonate as deeply as they once did. Either way, it’s clear that the old playbook for organizing protests isn’t working like it used to.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is what this says about our society. Are we becoming less willing to take to the streets? Or are we just channeling our energy differently—through online campaigns, for example? I don’t have all the answers, but I suspect the future of activism will look very different from the past.

Lessons for the Future

If there’s one takeaway from the “Good Trouble” protests, it’s this: authenticity matters. People can sense when a movement is genuine versus when it’s been engineered. Organizers need to focus on building real connections with communities, not just throwing money at a cause or relying on media hype.

Here’s a quick breakdown of what future protests might need to succeed:

In my experience, the most powerful movements are the ones that feel personal. They tap into something deep—whether it’s anger, hope, or a sense of justice. If organizers can recapture that, they might just reignite the spark that’s been missing.

Final Thoughts

The “Good Trouble” protests might not have shaken the world, but they’ve given us plenty to think about. From the decline in grassroots energy to the media’s evolving role, it’s clear that activism is at a crossroads. Maybe it’s time to rethink what makes a movement tick. What do you think—can protests still change the world, or are we moving toward a new kind of activism?

I’ll leave you with this: the next time you hear about a protest, pay attention to who’s showing up and why. It might just tell you more about our society than any headline ever could.