By Winston Vance

“The whole world is watching,” they chanted in 1968. In 2025, millions scroll past protest livestreams in a state of numbness. The link between civic action and change has frayed—and perhaps, unraveled.

---

1968 is often marked as a pivotal year in U.S. political and civic history because it signaled both the peak and unraveling of a sustained era of mass civic mobilization, protest, and belief in participatory democracy. Since that turning point, Americans have grown increasingly doubtful that civic participation leads to meaningful reform.

The years 1968 and 2025 serve as symbolic bookends in a broader arc of democratic strain. In both moments, institutions faced sweeping societal disruption—from mass protest and political violence to deep ideological division. Public confidence splintered. These were not routine moments of unrest, but stress tests exposing deep flaws in representative government.

From Volatility to Resignation

In 1968, the United States confronted overlapping crises: an unpopular war; the assassinations of revered leaders; and widespread protest against racial injustice and inequality. Demonstrators challenged both foreign policy and domestic legitimacy. Yet despite the turmoil, many believed that organized activism could shape political outcomes. Voting, marching, and sustained engagement were seen as ways to force institutional response. Democracy, though flawed, was still expected to work (Zinn, 2003).

In 2025, that expectation has weakened. Government procedures remain, but the connection between civic action and change feels uncertain. Like in 1968, the nation is divided, but today’s divisions are accompanied by deeper skepticism. Participation still happens, but belief in its impact has faded. The machinery continues, but the sense of responsiveness has eroded (Pew Research Center, 2022).

The Changing Mechanics of Protest

Protest in the 1960s required coordination, sacrifice, and strategic persistence. Movements like the Civil Rights campaign and the anti-Vietnam War effort developed clear demands and visible leadership. Activists occupied public space and confronted the state directly. That presence made institutional response more likely. Protest aimed not just to express frustration but to apply pressure over time (McAdam, 1982).

Today’s protests unfold differently. Digital platforms enable rapid mobilization and wide visibility but often lack sustained structure. Movements can surge overnight and fade just as quickly. A 2024 study by Gethin and Pons found that, while 14 U.S. social movements generated significant activity online, most had limited long-term impact on political attitudes. The study attributed this to the spontaneous nature of recent movements. They often lack stable leadership, making institutional response easier to avoid (Harvard Kennedy School).

The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests mobilized millions across physical and digital spaces. However, many policy proposals—such as the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act—stalled in Congress, and broader momentum declined within a year (Cobb, 2021).

Young Americans and Institutional Trust

In the 1960s, activists worked within the political system. They believed that being included and represented could lead to meaningful change.

Today, many young people are skeptical of institutions. A Pew Research Center survey found most Millennials and Gen Z doubt the government’s ability to function effectively. Their views are shaped by climate inaction, rising costs, and political gridlock. They often feel that raising concerns leads to little visible response or action. Some turn to informal civic work. Mutual aid networks and local organizing reflect continued investment in public life. These efforts do not always engage formal politics. They focus on tangible outcomes.

Their skepticism is compounded by how information is now consumed and processed.

Common Knowledge Has Fractured

During the Vietnam War, Americans largely consumed the same televised news reports. Though the coverage had its limitations, it offered a shared frame of reference that shaped public understanding.

Today, that common frame is less cohesive. Conflicts such as those in Ukraine and Gaza are followed through livestreams, drone footage, and user-generated content across diverse platforms. Information is abundant, but coherence is not. People struggle to distinguish truth from manipulation. As they navigate digital environments, verification is uneven. In these areas, consensus is rare. The result is a fragmented media landscape in which perspectives vary widely and no single narrative dominates.

A 2023 Pew study found that 64% of Americans feel overwhelmed by the amount of information and uncertain about how to verify facts. Without shared standards for evaluating knowledge, the foundations of collective decision-making begin to erode.

A Weakening Connection Between Protest and Reform

In the 1960s, civic activism played a decisive role in driving legal reform. The Civil Rights Movement helped catalyze landmark legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both of which reshaped the legal landscape of American democracy (Fairclough, 2001).

Today, that connection between public pressure and legal change is less consistent. Judical gridlock has become routine, and court rulings have increasingly narrowed the legal avenues available for redress.

In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring certain jurisdictions to seek federal approval before changing voting laws. In the years that followed, at least 29 states passed new restrictions, including strict ID requirements and voter roll purges—measures that disproportionately affect Black, Latino, young, and low-income voters (Brennan Center for Justice, 2023).

The terms of participation have changed. Some groups now face greater barriers to political inclusion.

When Institutions Persist but Legitimacy Fades

Democratic decline is often subtle. Institutions may appear to function—elections are held, protests occur, officials speak out—but their capacity to deliver meaningful outcomes steadily erodes.

Many Americans sense a growing disconnect between civic participation and institutional response. Voting, organizing, and advocacy persist, yet their impact frequently feels uncertain. Over time, this weakens trust in the democratic process itself.

As Levitsky and Ziblatt argue in How Democracies Die, democratic backsliding tends to unfold gradually. Institutions are not always dismantled; they are hollowed out. The danger lies in mistaking the appearance of procedure for the substance of accountability.

Today’s civic disillusionment signals a system under strain. Renewal depends on sustained public engagement and institutions willing to respond with integrity and effectiveness.

Charting a Way Back

Restoring trust in democracy requires more than concern. It calls for sustained civic engagement alongside meaningful institutional reform.

In a related piece, Trust in Democracy Is Cracking—Here’s Where It Can Be Rebuilt, I explored how local participation can help repair democratic culture. This involves school boards, neighborhood initiatives, and community budgeting. This section focuses on the second half of the equation. While civic engagement can generate energy, it must be matched by institutions that respond with credibility and purpose.

The recommendations below identify policy areas where advocacy can strengthen the connection between participation and outcome:

• Reinstate federal voting protections by updating pre-clearance requirements through the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
• Establish campaign finance limits and increase transparency through the For the People Act (H.R. 1).
• Expand civic education that builds media literacy, institutional knowledge, and democratic habits (iCivics Policy Brief).
• Protect the right to protest by ensuring accessible public space and limiting the use of militarized force (ACLU Protest Rights Guide).
• Create formal channels for public input, such as participatory budgeting and local civic councils (Participatory Budgeting Project).

These proposals do not offer a comprehensive solution. However, they represent practical steps toward strengthening the relationship between democratic institutions and the people they represent.

Rebecca Solnit, in Hope in the Dark, writes:

“Inside the word emergency is emerge; from an emergency new things come forth. The old certainties are crumbling fast, but danger and possibility are sisters.”

Her point is not that crisis guarantees transformation. Rather, moments of disruption can create space for change. What follows depends on sustained civic engagement and on the capacity of institutions to respond with clarity and purpose.

Legitimacy is built through performance. Institutions maintain trust not through tradition or continuity alone, but by addressing public concerns in tangible ways.

This is not only a matter of historical interest. It is a question that speaks directly to the present. Can democratic institutions still act in ways that reflect collective priorities?

The answer may depend on whether civic engagement can be sustained. It also depends on whether institutions remember that they exist to serve the public as a whole.

---

Sources and Further Reading

ACLU. Protesters’ Rights Guide. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights.

Brennan Center for Justice. Voting Laws Roundup: 2023 in Review. Brennan Center for Justice, 18 Jan. 2024, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2023-review.

Brookings Institution. The Fragmentation of the Digital Public Sphere. Brookings Institution, 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-consequences-of-a-fragmenting-less-global-internet/ Brookings.

Cobb, Jelani. The New Yorker Archive. The New Yorker, ongoing, https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/jelani-cobb.

Fairclough, Adam. To Redeem the Soul of America: The Southern Christian Leadership Conference and Martin Luther King, Jr. University of Georgia Press, 1987, https://www.ugapress.org/9780820323466/to-redeem-the-soul-of-america/.

Harvard Kennedy School. “Social Movements and Public Opinion in the United States.” Harvard Kennedy School (CID), 2020, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/social-movements-and-public-opinion-united-states.

iCivics. Policy Briefs. iCivics, https://www.icivics.org/curriculum/public-policy?level=high&page=0.

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing, 2018, accessed via Harvard Faculty page, https://levitsky.scholars.harvard.edu/publications/how-democracies-die

Oyez. “Shelby County v. Holder (2013).” Oyez Legal Archive, decided 25 June 2013, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96.

Participatory Budgeting Project. About. Participatory Budgeting Project, https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/about/.

PBS. “The Whole World Was Watching.” American Experience, PBS, https://www.pbs.org/show/the-whole-world-was-watching/ PBS+11PBS+11TV Insider+11.

Pew Research Center. “Young Americans and Trust in Government.” Pew Research Center, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/young-americans-and-trust-in-government.

Pew Research Center, 2023, “Americans’ Views on Disinformation.” https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/americans-views-on-disinformation.

Solnit, Rebecca. Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities. Nation Books, 2004, https://rebeccasolnit.net/book/hope-in-the-dark-untold-histories-wild-possibilities/ rebeccasolnit.net.

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. Harper & Row, 1980 (35th Anniversary ed. 2015), https://www.howardzinn.org/collection/peoples-history/ howardzinn.org.