What I Look for in Social Movements and What I Don’t

When Resistance Becomes the Goal: A Case Study of Indivisible and the Tracy Chapter’s Drift Toward Counterproductive Activism

By Carolyn Krysiak
May 2026 — Mental Health Month

Introduction: The Limits of Opposition‑Only Activism

Oppositional movements often emerge quickly and passionately, fueled by a shared sense of urgency. Indivisible is one such movement. Founded in 2016, it positioned itself as a grassroots response to national political developments, offering a playbook for “resistance” and “strategic pressure.” While this framing mobilized people rapidly, it also created a structural vulnerability: a movement defined by what it opposes rather than what it hopes to build.

This essay uses the Tracy, California chapter of Indivisible as a case study to examine what happens when a movement’s values are not translated into concrete goals, and when emotional energy fills the vacuum left by the absence of strategy. The consequences are not merely organizational—they affect community cohesion, small businesses, and individual mental health.

1. Values Are Not Goals: The Structural Weakness at the Heart of Indivisible

Indivisible’s national materials articulate broad values such as protecting democratic institutions, defending civil rights, and promoting civic engagement. These values are important, but they are directional, not operational. They do not specify what policies should be enacted, what measurable outcomes define success, or what the movement intends to build.

Analyses in publications such as The Atlantic and research from the Brookings Institution have noted that movements built primarily around resistance often struggle to articulate constructive visions. Without a clear “what,” the “why” becomes emotionally charged but intellectually hollow.

Logical, solution‑oriented thinkers disengage when a movement cannot articulate its destination. As organizational theorist Ronald Heifetz has argued, people cannot commit to a movement that cannot describe where it is going.

2. Decentralization and Drift: Why Local Chapters Vary So Widely

Indivisible is decentralized by design. Local chapters operate autonomously, with no requirement to adhere to a unified platform or strategy. While decentralization encourages participation, it also leads to inconsistent messaging, lack of accountability, emotional escalation, and mission drift.

Scholars of social movements, including Zeynep Tufekci, have documented how decentralized groups often drift toward performative protest and emotional venting when strategic clarity is absent. The Tracy chapter illustrates this drift vividly.

3. The Tracy Chapter: From Pep Rally to Pressure Campaign

3.1. Escalation Without Strategy

Recent actions by the Tracy chapter reveal a pattern of emotionally driven activism:

• Calls for small businesses to shut down “in solidarity,” despite the financial harm this would cause.
• Events explicitly framed around “talking smack,” normalizing hostility rather than dialogue.
• Protests with no clear ask, only expressions of discontent.

These actions do not advance policy goals. They do not build coalitions. They do not strengthen community resilience. Instead, they amplify irritation, discontent, and social division.

3.2. Relational Aggression as a Tactic

Even when non‑violent, the chapter’s tactics resemble relational aggression, a form of social pressure more commonly associated with adolescent bullying:

• public shaming
• coordinated disapproval
• emotional loyalty tests
• “you’re with us or against us” framing

Psychologists have long noted that relational aggression is rooted in emotional coercion rather than problem‑solving. Research summarized by the American Psychological Association highlights how these tactics undermine trust and damage group cohesion.

4. The Missing Logic Problem: A Case of Undefined Outcomes

One of the most striking patterns I have observed in conversations with those who sympathize with Indivisible that there is a logical gap that emerges when discussing succession, leadership, or long‑term planning.

When asked whether they would support the Vice President should the President step down, many respond with “definitely not.” When asked whether they would support the next in line, the Speaker of the House, the answer is again no. And when asked what the plan is for replacing all three, there is no answer at all.

This is not a prediction. It is an observation.

A great deal of energy has been spent on resistance without any parallel work on what happens if that resistance succeeds. There has been no visible effort toward cultivating or supporting a candidate for the next primary, leaving the group with no constructive alternative to offer if their desired outcome arrives.

Political theorists writing in publications such as Foreign Affairs have warned that movements without succession planning or constructive alternatives often create vacuums that can lead to instability or unintended consequences.

5. The Mental Health Cost of Anger‑Based Organizing

Research on activist burnout consistently shows that movements centered on outrage experience higher stress, increased anxiety, internal conflict, and emotional contagion of negativity. A 2020 study in Social Movement Studies found that anger‑based organizing increases burnout and reduces long‑term engagement.

The American Psychological Association has similarly noted that chronic outrage elevates stress hormones and impairs emotional regulation.

During Mental Health Month, the contrast is especially stark. Events centered on “talking smack” or amplifying irritation run counter to the principles of resilience, connection, and well‑being.

6. The Risk of Undefined Positive Goals

If a movement never defines what it wants to build, it risks creating something worse than what it is protesting.

History supports this concern. Movements that succeed in tearing something down but fail to articulate what comes next often experience internal fragmentation, escalation into harmful tactics, alienation of moderates, loss of public trust, and empowerment of more extreme actors.

Political scientist Erica Chenoweth has noted that successful movements pair resistance with constructive vision. Without that pairing, resistance becomes an identity rather than a strategy.

7. The Tracy Chapter as a Case Study in Mission Drift

The Tracy chapter’s recent behavior demonstrates the predictable consequences of oppositional activism without constructive goals:

• Harm to small businesses through poorly conceived pressure tactics
• Harm to community cohesion through relational aggression
• Harm to individual mental health through anger‑centered events
• Harm to the movement’s credibility through lack of strategic clarity

This is not an indictment of every member or of the national organization’s stated values. It is an analysis of what happens when a movement’s positive goals remain undefined.

8. What I Look for Before Joining a Movement: SMART Goals and Logical Tactics

If I am going to commit my time, energy, or reputation to a movement, I need to see more than values or outrage. I need to see SMART goals—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time‑bound—paired with tactics that could logically produce those outcomes. Without that connection, activism becomes emotional expression rather than meaningful change.

Here is what I look for before joining or supporting any civic movement:

8.1. Specific Goals

A movement must clearly articulate what it wants to build, not just what it wants to resist. This includes naming concrete policy outcomes, community improvements, or structural changes. Vague aspirations like “protect democracy” or “fight injustice” are not enough; they must be translated into specific objectives that can be acted upon.

8.2. Measurable Outcomes

There must be a way to evaluate progress. This could include benchmarks such as increased voter participation, successful community partnerships, or measurable improvements in local well‑being. Without metrics, a movement cannot know whether its efforts are effective or merely cathartic.

8.3. Achievable and Realistic Plans

Goals must be grounded in reality. They should reflect an understanding of how institutions work, what resources are available, and what steps are required. Movements that demand sweeping change without a feasible pathway often collapse into frustration or escalate into harmful tactics.

8.4. Relevant and Constructive Alignment

The movement’s goals should align with the needs of the community it claims to serve. This includes respecting local businesses, supporting mental health, and strengthening social cohesion. Tactics that harm the community—economically, emotionally, or relationally—are counterproductive and undermine the movement’s legitimacy.

8.5. Time‑Bound Strategy

Effective movements operate on timelines. They plan for the short term, medium term, and long term. They prepare for transitions, leadership changes, and the possibility that their efforts may succeed. Without time‑bound planning, movements remain reactive and unprepared for the consequences of their own actions.

8.6. Logical Connection Between Tactics and Outcomes

Above all, I look for a movement whose tactics are logically capable of producing the outcomes it claims to seek. This means the actions taken must have a clear, evidence‑based pathway to the desired result. Symbolic gestures, emotional venting, or pressure for its own sake do not meet this standard. Effective movements demonstrate how each tactic contributes to a larger strategy, how that strategy advances specific goals, and how those goals ultimately serve the community.

When tactics and outcomes are disconnected, movements drift into reaction rather than construction. They may generate energy, but not progress. They may create noise, but not solutions. A movement that cannot articulate how its actions lead to its goals is not ready for meaningful civic engagement.

This is why SMART goals matter: they force a movement to define not only what it wants, but how it intends to get there. Without that alignment, activism becomes emotionally driven rather than strategically effective.

Conclusion: Resistance Is Not Enough

Indivisible’s national leadership may articulate values, but values are not a plan. The Tracy chapter’s recent actions reveal what happens when a movement built on resistance fails to evolve into a movement built on construction.

Communities deserve activism that builds rather than breaks, heals rather than harms, clarifies rather than confuses, and uplifts rather than agitates.

Without a constructive vision, even well‑intentioned activism can become counterproductive.

The road of good intentions still requires a map.