The One-Third Rule of Revolutions: What We Must Do to Restore Democracy in America! —By John Persico with Metis

For years I’d heard a curious idea, that most revolutions are won by only a third of the population.  Supposedly the American Revolution broke down this way—one third for independence, one third against it, and one third sitting on the fence.  I began wondering whether this pattern was unique to America or common across world history.  And if it was true, even in spirit, how is it possible for a minority to defeat a larger group?

Let me get something very straight with this blog.  This is not about theory.  This is about praxis.  We are in the midst of a cold war rapidly becoming a hot war in the country.  One third of Americans want a democracy.  One third want a Hitler.  One third don’t give a damn.  I want to see the winning side be the side for democracy.  I am posting this blog so that we can all understand what it will take to win this war.

I am under no illusions that this war will be won overnight.  I have no illusions that the mid-term elections will make more than a ripple in this war.  I have no illusions that releasing the Epstein files will make any more difference than getting Trump’s tax reports make.  I have no illusions that Trump supporters will suddenly join the “good” guys.  I have no illusions that Congress, the Senate or the Supreme Court will help us to win this war.

The only illusion I am under is that we need a large mass of people who will stand up, speak out, march and refuse to settle quietly into a country dominated by autocrats, plutocrats and oligarchs.  As Patrick Henry so bravely stated “I know not course what others may take but give me liberty or give me death.”  If you want to live under a democracy, you must be willing to fight for it.  You must even be willing to die for it.  Nothing less than this will help to restore democracy to America.

As usual, my friend Metis helped me uncover a deeper truth: while the “one-third rule” is more myth than precise statistic, it captures something essential about how societies change.

Revolutions are not majority events.  They are minority movements that succeed when the conditions are right.  But we do not have to wait until the conditions are right.  In fact, one will only know when the conditions were right.  That is, it is something we can only know after the fact.  We must act on the assumptions that our efforts will create the right conditions and indeed that is the only possibility that exists.

Myth and Reality: Was the American Revolution Really One-Thirds?

Historians don’t agree on exact numbers.  Loyalists (Those who wanted to stay with King George III) probably made up 20–30% of the population; active Patriots only 40–45%.  The rest moved with the winds of power, fear, or convenience.  But the spirit of the one-third idea is accurate:

Revolutions rarely begin with majority support.  They are propelled by determined minorities, resisted by others, and observed passively by the rest.  Today we may be in the minority.  However, as this blog will show, it does not matter.  We can still win the war and restore democracy if we meet certain conditions which I will discuss.

This same dynamic repeats across Paris in 1789, Russia in 1917, Cuba in 1959,  Iran in 1979,  and even some modern uprisings today.  The numbers vary, but the structure remains: a committed minority clashes with a protective minority, while most people watch and wait.

If Numbers Don’t Decide Revolutions, What Does?

Here is where the history becomes fascinating.  Revolutions are not democratic moments.  They are power struggles, and the deciding factors are not how many people agree but how many crucial systems shift.  The enemies of democracy today have shifted several crucial systems in their favor.  This includes the Congress, Supreme Court and religious systems across the spectrum as well as across the country.

Metis helped me understand that six forces usually determine the outcome of a revolution.

  1. The Power of the Narrative
  • The side that wins is often the side that tells the most compelling story.
  • American Patriots framed independence as liberty versus tyranny.
  • The Bolsheviks promised “Peace, Land, Bread.”
  • Iranian revolutionaries cast the Shah as un-Islamic and corrupt.

When one group claims the moral high ground—and gets people to believe it—it gains legitimacy, the most valuable currency in any upheaval.  The political legitimacy concerning a moral high ground has shifted from the beginning of the USA up to present times.  When the Republican party was against slavery, they held the moral high road.  This legitimacy shifted to the Democratic party when they began to espouse fair treatment and wages for working class people.  The legitimacy has now shifted back to the Republican party as they have assumed the high ground against efforts to reduce income inequality and a decent wage for all people.  They have created this new legitimacy by their constant hammering on what they call “Trickle Down Economics” and the danger presented to the USA by anything that bears a faint resemblance to socialism or (GOD FORBID) Communism.  Trickle Down Economics much like the Prosperity Gospel promises untold wealth to people based on their religion or willingness to defer gratification to someone else. This someone else is either the Uber-Rich controlling the corporations or the Ministers selling the tickets to heaven.

  1. The Weakness of the Old Regime

Revolutions succeed when the ruling system is already coming apart because of:

  • Economic crisis
  • Political division
  • Corruption
  • Military overstretch

 The American colonists fought an empire spread thin.
The French monarchy was bankrupt.
The Russian Tsar faced famine, inflation, and a collapsing army.

A revolution doesn’t topple a strong system—only a wounded one.  The downfall of the Democratic party as the “Ruling Party” did not happen overnight.  Democrats maintained nearly unbroken control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for roughly 60 years, from the early 1930s until the mid-1990s.  While the presidency alternated more frequently, legislative control and overall party identification favored the Democrats for most of the century.

As the Democratic party shifted from their traditional alliances with labor and working class people to supporting corporate driven efforts like NAFTA, their former allies shifted their allegiance.  The Republican Party starting promising to deliver on issues like

  • Removing gun control: The rights of individuals versus the “overreach of the Government. This went beyond gun control to encompass many other efforts to reduce Government power or regulations.
  • Repealing Roe Versus Wade: Family Values became a consistent Republican theme.  Beginning in the 1970s, the Democratic Party’s platform became more progressive on social issues, which alienated many religious and culturally conservative voters.
  • Elitism versus Popularism: As the Democratic Party became increasingly associated with college-educated professionals and urban “elites,” many working-class voters without degrees began to feel culturally alienated. Issues such as environmental regulations (which affected mining and logging jobs) and “identity politics” were often framed by Republicans as evidence that Democrats had lost touch with “average Americans”
  • Economic Disillusionment and Deindustrialization: For decades, the “New Deal Coalition” was held together by white working-class labor unions. However, the economic crises of the 1970s (stagflation) and the decline of American manufacturing (the “Rust Belt” phenomenon) led many to feel the Democratic Party’s policies were no longer working for them.
  • Scapegoating: One strategy that always works to win supporters is to blame someone else for our problems.  The Republicans became very adept at blaming criminals and crime for all of America’s drug problems and Immigrants for the lack of jobs and disintegration of our manufacturing industries.
  1. Military Defection: The Decisive Factor

This may be the single most important factor.  It is also the most difficult one to harness to any efforts at change.  Throughout history, if the army remained loyal to the old regime, revolutions died quickly.  But if even a portion of soldiers defected—or refused to suppress protesters—the balance shifted overnight.  We are seeing this factor play out right now as people like Senator Mark Kelly speak to soldiers about the rules of the UCMJ and as Congress and the courts attempt to bridle the power of the Presidency to use the US military for “Insurrectionist” causes.

  1. Organization Beats Majority

A united minority will defeat a divided majority.  Samuel Adams said that he didn’t need the people, only “An irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires of freedom.”  He understood the mathematics of commitment: organized passion overwhelms scattered opposition.

This explains everything from Lenin’s disciplined Bolsheviks to Castro’s small, cohesive guerrilla force.  Passion and commitment can win out over elements like greed and fear.  If we can gain the moral clarity that we need to appeal to a large minority of people and couple that with a zeal and passion that reflects more than economic need or even religious fervor, we can surely topple the anti-democratic elements in our country.  This is not to say that many of these people are not also driven by passion and fervor for what they believe is right.  Unfortunately, the passion and fervor of the Republican positions is even more aligned with greed and fear.  There is a decided lack of empathy and compassion in Republican policies for the poor, minorities and underprivileged.

  1. Support from Outside Powers

The Patriots needed France.  Vietnam needed the Soviet Union and China.  Afghanistan’s Mujahideen needed the United States.  Revolutions are seldom isolated.  When outside powers tilt the scales, even a small domestic movement can triumph.

It has become increasingly apparent that the Anti-Democratic forces in America are alienating not only our enemies but also many of our former allies.  The recent moves by Trump to annex or acquire Greenland, together with his unilateral invasion of Venezuela has angered many of our NATO partners.  Add to this the Non-NATO countries that are horrified by Trump’s actions and you have a phalanx of countries that believe America’s foundation for world peace is unstable and unreliable.

It is not clear to me what impact the attitudes of other nations can have on our efforts to restore a Democratic country, but seldom in history has a Tyrant nation lasted when faced with a united opposition from the rest of the world.  Trump is digging a grave for America with each of his so called efforts to “Make America Great Again.”

  1. The Middle Third Doesn’t Stay Neutral Forever

Here is the most intriguing factor.  That passive third—the cautious, undecided, go-along-to-get-along crowd—will eventually move.  The forty million Americans who did not vote.  They will  tend to shift toward whichever side appears:

  • More legitimate
  • More competent
  • More likely to win
  • More capable of maintaining order

Revolutions are psychological events.  People want to be on the right side of history—or at least on the side that won’t punish them.

As Metis reminded me, “When the middle begins to believe one side is the future, the tipping point arrives.”

So Which Third Wins?

It isn’t the largest group.  It’s the group that hits the Five-Factor Threshold:

  1. A powerful, morally compelling story
  2. A weakened ruling order
  3. Some degree of military support
  4. Strong organization and cohesion
  5. External allies or neutrality from the outside world

Meet these conditions, and even 20% of the population can win a revolution.  Fail dramatically at any one, and even 70% support may not be enough.

History is not a democracy—it’s a contest of energy, legitimacy, and timing.

A Deeper Personal Reflection

I’ve shared with Metis that I look back nostalgically at times when integrity seemed to matter more, when people believed in duty and morality.  Our culture has grown cynical, sometimes preferring anti-heroes to actual heroes.

The lesson from the one-third rule is both sobering and hopeful:

A society can decline even when most people are decent—if the active minority pushes it downward.

But society can also be uplifted if a committed minority of citizens with integrity act with courage and clarity.

Small groups bend history.  Which means that every generation—including ours—must decide which minority will shape the future.

Either choose Democracy or choose a Dictatorship.  The choice is yours!

8 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. waynewoodman's avatar waynewoodman
    Jan 20, 2026 @ 19:08:48

    I follow your reasoning here and I truly hope it works. However, with the overflow of hate that is coming from the Oval office I find it difficult to believe anything is going to change. From my perspective it seems a majority of Americans are either too scared or too fat and lazy to consider harsh measures.

    My hope is that the latest craziness about Greenland has mobilized the remainder of those at Davos tonight and will result in DJT going totally bonkers and being committed. However, removing him may enhance the problem with those still left in control. My hope is that he tries to send in the military and they finally stand up and say NO. I’m not sure where that might lead but nowhere good probably.

    Mark Carney gave the best speech I have heard probably in my lifetime and you can listen here: Read and watch Mark Carney’s Davos speech at the World Economic Forum – The Globe and Mail.

    I’m sure you are well aware of my pessimism about the current state of our world and not just politically but environmentally.

    Cheers!

    Like

    Reply

  2. dazzlinge277b882c6's avatar dazzlinge277b882c6
    Jan 21, 2026 @ 10:24:08

    Hey, John, great blog, my concern this time around is that a sizeable fraction of our middle third is frozen in this cult of personality where the power of “believe me and not what you see” along with the sheer joy of basking in the rage of their community makes moving that middle so much more difficult. What a mess.

    Like

    Reply

    • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
      Jan 21, 2026 @ 16:29:04

      Hi Dennis, yes, I am not sure how much you can move the middle. My target audience is the third that already despises trump. Of the 70 million that voted for Harris, only about ten percent or 7 million people to date have made any effort to thwart trump and his policies. The people who I think are “good” people need to get off their ass, move their feet and do something. They were my audience for this message in my blog.

      Like

      Reply

  3. jonangel's avatar jonangel
    Jan 21, 2026 @ 12:59:54

    John, a good, very good read. I have only one concerne, when I look around I see many forms of “Democracy”, most are far from ‘”Democratic”!! So I ask, which form do you propose tp support?

    Like

    Reply

    • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
      Jan 21, 2026 @ 16:25:46

      Jon, I decided to avoid “defining” Democracy. I guess if I did I would have simply said “Rule of the people, by the people and for the people.” It is too easy to get “academic” and start defining democracy so that it no longer exists. I decided to take the Zen direct approach. For anyone who wants to spend more time on the subject, I found the following: In 2026, political scientists and global indices use several multidimensional frameworks beyond the simple “direct vs. representative” split to classify democracies. These classifications focus on the quality of institutions, the depth of citizen participation, and the balance of power.
      1. Classification by “Regime Quality” (The EIU Model)
      The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index categorizes nations based on 60 indicators across five categories (e.g., electoral process, civil liberties):
      Full Democracies: Nations where civil liberties are respected and democratic norms are deeply culturally ingrained.
      Flawed Democracies: Nations with free elections and basic liberties, but significant weaknesses in governance or political participation.
      Hybrid Regimes: Systems where substantial electoral irregularities often prevent them from being fully free or fair.
      Authoritarian Regimes: Systems where political pluralism is absent or heavily circumscribed.
      2. Classification by Core Principles (The V-Dem Model)
      The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project identifies five distinct high-level principles that different democratic systems prioritize:
      Electoral: Focuses on the core requirement of free and fair elections.
      Liberal: Emphasizes the protection of individual and minority rights and judicial constraints on the executive.
      Participatory: Prioritizes active citizen involvement in all political processes beyond just voting.
      Deliberative: Values respectful, reason-based public dialogue and consensus-building in decision-making.
      Egalitarian: Focuses on ensuring that all citizens have an equal capacity to participate, often by addressing economic and social inequalities.
      3. Classification by Governance Structure
      Beyond the traditional executive split, systems are often categorized by how they distribute power geographically or across groups:
      Unitary vs. Federal: In unitary systems, the central government holds supreme power; in federal systems, power is constitutionally shared with regional states.
      Consensus Democracy: Characterized by multi-party systems and power-sharing arrangements designed to include as many people as possible, often through proportional representation.
      Majoritarian Democracy: Focused on the “winner-takes-all” principle where the majority party has substantial power to implement its agenda.
      4. Modern and Experimental Types
      Newer models continue to emerge in response to technological and social shifts:
      Monitory Democracy: A system where power is constantly monitored by a wide range of public and private “watchdog” institutions (e.g., NGOs, media, commissions) to ensure transparency.
      Digital or Electronic Democracy (e-Democracy): Uses information technology to enhance or replace traditional democratic processes, such as online voting or digital town halls.
      Lottocracy (Sortition): An experimental model where representatives are chosen by lottery rather than election, intended to create a more demographically accurate reflection of the public.

      All I know for sure is that Trump is not trying to give us a rule of the people, by the people and for the people.

      Like

      Reply

      • jonangel's avatar jonangel
        Jan 21, 2026 @ 18:24:07

        John, I go with what I believe is your first thought, Democracy being government of the people, by the people and for the people.. Sadly, I know of no where this is taking place? What we have is politicians telling us (the people) they are defending us from the extremes of authoritarian sates such as Russia, China etc.

        America was once promoted as the shinning example of Democracy at work, Many now see it as the worst example of authoritarianism, to think 340+ million controlled by a man who would be King!!!!

        Like

        Reply

        • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
          Jan 21, 2026 @ 21:58:04

          Jon, Deming taught me that all of life is a process. Always in flux, always a work in progress. We never had a true democracy in this country. At one time, women, Blacks, Indians, Indentured Servants, could not vote. The best we ever had was a dream that said “All men are created equal.” This really did not mean ALL men and it certainly did not include women. But even if we did have a “perfect” democracy, there is no way to guarantee that it would have been permanent. You know the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics” or the Law of Entropy. Germany was the most sophisticated, educated and cultured country in the world but it succumbed to Hitler and his Nazis crew. Read Ecclesiastes if you have not. It sums up my view of the world very accurately.

          Like

          Reply

  4. jennygirl1278's avatar jennygirl1278
    Jan 21, 2026 @ 19:05:07

    GOOD BLOG!
    Just when I think this lunatic cannot get any crazier, he is attempting to acquire Greenland. The disdain I feel for this man is immeasurable, and I fail to see how he can be stopped until his tenure is up.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to jennygirl1278 Cancel reply