Grassroots vs. Grasstops
Why Both Matter
Advocacy conversations often frame grassroots and grasstops efforts as an either-or choice.
That framing is wrong.
Movements stall when they rely on only one. Real progress happens when grassroots energy and grasstops influence work together, deliberately and respectfully.
Understanding the difference is not academic. It is strategic.
What grassroots advocacy really is
Grassroots advocacy is powered by people directly affected by an issue.
It includes:
Constituents contacting elected officials
Community members sharing lived experience
Voters showing up, writing letters, and making calls
Local networks amplifying a shared message
Grassroots efforts demonstrate volume, urgency, and authenticity. They answer the question every policymaker asks, often silently: “Do people care enough about this to act?”
When organized well, grassroots pressure changes the political calculus.
What grasstops advocacy really is
Grasstops advocacy leverages influence, access, and credibility.
It includes:
Organizational leaders
Subject matter experts
Respected community figures
Former officials and senior stakeholders
Established institutions and coalitions
Grasstops efforts provide validation. They signal that an issue is serious, viable, and supported by people who understand policy, process, and consequences.
If grassroots shows the fire, grasstops helps guide it.
The mistake of choosing sides
Some advocates dismiss grasstops as elitist. Others view grassroots as chaotic or undisciplined.
Both perspectives miss the point.
Grassroots without grasstops can be loud and ignored. Grasstops without grassroots can be polished and irrelevant.
One shows demand. The other shows feasibility.
How they work best together
The most effective campaigns intentionally integrate both.
Grassroots advocates:
Create momentum
Humanize the issue
Keep pressure consistent
Remind policymakers who is affected
Grasstops advocates:
Translate concerns into policy language
Open doors that are otherwise closed
Reassure risk-averse decision-makers
Navigate timing and legislative strategy
When aligned, they reinforce each other. Grassroots gives legitimacy to grasstops. Grasstops gives direction to grassroots.
A practical example
Imagine a piece of legislation affecting military families.
Grassroots advocates flood offices with constituent letters and calls. They share real stories. They make the issue impossible to dismiss.
At the same time, grasstops advocates meet with committee staff, provide data, draft legislative language, and explain implementation realities.
Together, they create pressure and provide solutions.
That combination moves bills.
Why balance matters for credibility
Policymakers are trained to be skeptical.
They want to know:
Is this a real problem?
Do constituents care?
Can this actually work?
Grassroots answers the second question. Grasstops answers the third. Both are needed to fully answer the first.
The discipline required on both sides
Integration does not happen by accident.
Grassroots efforts require:
Clear messaging
Respectful engagement
Consistent coordination
Grasstops efforts require:
Transparency
Accountability to the community
Willingness to share credit
When either side dismisses the other, trust erodes and momentum stalls.
Moving past false hierarchies
Neither grassroots nor grasstops is superior.
They serve different functions at different stages of advocacy. Elevating one at the expense of the other weakens the overall effort.
Strong movements do not confuse visibility with value or access with authority.
They use every tool available.
Influence is layered
Change rarely happens because of one meeting or one viral moment.
It happens when pressure meets preparation, when volume meets expertise, and when people and power align around the same goal.
Grassroots and grasstops are not competitors. They are complements.
If you want lasting change, build both.
