No Kings 3: A Field Report
From the grounds of the state capitol in Montgomery, AL.
So, like in June and October, my wife and I attended the Montgomery, AL No King Rally, which was held on the south lawn of the historic capitol building downtown (the legislature meets in another building across the road these days).
As I have noted before, I am not dispositionally a “protest” guy, but the Trump administration has now inspired me to participate in four such events (a Women’s Day march in January of 2018 and the three No Kings events in the second term). My desire to publicly express my discontent with Trump’s version of governance, as well as an interest in showing solidarity with other like-minded citizens, overcame personal and professional reticence.
Part of me, like James Joyner, wonders what all of this accomplishes. On the one hand, my appearance downtown yesterday didn’t change much of anything; on the other, it was a chance to publicly register my political opinion, which is an essential feature of democracy.
On the flip side, there is the question of what more should be coming about because of these events.
Local news reports that the crowd estimate was about 1,000. Each event has drawn more than the one before, which is at least one metric of growing discontent with the Trump administration. This was true nationally as well.
As per PBS:
U.S. organizers have estimated that the first two rounds of No Kings rallies drew more than 5 million people in June and 7 million in October. This week they told reporters they expected 9 million participants Saturday, though it was too early to tell whether those expectations were met.
This sends a signal to Trump, and to the broader public, about his growing unpopularity. None of this bodes well for Republicans this coming November.
It is also the exercise of a First Amendment right that is essential to democracy, the right to peaceably assemble. And while my personal participation is irrelevant, as is my singular vote, I would note that the cumulative effects are relevant to our broader politics. If none of this mattered, the White House and its political and media allies would not need to denigrate it.
At a minimum, I see no harm from these events and do think that mass communication of this type is better than apathy.
I noted a number of anti-war signs, a new grievance added since October. There also seemed to be more Epstein-related signs. Otherwise, the issues were pro-democracy and anti-authoritarianism. Like everything else in our politics, the event demonstrated the coalitional nature of the movement.
Here are a few images that I took (this time I took the real camera). All of the shots can be found in this album.
If nothing else, it shows those at home and abroad that there are millions of people who are so dissatisfied that they are protesting. It’s really the only option available until midterms. And speaking of midterms, it hopefully shows the administration that any shenanigans to mess with the voting process will not be acceptable.
Our allies have been scratching their heads wondering why nothing is being done about this madness. I mean, the French stop the entire country if anyone suggests raising the retirement age. Meanwhile, we’re watching our democracy crumble.
You’d have had fun here in Vegas where Elvis impersonators reminded us that in this city there’s only one king.
I attended the Cleveland protest with my wife and some friends. It was my first protest appearance since May, 1970, when the Kent State shootings simply couldn’t be tolerated. On Saturday I was heartened by both the numbers and the sentiments conveyed by the signs, especially enjoying one that read, “Orange Lies Matter.’ What difference do the protests make? As Dr. T noted above, it lets the MAGA asshats at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue know they are poking the bear.
Opportunities to directly express yourself are far and few between. There are extraordinarily few town halls by our elected officials (and tele-townhalls don’t count). Every appearance is carefully choreographed. Letters to elected officials are responded by a form letter most of which don’t address the issue written about. Pretty sure responses to Facebook posts are ignored and not even internally analyzed.
At some point, frustration will result in real anger and even violence which, I believe, those is power would welcome.
I went to the No Kings Bisbee, Az and it was huge for such a small town. Met lots of great people. I will say this, though, at risk of getting roasted by some on this site: I’d like the focus to stay centered on Trumps authoritarianism. This is the first of 3 protests I’ve gone to where there was a heavy pro-Palestine presence, multiple other issues that I may or may not support. Nothing will tank the mid-terms more than liberals stacking issues that moderates and independents may not agree (aside from Trumps interference).
@HelloWorld: I’m not that old but I’m old enough to know 100% of Democrats are not going to agree with me 100% of the time. Nor do I want them to. America is a big, diverse country and that’s good actually.
If moderates, independents, or anyone seeks an American political party with folks who cater only to their pet issues and no one else’s then a) they should seek therapy for narcissistic self-centerednees and b) prepared to be politically homeless. Because that’s not how any of this works in a big, diverse, far flung country with only two major parties.
The center-liberal-left alliance has a pro-Palestine faction. It has a pro-Israel faction. It has a You’re Both Nuts faction, a You Both Have a Point I Guess faction, and a Who Cares, I Can’t Afford Gas or Rent faction. This is what the Democratic Party is. It’s a coalition, not a cult. That’s not going to change, so they who can’t deal with that diversity of opinion like an adult can’t vote with Democrats.
@DK:
There is a potentially serious problem with Jewish voters. Less about numbers of votes – we aren’t going to lose NY or NJ, and we’re not getting FL – than about money.
Man, I’m tired of this line of thinking. I addressed all this here a day or so ago. These events are a “personal behavioral contract” to show up for the midterms, while simultaneously creating viral buzz for the campaigning to come, generating networking for those who want to be involved, and at a personal level generate solidarity and shared interest — the stuff of social movement momentum. Geeze. Behavioral Programming 101, Group Behavior 101, Guerilla Marketing 101, Grassroots Organizing 101 — all rolled together.
One person + one person + one person + one person+ one person+ one person+ one person+ one person + one person + one person+ one person+ one person+ one person+ one person + one person + one person+ one person+ one person+ one person + etc. It adds up and becomes something BIG. 8+ million big.
The 2017 women’s marches galvanized voters and led to Dems reclaiming the House during the 2018 midterms, in addition to pulling more women into running for local and regional offices. The 2025 NK marches generated momentum for the repeat success of Dems during recent mid-session and special elections. Bringing people together works. It has worked for MAGA as well, the whole point of Trump’s rallies. There are immediate rewards for individuals with greater payoffs down the road in the near term elections.
The autocratic, theocratic GOP MAGA has been working hard at quashing the voice of opposition. But this is the opposition roaring out loud, out in public space, in a ramp up to actionable outcomes. This is our society’s open dialog with itself. Don’t sit it out.
@Michael Reynolds: The Democratic and Republican parties have serious and potentially serious problems with all sorts of voters.
If disagreements over a conflict thousands of miles away are more important than not electing economy-destroying Nazis and pedophiles right here at home, that is a choice Americans can make. It’s a dumb choice, but our freedom includes freedom to be self-sabotaging morons. If Americans want to keep punishing ourselves because all Dems don’t agree on Palestine and Israel, we can. It is what it is. Would not be surprising, given what the last decade shows about American idiocy and apparent desire for mediocrity and failure.
Pro-Israel or pro-Palestine voters still under the delusion a gathering of libs will cater only to their egos and no one else’s should get comfortable with frustration, because that’s just not going to happen.
@DK: “If moderates, independents, or anyone seeks an American political party with folks who cater only to their pet issues” – well, I think we are sort of saying the same thing. Where we may part – I’ve voiced on this site before that I personally feel and hear from other liberals, that liberals have a purity test and if you don’t agree on 100% of the issues 100% of the time then you are not a liberal. Yes, lets have a big tent but I think its imperative to not turn a protest that is about No Kings into a protest about issues we may not be in synch on.
@HelloWorld:
What liberals? There was no election making anyone the Grand Poobah Decider of Liberal Membership. Sounds like some liberals should either hang around better liberals or buck up a bit. I guess I can imagine someone questioning my liberalism; I am a former McCain voting teen. But can’t imagine their audacity working out too well for them.
Why should anyone care what somebody thinks of their liberalism? I’m at a loss.
What did “No Kings” accomplish?
IMO, messaging to the administration (and to voters) that there are a really significant number of people that are pissed/disturbed/angry about the direction of the leadership of our country.
Their anger may not be concentrated on one or two issues, and their dissatisfaction may be inconsistent across issues, but these* rallies demonstrate that their are millions of people that would love to have elections held TODAY.
I ask myself: What did the Boston Tea Party accomplish?
*Personally I prefer to refer to these organized efforts as demonstrations or rallies
@HelloWorld:
But this is what I meant by “the event demonstrated the coalitional nature of the movement.” This is inevitable and natural. The notion that 8 to 9 million people are all going to show up for the exact same, narrowly focused reason is not the way this works (see, also, voting).
@Michael Reynolds: “There is a potentially serious problem with Jewish voters. Less about numbers of votes – we aren’t going to lose NY or NJ, and we’re not getting FL – than about money.”
There was a pretty nasty split over Gaza, that’s true. But Gaza has been reduced to ruins, and the Netanyahu government is now annexing the West Bank and taking over half of Lebanon, while passing laws allowing the military to execute Palestinians accused of terrorism while guaranteeing that no Jews will face the same laws.
There will always be an Israel Is Always Right faction in the Democratic party, but it’s shrinking and I suspect it will be shrinking fast. The fact that Bibi persuaded Trump to engage our country in his war is losing them friends fast. Add to that an out of control AIPAC targeting mainstream democratic candidates for not being sufficiently pro-Bibi and ending up electing their more radical opponents, and I think you’ll find the pro-Israel obsessives will be dwindling in importance in Democratic elections.
@Rob1:
In fairness, and in my defense, I went to all three events.
And, I would note, the question about my singular appearance is the same as my singular vote, and yet I vote. And, you’re right, it all adds up.
@Bobert:
Since I didn’t have time to attend the downtown San Diego protest, I joined my local No Kings. It was subtitle “La Mesa CA Bill of Rights Festival”
I carried a copy of the first amendment 🙂
@wr:
Bibi is all-in on brute military force, and shamelessly manipulating our weak president. He is destroying Democratic support and (one hopes) the power of AIPAC. Lobbyists should not alienate one party in a two party system, very bad gamesmanship.
You know, if Iran starts successfully hitting major desalination plants, this war won’t be just about petrodollars, or fertilizer, it could turn into a very fast-moving and really serious humanitarian crisis. Crisis like, ‘we have to evacuate the population of Riyadh in three days,’ level serious.
A report from a small town on the Oregon coast. This is a copy from an email I sent to a friend Saturday evening. For context I’m 69. Mostly retirees here.
I went to the No Kings rally in Yachats today. Seemed to be a good turnout. It helped that the weather was perfect. Very very few young people in attendance. Nearly everyone was close to my age or older. I didn’t bring a sign but after a while I found a quite small one on the sidewalk and picked it up. I think it probably fell off a dog.
I made it my point to wave and try to give a big smile to every vehicle that went by. And I tried to catch the driver’s eye. The reactions I got were mostly positive. Probably 70% positive. Sometimes a big wave back, sometimes a wave of the fingers on the steering wheel. The rest mostly just ignored me. A few shook their heads in a “no” gesture. 3 or 4 gave me the finger but they had been doing that to the entire crowd.
I doubt that I made any impact on current unfortunate events but it made me feel a bit better. I continually find it hard to believe that so many people are happy that our country is being run by such a juvenile person and his absolutely shameless sycophants.
@Steven L. Taylor: But this is what I meant by “the event demonstrated the coalitional nature of the movement.” – That statement is too broad can be taken two ways: One interpretation is that the coalition consists of a broad and diverse group united around the core principles of No Kings—defense of democracy, opposition to authoritarianism, and protection of the First Amendment. The other is that the coalition is made up of narrower factions pursuing disparate political objectives. If No Kings remains united around the first interpretation, it positions us well for the midterms. If it reflects the second, the movement is too fragmented, with outcomes likely to negative.
@HelloWorld: Except that the paragraph from which the statement comes (see above) made it pretty clear that I was noting that people had varying grievances and motivations for showing up. That’s normal for these things.
I find it ironic that you are complaining about liberal “purity tests” while trying to impose your own such test on No Kings.
@Steven L. Taylor: LOL, how am I imposing a purity test? The hippie movement fell apart when the group fractured from its core movement into multiple micro-issues. I’d hate to see No Kings devolve into a movement where the active participants are only there to make their cause look like it has a lot of support, while the central core of the movement is lost. That’s how these things fall apart – whether it’s the hippies, the tea party or no kings. “I bless you madly, sadly as I tie my shoes”.
@HelloWorld: You want No Kings to represent one thing. That’s a purity test.
You stated @above, “I’d like the focus to stay centered on Trumps authoritarianism.”
I understand your position, and do understand it is not, strictly speaking, a “purity test,” it is an assertion that you want your preferences to dominate over others. It is less different than what you are accusing others of doing than I think you realize.
BTW, No Kings really isn’t a movement. It is a loose umbrella, which definitely will contain multiple points of view and various motivations for showing up.
@HelloWorld: Put another way, the problem that I think you have with “purity tests” is that they fragment the broader group. You don’t like them because they are one part of the coalition telling the other what to like or not like (or do or not do).
But what you appear to be asking for is for factions you don’t like to quiet down and get behind your preferred vision for No Kings.
Do you not see how this is essentially the same thing?
And look, I do get it: there were things said, and posters displayed, that I did not fully endorse at the rallies I have attended. I just know that comes with the territory and, moreover, know that there is no central authority to impose a specific message.
Mass politics is, by definition, a collective action problem.
@Steven L. Taylor: Well, you and I understand No Kings differently. I take the organizers at their word that “At its core, the No Kings movement is a pro‑democracy, anti‑authoritarian movement.”
https://www.nokings.org
“You don’t like them because they are one part of the coalition telling the other what to like or not like (or do or not do).”
Also, why do you assume I don’t like the individual fractions? I’m pro Palestine, I’m pro-immigrant, I’m pro-Israel. Those are the focus of other protests but lets leave the focus of these on pro-democracy. There were a few signs for things I found bazar, though.
@HelloWorld: I am honestly trying to have a conversation, and yes, to make a point. But you are doing what you often do in these interchanges: ignore what I write and double down on narrow points.
As it pertains to your most recent comments, it is not that you and I disagree on what No Kings’ website says, or even what we might prefer the events mean. I just think it is impossible to have mass rallies and not have disparate opinions be displayed.
I also do not think it is possible to keep events like this narrowly focused. Again, it is a massive collective action problem.
I do confess that I find it ironic that you complain about how some groups seek to exclude, while at the same time wishing that No Kings, as a mass event, behave a certain way. If you can’t see that, that’s fine, and I will shut up about it.
@Steven L. Taylor: Yes, I accept that all large groups will diverge from the main context and have disparate opinions. I get it. You believe in strength in numbers, valid. I am listening to you. I am just pointing out that the capstone No Kings sits on is pro-democracy. That is a more inclusive mission than the micro issues. It also holds up to the Socratic method. When the movement drifts away from that I believe it will fracture and be less potent. Yes, people will drift but I’m not an evil guy for trying to convince you as to why it is important not to lose focus on the pro-democracy aspects. I don’t disagree that the micro-issues are not related in some way to the pro-democracy premise of No Kings. I just think some people will be turned off by some of the more fringe participants – my only purpose for pointing this out is because I want everyone to remember and be motivated by what this is about come November.