Thank you Denis. Super insightful and spot on with my own experience of the No Kings Rally here in Chicago: 100s of thousands of people expressing individual witticisms sharpied on cardboard largely for our own personal mollification: "I am not alone, others are as outraged as I am, fuck those assholes!" It's a (pep) rally and as such it serves a role in a broader suite of tactics each with their own distinct roles which I would sum up as 'confirming that people see what is happening and are pissed and worried about it.'
My question and concern is are 'we', as a loose coalition of moderates and progressives...(my more radical comrades were decidedly NOT in attendance; they were engaging in spontaneous street battles with ICE agents 40 blocks away from the rally)...actually connecting the dots with other tactics?
For example, I know people who were in attendance who were recruiting people with fliers to engage in more direct action - at the Broadview Detention Center, or via ICE Watch work in their neighborhoods - and our Mayor Brandon Johnson called for a general strike from the stage but in general the speakers were just expressing, often powerfully stated and genuine outrage at the invasion of our city, but not, as you suggest, calling for specific next steps and actions.
From my perspective, the goal of a protest like that is (ironically) to combine both political hope and political disillusionment.
You're right, Trump could have given a fuck. And so, when you and 200,000 of your closest friends show up in the streets and feel great about your signs for a few hours and then you go home and read in the news that more of your neighbors were brutally abducted while you were marching - you start to lose faith in organized, planned, cop sanctioned protests as a tool for actual change and then....(drum roll)...your mind starts to open to the need for more direct action and the old chant "What do we want?" "Justice!" "When do we want it?" "Now!"..."And if we don't get it...?" "Shut it down!" starts to take on new meaning and urgency.
Shutting [it] down should be our next step. The question is whether or not the GenX and Boomer organizers of these rallies understand that.
Thanks for the Chicago perspective, David - definitely the center of gravity of both repression and resistance right now. You raise an important point I probably should have addressed in the piece: another indicator of an effective movement is diversity of tactics. Marches can be powerful but usually not sufficient on their own. Boycotts, sit-ins, walk-outs, sick-outs, blockades, music & theatrical events all bolster resistance. Chicago seems to be doing some of this but I hear little of it elsewhere.
To your follow-up point, though, I worry about that frustration some will have at the perceived futility of lawful marches (which to be clear, I don't think are completely futile), because it's a slippery slope from nonviolent direct action to smashing things and people. And it is quite clear that, in addition to any ethical concerns, violence simply does not work, except in the most extreme circumstances.
Adding to this: The right wing media propagandists and Trump goons are salivating for violence from the resistance. It's already their current justification (violent cities and violent immigrants - despite both claims being hard-pressed for evidence). If they get actual violence (ala Portland/Seattle during pandemic) it will simply embolden them, and worse, could sway public opinion in their direction.
I was at the DC No Kings as well. This was my third demonstration this year, and once again, I walked away a little depressed, for most of the reasons you cite. I actually liked the variety of grievances expressed on the signs (and I think it is appropriate given the breadth of harm the regime is doing), and this was significantly bigger than the earlier protests I attended, but the lack of impact and focus was a bit discouraging. I read several articles/posts in the days after suggesting we should see these demonstrations as practices--a way of getting people accustomed to taking to the streets--so that if/when the time comes, they are psychologically ready for the more focused (and likely more dangerous...or "tense" to use your word) actions. So, there's that. As to the demographics, I guess I saw enough black and hispanic people that I felt there was diversity, but you are right that it probably wasn't really representative. I also was struck by the...mature...age of the crowd, although I saw a fair number of teens and 20-somethings...I assume that is the lingering effect of the crackdowns on Gaza-focused campus protests.
I'm trying to focus on the solidarity and the obviously increasing anger, but I share you overall feeling that it just doesn't feel like enough.
"Trump’s political advantage--he has transgressed in so many different arenas, he confounds any attempt to wrap all the complaints into a single message." I think the idea that Trump's goal for total executive power is rooted in monarchy (total sovereign power) is pretty solid. It taps our original revolution against England, it labels Trump's goals, and it encompasses all his overreach. For instance, if he did invoke the insurrection act, it would be the act of a king - not the response of a politician working to improve the lives of ALL his constituents.
Second, I was part of the human signage at SF's ocean beach protest. "No Kings. Yes on 50." The yes on 50 is a direct political goal for the next election. Interestingly, I didn't know that would be the message I was endorsing (haha) so I take little to no responsibility for it. Through we were just saying "no kings."
Third - "feat" not "feet". Copy edit. Hard to edit one's own stuff (believe you me I know)
Fourth - I hate to say this and perhaps you're knowledge of these youthful protests in Africa and Asia will prove me wrong...but one problem I see for challenging Trump is that there is no single figure to rally behind. An MLK/Ghandi/Mandela like person in whom the resistance can place their hope and belief. The disparate complaints and grievances are all valid, but they have no singular spokesperson and thus no focal point. It's just rational people being upset by the totality of shit we're witnessing.
Thank you for the analysis. Love the idea of challenging congress people. As a nation we've become obsessed with the executive and forgotten that congress should really be the driving force of our government. Part and parcel of our descent into celebrity culture and the mythology of individualism that has always been central to the American narrative.
Point taken about messaging, Tobin, I also think variations of 'no kings' is solid. I should have said it was hard to wrap all the complaints into a single demand (or cohesive set of demands). The American civil rights movement was a textbook case of specific demands: let us vote, let us eat at restaurants, let us drink from water fountains. We're in a more complex situation now.
Regarding the lack of a charismatic leader: that's old fashioned. No one uses those anymore. That's why you had to reach back to the last century for examples. Just kidding, public faces haven't disappeared, but they are rare - perhaps because they are easy targets for governments to repress, perhaps because tech advances have made diffuse coordination without a central leader easier, or maybe new media makes them less necessary. I'm sure there's a host of hypotheses, but what we know is that those front facing leaders are the exception rather than the norm, and resistance movements seem to be doing just fine without them.
Thank you Denis. Super insightful and spot on with my own experience of the No Kings Rally here in Chicago: 100s of thousands of people expressing individual witticisms sharpied on cardboard largely for our own personal mollification: "I am not alone, others are as outraged as I am, fuck those assholes!" It's a (pep) rally and as such it serves a role in a broader suite of tactics each with their own distinct roles which I would sum up as 'confirming that people see what is happening and are pissed and worried about it.'
My question and concern is are 'we', as a loose coalition of moderates and progressives...(my more radical comrades were decidedly NOT in attendance; they were engaging in spontaneous street battles with ICE agents 40 blocks away from the rally)...actually connecting the dots with other tactics?
For example, I know people who were in attendance who were recruiting people with fliers to engage in more direct action - at the Broadview Detention Center, or via ICE Watch work in their neighborhoods - and our Mayor Brandon Johnson called for a general strike from the stage but in general the speakers were just expressing, often powerfully stated and genuine outrage at the invasion of our city, but not, as you suggest, calling for specific next steps and actions.
From my perspective, the goal of a protest like that is (ironically) to combine both political hope and political disillusionment.
You're right, Trump could have given a fuck. And so, when you and 200,000 of your closest friends show up in the streets and feel great about your signs for a few hours and then you go home and read in the news that more of your neighbors were brutally abducted while you were marching - you start to lose faith in organized, planned, cop sanctioned protests as a tool for actual change and then....(drum roll)...your mind starts to open to the need for more direct action and the old chant "What do we want?" "Justice!" "When do we want it?" "Now!"..."And if we don't get it...?" "Shut it down!" starts to take on new meaning and urgency.
Shutting [it] down should be our next step. The question is whether or not the GenX and Boomer organizers of these rallies understand that.
Thanks for the Chicago perspective, David - definitely the center of gravity of both repression and resistance right now. You raise an important point I probably should have addressed in the piece: another indicator of an effective movement is diversity of tactics. Marches can be powerful but usually not sufficient on their own. Boycotts, sit-ins, walk-outs, sick-outs, blockades, music & theatrical events all bolster resistance. Chicago seems to be doing some of this but I hear little of it elsewhere.
To your follow-up point, though, I worry about that frustration some will have at the perceived futility of lawful marches (which to be clear, I don't think are completely futile), because it's a slippery slope from nonviolent direct action to smashing things and people. And it is quite clear that, in addition to any ethical concerns, violence simply does not work, except in the most extreme circumstances.
Adding to this: The right wing media propagandists and Trump goons are salivating for violence from the resistance. It's already their current justification (violent cities and violent immigrants - despite both claims being hard-pressed for evidence). If they get actual violence (ala Portland/Seattle during pandemic) it will simply embolden them, and worse, could sway public opinion in their direction.
I was at the DC No Kings as well. This was my third demonstration this year, and once again, I walked away a little depressed, for most of the reasons you cite. I actually liked the variety of grievances expressed on the signs (and I think it is appropriate given the breadth of harm the regime is doing), and this was significantly bigger than the earlier protests I attended, but the lack of impact and focus was a bit discouraging. I read several articles/posts in the days after suggesting we should see these demonstrations as practices--a way of getting people accustomed to taking to the streets--so that if/when the time comes, they are psychologically ready for the more focused (and likely more dangerous...or "tense" to use your word) actions. So, there's that. As to the demographics, I guess I saw enough black and hispanic people that I felt there was diversity, but you are right that it probably wasn't really representative. I also was struck by the...mature...age of the crowd, although I saw a fair number of teens and 20-somethings...I assume that is the lingering effect of the crackdowns on Gaza-focused campus protests.
I'm trying to focus on the solidarity and the obviously increasing anger, but I share you overall feeling that it just doesn't feel like enough.
Great piece.
A few thoughts:
"Trump’s political advantage--he has transgressed in so many different arenas, he confounds any attempt to wrap all the complaints into a single message." I think the idea that Trump's goal for total executive power is rooted in monarchy (total sovereign power) is pretty solid. It taps our original revolution against England, it labels Trump's goals, and it encompasses all his overreach. For instance, if he did invoke the insurrection act, it would be the act of a king - not the response of a politician working to improve the lives of ALL his constituents.
Second, I was part of the human signage at SF's ocean beach protest. "No Kings. Yes on 50." The yes on 50 is a direct political goal for the next election. Interestingly, I didn't know that would be the message I was endorsing (haha) so I take little to no responsibility for it. Through we were just saying "no kings."
Third - "feat" not "feet". Copy edit. Hard to edit one's own stuff (believe you me I know)
Fourth - I hate to say this and perhaps you're knowledge of these youthful protests in Africa and Asia will prove me wrong...but one problem I see for challenging Trump is that there is no single figure to rally behind. An MLK/Ghandi/Mandela like person in whom the resistance can place their hope and belief. The disparate complaints and grievances are all valid, but they have no singular spokesperson and thus no focal point. It's just rational people being upset by the totality of shit we're witnessing.
Thank you for the analysis. Love the idea of challenging congress people. As a nation we've become obsessed with the executive and forgotten that congress should really be the driving force of our government. Part and parcel of our descent into celebrity culture and the mythology of individualism that has always been central to the American narrative.
Point taken about messaging, Tobin, I also think variations of 'no kings' is solid. I should have said it was hard to wrap all the complaints into a single demand (or cohesive set of demands). The American civil rights movement was a textbook case of specific demands: let us vote, let us eat at restaurants, let us drink from water fountains. We're in a more complex situation now.
Regarding the lack of a charismatic leader: that's old fashioned. No one uses those anymore. That's why you had to reach back to the last century for examples. Just kidding, public faces haven't disappeared, but they are rare - perhaps because they are easy targets for governments to repress, perhaps because tech advances have made diffuse coordination without a central leader easier, or maybe new media makes them less necessary. I'm sure there's a host of hypotheses, but what we know is that those front facing leaders are the exception rather than the norm, and resistance movements seem to be doing just fine without them.
Understood.
I suppose I'm just jealous of Trump's power to set the narrative with his followers and their willingness to believe him.
I want a cult leader...but I don't want to be in a cult. 'Tis the hell of trying to maintain a rational political mind.