I’ve had a theory for a while that, for the hyper-online and political, Day Zero is the day of their electoral defeat so they are not burdened by the consequences and theoretical moral weight of their victory. For the “No Kings” crowd, this is also true. As has been noted by many on the right, the No Kings movement has at least two ideological flaws that it either doesn’t care about or doesn’t know about. Both of which should sap the protest of its moral weight, but thank the God they don’t believe in that politics is morally nihilistic.

First, I am not a fan of Trump and have criticized him and his fans a lot, especially recently. I put this blood on the doorframe because it is the knee-jerk reaction of the progressive to read counter-arguments to their doctrine, stop reading, and begin, whether in a comment or DM, with a rehearsed, indignant elevator pitch. Knowing that if one is determined to be offended there’s nothing I can do, I’ve learned to leave a mod to the programming in the opening of every political thought since at least February. Whether one installs it is up to them, but it will greatly enhance the experience

With the Windows startup out of the way, the first, and most obvious flaw, is that the judiciary is blocking Trump on multiple fronts and he is not ignoring all of them. It is not good that he is ignoring some of them, but a king would ignore all of them. Also, I get the sense “king” is the replacement for “tyrant” because he won the popular vote this time. So at the very least we’re working from some kind of objective meaning there.

The second flaw is a matter of pot calling the kettle black. This is the side of the aisle that supported an Inflation Reduction Act which, on its face, was never going to reduce inflation, and while Trump platformed Anthony Fauci, Republicans at the state level quickly revolted against interminable lockdowns while the left made it and the behavior of the lockdown cult the core of their message and strategy going forward. It’s hard not to see the “No Kings” protest as less anti-authoritarian, and more anti-a-certain-kind-of-authoritarian. Not as catchy, but a bit more honest. And no, “well, that’s different, we were trying to save the world”, is not a justification. Even 6 months into the party, it was obvious that the damage elsewhere was considerable and simply viewed as collateral by those who hadn’t been offline or outside the academic ivory tower in the time since the lockdowns began. This is before we get to the propensity for violence, violent rhetoric and gaslighting that is the core of all but the most moderate on the left

Y’all aren’t wrong. It just doesn’t matter. The boos mean nothing when one sees what’s made you cheer.

But of course, we then come to the basic truth of protesting brought about by online petitions: they are ultimately shallow and ineffective. The best one can say is that this leftist protest resulted in minimal property damage, which is a nice change of pace. But ultimately, nothing new was said, no powerful, revolutionary stances were taken, and the ever useless “symbolic victory” was claimed. 

This is not saying that one should not protest. Rather that one should be more realistic about their impact in this struggling republic. The conclusion of a brilliant essay from former Lotus Eaters commentator Josh Ferme sums up my thoughts nicely. It’s rather long but worthwhile:

My sentiments are not meant to assert that those who protest are always wrong to do so, however. Certainly, in countries where there are authoritarian regimes to be toppled, protest is both a brave and noble thing to do. Indeed, a good example of how protests can achieve positive consequences is in the deposition of the long-serving dictator of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, who controlled the country from 1965 to 1986. With his reliance on martial law and tendency to extract wealth from his country, he was relatively unpopular towards the end of his rule. In 1986, an ‘election’ surrounded by controversy and obvious fraudulent activity ended when angry crowds risked the impending threat of military action and overran the capital of Manila. Concluding that the end was near for his rule, Marcos fled the country and the aims of the protest – to get rid of Marcos -, were achieved.

Another example can be found in 1989 when the communist East German authorities announced their intention to crush a peaceful protest in Leipzig. Stating that they would attend the protest “if need be, with weapons in our hands,” the Communists believed that the threat of violence would mean people would stay home. A month later, and in the wake of a protest so large that the authorities were forced to flee, however, the Berlin wall fell. 

Perhaps the most positive aspect of protests is that they allow one the opportunity to meet like-minded people. You could make useful contacts, or be put in touch with formal organisations that have more resources available to influence political outcomes, for instance. They may even be beneficial in ways that are not explicitly political – I’m sure many people have made friends or maybe even met romantic partners at protests. However, this is also true of any event that brings large numbers of people together.

Therefore, I believe that it is fair to say that almost all protests achieve nothing, with some even harming their cause, and only a select few under very specific circumstances getting their intended result. Although the right to protest may be fundamental to a free society, they should be used far more sparingly than they are currently. My advice is if you want to take action to bring about changes in the world, think carefully about what you are going to do and how. If this means protesting, do not have high expectations that you will succeed.
—-
The No Kings gimmickry thus joins a long list of leftists protests in the last several years that impress some by the size of their crowds. As the New York Times observed back in 2017, however, the size of a protest no longer matters. Dating back to the Tea Party protests of 2009, the size of a protest has rarely indicated future success, let alone some authentic groundswell of support. Their primary impact, as Freme observes, is tosimply “raise awareness for a specific cause, which, in effect, is just a convoluted way of saying ‘do no tangible good and feel good about it anyway”.

At this point, the people who agree will listen and chant along excitedly. Those who don’t, won’t.

And the earth, which has always been apart from the internet, still spins.