In my last posting, I wrote about Caitlin Johnstone's post on the recent No Kings 2 protest across the country. This one comes from Lee Camp, who calls himself the "most censored comedian in America," and published on October 20th. Entitled "Why The 'No Kings' Protests Didn't Matter" with the subhead of "But they could have," he begins by saying he has been to many protests over the years, which have even driven him to dehydration at times, but says that none of those protests changed anything. He adds he has been involved in "other actions that did bring about change, including one that saved a man’s life," adding that none of them "were protests/marches/angry parades." He goes onto say that when marches and protests don't interrupt business, they do not "influence the government or shape the world or revolutionize," while they feel nice....excite...[and] energize," but admits that they can "help you learn that there are millions more like you who can’t stand the direction this country (and perhaps the world) is headed."

He goes onto say that protests don't create change on their own, adding that "the potential...for large-scale change to blossom out of such events is immense," but said that the protests spend two-four hours screaming something, then sending everyone home to wonder what was achieved, adding that positive change in U.S. history does not come from protests, and wonders when a large march, or protest, changed everything, arguing that what pushed civil rights through was "decades of litigation, mass boycotts, strikes, direct action and disciplined civil disobedience" and that the Vietnam War was ended not by protest, but the "the battlefield realities of an endless war of attrition, economic strain, and a larger Cold War strategy that prioritized détente with the USSR," and that the New Deal occurred because "Americans were becoming more militant and organized when it came to their disruptive capabilities...[and] big capitalists realized they needed to make some concessions in order to “save” capitalism."

He concludes his newsletter by saying actions which forced through charge are those which disrupt, arguing that "parades, even those attended by millions, don’t disrupt" but are, instead, "carefully timed, planned, licensed and scheduled to avoid disruption." He ends the newsletter with a quote from Frederick Douglas ("Power concedes nothing without a demand"), with some adding "a demand isn't a demand without consequences." However, his newsletter, which reaches over 11,000 subscribers is misguided. I'll explain here why I feel that is the case.

Surely, he has a valid opinion on this and I am glad he is not approaching this in the nasty, dismissive way that Caitlin Johnstone did. Even so, he is still pushing it aside. Joe Walsh, a former U.S. congressperson, described the No Kings Day 2 protest in D.C. as "loud, joyful, defiant, patriotic, and human," with the "the pulse of democracy in the air," with streets filled with people of every creed, age, and color saying "No Kings in America. Not now. Not ever." He further noted that answers varied for attending, including anti-fascism, restoring the rule of law, protesting corruption, reminding the world that "dissent is patriotic," or to defend democracy. He called the protest a "much-needed reminder of who we are when we show up, speak up, and stand together....we told those who would destroy our democracy that we love America...they won’t take our America away from us without a fight...No Kings Day was proof that the spirit of democracy is alive and well, and that We the People are still, proudly, the power."

While Walsh is admittedly a liberal, he is getting to more of what the protest was about than what Lee Camp is talking about. He could see it as an indication of people's anti-authoritarian feelings and their opposition to the regime. Is that not a good thing? Is it not bad to have massive/huge rallies to articulate that rage? Does that not give hope that things will change? One writer put it well, saying the protests "showed true strength in numbers...[and] that we are united against hate, against authoritarianism, against fascism, and against that 34-time felon stinking up the White House and our constitution." Can we not applaud that? Dan Rather and Team Steady focused on the protests as well, among many other blogs out there, saying:

...millions of Americans did what Americans have done for generations. They gathered for the greater good to protest injustice and protect our democracy. Multitudes of like-minded people rallied at 2,700 protests in big cities and small towns across all 50 states to oppose the second presidency of Donald Trump...Trump’s authoritarian play, to convince the electorate that his support is universal and any opposition minute and dangerous, fell flat in the face of so many millions rallying against his dismantling of our democracy and its institutions....The peaceful, even joyful, protests offered indisputable visual evidence that huge numbers of people across the country oppose his many abuses of power. That’s important. The more people see these protests all across the country, the more likely they are to question Trump’s illegal and immoral actions, and the safer they feel joining in...Public protests are an effective political strategy because they require action. Millions more have recently become action-takers, not just sideline watchers. And the next march may well attract even more people...what’s important in the wake of such events is not only the immediate capitalization on momentum, but the long-tailed effects they can produce...While the only thing that can truly change our political reality will happen in the voting booth, expanding and sustaining a national resistance to Trump’s tyrannical reign is an imperative piece of saving our constitutional republic based on the principles of freedom and democracy.

While I strongly disagree that only thing that will change our political reality is in the voting booth, I do agree with his broader point about the importance of the protests itself. After all, just consider the 1,500 people who turned up on Route 1 Corridor, among those who are peacefully arguing for democracy, with "young children, college students and senior citizens rall[ying]...along the road to support the cause," near my alma mater, University of Maryland, in College Park to give one example. The regime, and its followers, is getting some skittish, they even want those involved in the movement to be imprisoned (or calling them "terrorists"), while the orange one himself is mocking dissent, "reveling in the degradation of those who dare to speak against him" with an A.I. video of him dropping shit on protesters.

This will clearly only the beginning. An email message from Indivisible on October 20th said as much, with the co-executive director, Ezra Levin, saying that the event was historic, with "patriotic Americans showing up in defense of their rights and in the face of threats from the regime...including in the biggest and bluest city centers and reddest and most rural towns in America," all part of an effort to build "movement muscle....pulling more and more people in to be part of the opposition...[and is] a sign of things to come," with Levin calling it "boisterous, enormous, peaceful demonstrations in defense of the First Amendment and against kingly rule...[the] protest...was about...opposing monarchical rule in America." He went into say that the regime is trying to pretend the protest didn't happen, adding that it is up to everyone to "mythologize [No Kings 2] it and build upon it" by refusing to "allow the regime to define what we did, and by refusing to allow this to be just a one-day protest." He concluded by saying that they are going to win, are bigger than ever, better than fear and are going to win.

Otherwise, I know that those who lead Indivisible have talked about a possible general strike, but they want to build up to it, and have the pieces in place. In any case, I remain optimistic about what is happening going forward and hope that No Kings keeps developing into a more solid movement to oppose not just this administration, but authoritarianism in general, so it can exist under a Democratic administration as well.