By Matt Underwood It’s quite something to consider the sheer scale of the planned “No Kings” protests scheduled for March 28th. Reports suggest that this event could very well be the largest demonstration in American history, with an astonishing 3,000 separate events anticipated to take place across all 50 states. The ambition behind such a widespread and unified action is, frankly, remarkable.
Seeing “No Kings” protestors even in places like Missoula, Montana, is a powerful illustration of how broad this movement’s reach might be. It’s not just concentrated in urban centers; reports indicate that the attendees weren’t just young college students, but a significant number of older individuals, around 40 and above. This suggests a diverse and deeply felt engagement from a wide range of people who feel compelled to make their voices heard.
The sentiment behind such a massive mobilization appears to be a yearning for significant change and a desire to move beyond a status quo that many find unsatisfactory. Phrases like “No Wars” suggest a multifaceted set of concerns that extend beyond a single issue. It’s about expressing a collective opinion and a shared desire for a different path forward, and the sheer number of planned events certainly underscores the magnitude of this collective feeling.
There’s a palpable sense of anticipation for this event, with many believing it will be “massive.” This isn’t just a small group of activists; it’s shaping up to be a truly widespread phenomenon. The hope is that this will be a chance for people to truly share their voices and to feel a restoration of faith in their communities, recognizing that they are not alone in their concerns.
Given the concentration of media ownership by large corporations and billionaires, there’s an understanding that news coverage might be limited. This makes the act of participating even more significant, as it becomes a way to witness firsthand the breadth of support and to feel that sense of shared purpose. While it’s acknowledged that such protests might not bring about immediate, perfect change, the potential for personal well-being and the restoration of communal faith are seen as valuable outcomes in themselves.
A common thread in the discussions surrounding this event is the idea that it should serve as a catalyst for further action. The hope is that this large-scale protest on March 28th can act as a recruitment tool for future endeavors, perhaps leading to more sustained efforts like general strikes, as is planned for May Day. The aspiration is for these actions to escalate, becoming more prolonged and impactful until the message is truly heard and addressed.
There’s a clear recognition that protests alone are not the sole solution. The focus is on how to harness the momentum generated by such a large gathering and translate it into something bigger and more sustainable. The idea is that these rallies and protests are not the destination, but rather the launchpad for future organization and action, a place to connect with like-minded individuals and to identify the next concrete steps.
However, amidst the enthusiasm, there are also practical concerns and criticisms. The mention of VIP passes for some events, even those featuring established performers, has sparked debate about the authenticity and purpose of the movement. Some see this as contradictory to the idea of fundamental change and critique it as a “pressure valve release mechanism” that ultimately achieves little because it doesn’t disrupt the existing power structures.
Further scrutiny reveals that the movement is backed by significant funding from major liberal foundations, donor networks, and labor unions. This has led some critics to describe it as “astroturfing,” a professional operation disguised as organic grassroots activism. The extensive funding linked to organizations like Open Society Foundations, Arabella Advisors, and Tides Foundation, along with the coordination by groups like Indivisible and 50501 Movement, raises questions about the true nature of its origins and objectives.
The lack of clear, specific demands is another point of contention. Critics suggest that the primary aim is to showcase mass discontent and to position certain political factions as the “lesser evil,” rather than to achieve tangible policy changes. The comparison to methods used to influence foreign regimes, albeit without the violence, highlights a deep-seated skepticism for some observers.
Many believe that the most effective way to achieve change is by directly confronting corruption and disrupting the ability of those in power to extract wealth. The focus, some argue, should be on pressuring representatives and demanding that rampant corruption be addressed, rather than on one-day protests that are quickly forgotten.
The effectiveness of single-day, scheduled protests on weekends is also questioned. While they may serve to show solidarity and shared feelings, the argument is made that they lack the disruptive power necessary to truly impact the administration or bring about lasting change. The call is for more sustained action, like shutting down cities or even sabotaging the economy, to make a statement that cannot be ignored.
There’s a prevalent sentiment that passive participation, like simply holding signs, is insufficient. The desire is for more direct action that causes disruption to the normal functioning of everyday life, drawing parallels to the sit-ins of the Civil Rights era. Some argue that without the risk of physical safety, which was a reality for activists in the 1960s facing direct violations, today’s protests may not carry the same weight or achieve the same level of impact.
The concern is that these events, while well-intentioned, can become performative, offering a sense of participation without genuine progress. The comparison to Occupy Wall Street is made, with the suggestion that these events are “controlled opposition,” funded by the elite to mobilize people without providing them with concrete goals or organization. This, in turn, can co-opt genuine frustration and anger that could be channeled into more productive, grassroots efforts.
Despite these criticisms, there’s a strong undercurrent of hope and determination. For those planning to attend, the message is clear: show up with enthusiasm, speak with passion about what needs to happen next, and think about actual demands. The emphasis is on connecting with others, offering concrete and achievable ways to participate, and being prepared for the possibility of something more substantial. The goal is to ensure that everyone who shows up feels ready for the next step, fostering a sense of shared purpose and actionable engagement.