Over the weekend, thousands gathered in the streets to protest President Trump in an event dubbed the “No Kings” protests. It was proclaimed to be peaceful and overflowing with joy and solidarity. However, pondering the purpose of these protests may lead one to question the depth of their message. Protesters seemed concerned with ensuring America remained free from tyranny, a sentiment that’s amusing given their freedom to protest in the streets without any opposition fitting of a monarchy. With every major media outlet seemingly fawning over their “courage” and “hope,” one might wonder if the irony levels have embarrassingly flown over their heads.
Despite their so-called peaceful nature, the protests weren’t without their colorful characters, each more bizarre than the last. An interesting choice was having individuals don different costumes and theatrically roll around on the United States Constitution. The acts seemed to scream more of a desperate performance art project than a meaningful civil protest. Even educators, usually trusted to guide the next generation, didn’t shy away from making contentious and vulgar gestures against those who didn’t share the same worldview.
Then there’s the implicit endorsement of violent rhetoric by prominent public figures who chose to associate with more virulent speakers during the protest. It’s perplexing how a gathering supposedly against fascism was so willing to engage with or turn a blind eye to inflammatory calls against law enforcement agencies like I.C.E. Seeing grown adults parading radical ideas as if they’re reality is a bit like watching a toddler throw a tantrum – loud and full of conviction, but it all seems to come with the vacuity of a child playing dress-up.
Canada’s determination to join the fray with their own “No Tyrants” protest added to the theater. In a land famously led by a crown-wearing monarch, grappling with which side of the narrative to place themselves on must have been an amusing conundrum. Instead of taking actionable steps to address potential grievances, the choice to rename the event suggests a participation trophy effort rather than a substantial call for change.
The sight of these protesters, many seemingly from a demographic we’d humorously refer to as “Grantifa,” shows how misplaced the zeal can be. With their quirky protest methods, one might kindly suggest that their talents would be better suited on a theatrical stage rather than our streets. If one lesson can be extracted from this theatrical summation of misguided activism, it is that noise does not always equal value. The self-appointed heroes of the revolution might eventually want to align their passion with pragmatism, crafting a message that extends beyond echo chambers and fully relies on truth and action—not just gestures or slogans.
