Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.
Nemik’s manifesto, Andor
While I’m as gratified as anyone to see the protests occurring across the nation today, I guess I have a quiet gripe. I honestly think the “No Kings” label sounds a little too accommodating for the current situation with Trump. I get the historical relevance to the American Revolution, the reclamation of our rights, the protest against tyranny. But to me, the word “King” still conjures up a distant, amorphous form of rule that no Americans are actually familiar with, because it is so far removed from their lived experience. Not many in this country, save a few immigrants, actually have experienced rule under a “king” (Britain’s King Charles, whose rule is almost entirely ceremonial, doesn’t really count). We study “Kings” in history classes, because for the most part, in most of the modern world, that’s what they are: ancient history.
For me, if anything, “King” suggests an antiquated, vaguely benevolent, overseeing role on the part of an absolute monarch privileged by wealth and an inherited bloodline that paves his path to power. Yes, there were plenty of evil and nasty “kings,” but the word itself is fairly neutral. It suggests too much someone exalted rather than necessarily despotic and cruel, held up high by collective, mutual acclaim, and blissfully removed from the normality of the rest of the population’s existence. Someone who, while still possessing absolute power, generally remains unseen, in his ivory tower, relatively out of the eye of the general public.
Not someone who — through his minions or otherwise — spends an undue amount of his time deliberately thinking of ways to harm and oppress those might resist or otherwise object to his personal pathologies, attempting to insinuate himself into the collective consciousness on a daily basis through display after display of cruelty and authority. With the singular focus of keeping himself in power by degrading the institutions established to prevent his removal.
What we’re dealing with here, in the U.S. right now, is not someone with the pretensions of a “King,” in the classical sense, but with the practiced malevolence, mindset and bent of a dictator. Someone who doesn’t simply “rule” but intentionally undermines the status quo through deliberate, systematic oppression and violence. Someone who occupies nearly the entirety of his time with the overarching goal of publicly putting his opposition down. That’s what we are seeing in Trump, and in the Republican party that supports him.
The name “No Kings” was apparently coined by the 50501 movement:
The meaning of the "No Kings" label, according to its organizers:
- The slogan is an intentional reference to the Founding Fathers' rejection of King George III during the American Revolution.
- It is used to argue that the United States was founded on the principle that the country does not belong to a king or tyrant but to "We the People".
- The movement views the Trump administration's actions as authoritarian and a threat to democratic norms.
That’s perfectly reasonable on its face, I suppose, but it ignores the fact that just about no one in this country has the faintest inkling of what life was like under King George III, or any king for that
George III
matter. And even if George III was as tyrannical as he is often characterized, he was also perceived as being physically removed, a foreigner, even — literally an ocean away from where the real action was happening at the time. That was one of his fatal weaknesses vis a vis the American rebellion, in fact.
Most Americans, through popular culture or actual education, however, have at least a visceral sense of what “dictatorship” entails. They’ve seen the consequences and characteristics of modern dictatorships, in some shape or manifestation.
As noted in Wikipedia, some of those few countries whose populations do have temporal, modern experience with “kings” have been using different terminology to describe the U.S. protests.
In countries with constitutional monarchies such as Canada and the United Kingdom, the alternate "Dictators" or "Tyrants" titles were favored over "Kings" to avoid confusion with anti-monarchic movements; Hawaii did the same to avoid confusion with a King Kamehameha Day parade held on the same day.
That’s because, for those countries, the meaning of “king” simply no longer carries the same oppressive component. Their “king” is a figurehead whose power they curtailed a long time ago, and they see no need to rock the boat by endorsing the label of “No Kings.” For much of the population of the U.S., the word simply has lost its formidable gravitas — and inherent menace — as originally contemplated for example, in the Declaration of Independence or in the speeches of Patrick Henry. In 1791, Americans knew exactly what a king was. In 2025, they don’t.
I know this may sound like quibbling over semantics; millions of people have come out for peaceful protests today en masse, regardless of what they’re called, and that’s the important thing. And “no Kings” might be more palatable and appealing to some than “No Dictators.” This is, regardless of what we call the protests, shaping up to be a good day amongst a very, very dark year for our democracy. But are we really still going to be calling for “no kings” if and when the Insurrection Act is invoked (it will be) and martial law is imposed (it will be)? When people are routinely gunned down or “disappeared” in the streets and elections are overseen under threat of military intimidation?
I’m not so sure the “No Kings” label is going to suffice when that happens. Because I’m afraid we’ll be facing something a whole lot worse.
