First, who are these people? While I can’t find any actual demographic surveys, by reviewing multiple photos from a variety of locations, it is immediately apparent that No Kings is a thing of white people, even overwhelmingly so. Similarly the typical age seems to begin in middle-age and extend to the geriatric population. According to Axios News, the typical DC attendee was an educated white woman in her 40s. Not surprisingly, approximately 73% of all wealth in the US is currently owned by Americans over the age of 55, especially those born between 1946 and 1964, with whites holding a disproportionate amount, perhaps 85% . I posit that the demographics of the No Kings attendees likely reflects listeners of National Public Radio: approx. 85% white, 56% female, about 75% over the age of 35 and 41% over the age of 55; 70% of NPR listeners have at least a bachelor's degree and the median household income of NPR listeners is $115,000. They are “more likely to spend money on travel, books, fitness, and they own financial securities, signaling that they have disposable income,” according to Market Engenuity (an NPR associated organization).

Second, what do they actually want, or don’t want? The short answer is they want whatever Trump doesn’t and oppose everything he does. Ostensibly they object to a monarchical form of government, but “No Kings,” while emotionally appealing to some as a slogan, is never really defined: perhaps an appropriate characterization of a king is found in the 1975 movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

It’s possible, in a lucid moment, a No Kings protester might say they are against rule by decree, which does exist in the form of Presidential executive orders (EOs). For example, in 2014 then President Barack Obama, frustrated he couldn’t persuade congress to pass laws consistent with his agenda, made an impressively king-like statement “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.” In other words, he bypassed the Constitutional process via issuing EO. It’s important to note EOs have been used by all Presidents beginning with George Washington, and vary from the silly (Bill Clinton establishing May 20^th as "National Clean Up Your Room Day" in 1994) to virtue signaling (Jimmy Carter establishing March as “Women’s History Month”) to those with seriously, and even global ramifications, such as Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known infamously for delivering $100s of millions in cash to Iran in unmarked cargo planes.

In theory, EOs are not law and can be rescinded by succeeding Presidents, as Trump did with the JCPOA. To some extent EOs are issued under the philosophy of “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness later than permission now,” with the hope one President’s orders will be upheld as law by courts when later challenged (Obama’s 2012 immigration order- DACA- is a current example). It’s reasonable to say that the No Kings protesters are okay with Presidential decrees that suit their agendas, but screech No Kings!! when they don’t.

Ironically, but not surprisingly, the No Kings movement, under the guise of “defending democracy,” protest against democratically passed laws they don’t like. For example the horribly named “Big Beautiful Bill” included some restrictions on SNAP (food stamps), including work/education requirements for able-bodied adults of 20 hours per week, with multiple exceptions, such as parents and the elderly. Another provision allows states to limit the type of items that can be purchased, most notably soda and chips, which happen to be the #one and #two items purchased with food stamps (between 40 and 60% of items bought using SNAP are considered junk food, amounting to about $50 billion a year). A reasonable person (or, in No Kings parlance, a Nazi racist hate-filled fascist) might think limiting SNAP purchases to foods considered healthy is a good thing all around, but the “Big Beautiful Bill” was Trump’s bill so everything in it must be opposed by those demanding No Kings.

Third, the psycho-social implications of the No Kings are worth discussion. Conservative columnist Sarah Rumpf offered some insights in an Oct. 25^th article. She quoted Manhattan psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert: "No Kings protests were a snapshot of an era when emotional catharsis and civic activism have begun to blur. What we’re seeing is a kind of group therapy playing out in the streets. The No Kings Movement allows people to feel belonging and community. Sharing grievances with like-minded people feels good..."

I’ll add that mass protesting is simply fun, like a tailgate party with a sense righteousness. The No Kings demographic have a difficult challenge: to maintain their wealth, privilege, and social standing at the same time appearing (to themselves and others) altruistic. In other words, materialism- large houses (perhaps summer and winter homes), nice cars, sizable portfolios, fine dining, fine wines, exotic vacations- must somehow be merged with the impression of empathy and concern. Attending protests, having social justice yard signs, and expressing contempt (along with insults) to those they view as deplorable- activities that require little effort and little financial outlay- meet the requirement.

A number of interviews were shown on conservative media with No Kings protesters who said truly vile things: a moment of fame owing to their hatefulness. I imagine, however, many of the protesters are perfectly okay people, some of whom I’ve been friends with for decades and know them to be decent. The caveat is perfectly decent people can become obsessed with protecting their own interests, not just financial and social, but the very perception of who they are, at least in their own minds. At some level they understand they largely owe their affluence and and ego-identity to the status quo, leading to the fourth consideration- fear of any alteration in the status quo.

Over many decades we developed an economic, cultural, and political comfort zone that has proven lucrative for many people by having government, using lots of fictional money (the national debt has exceeded $38 trillion), pay for things that please us, and acknowledging reality is frightening. At a low level, measured in mere $billions, are entities like NPR and PBS, which provide an echo chamber for the No Kings mentality: free entertainment and and affirmation for the wealthy. That the funding for this was stopped by Trump caused outrage: something that has been part of the status quo for decades- a source of fun and feeling of sophistication for the elite- has been, for the moment at least, defunded.

On pretty much any issue any proposed change to what is makes the No Kings participants livid. Innumerable government programs amounting to $100’s of billions- “green” funding, “health care,” USAID, grants to universities, NGOs and “non-profits,” and on and on- ultimately, if you are willing to look just a little below the surface, are mostly transfers of money to wealthy and connected people and institutions. Somewhere among the massive amounts might actually be something of benefit, at least enough for public relations campaigns, but unaccountability, and arrogance, and entitlement reign.

In many ways the political establishment is similar to corrupt televangelists, who promise riches and salvation for a "donation.” Politicians, however, finance their Utopian promises through other people’s money...and money that exists only in the ether. Platitudes can be very seductive to those who so badly want to believe- the No Kings people for example. But in reality they engage in compassion by proxy, the kind of compassion that requires no real personal effort, expense, or even inconvenience. This has become the status quo, and in hopes of keeping it going, the No Kings crowd has taken it to the streets.