Comments
ORGANIZING NO KINGS - According to the corporate news media, Saturday’s No Kings marches were a phenomenal success. Many stories mentioned that demonstrations took place in all 50 states. The estimated 7,000,000 participants were part of 2,600 separate marches that presented President Trump as evil incarnate. The news coverage never mentioned that the main beneficiary of the marches was the Democratic Party. This column tries to fill this vacuum.
Who are the organizers? The No Kings rallies were organized by Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin, both of whom previously worked for Congressional Democrats. Greenberg was a staff assistant to Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello. Ezra Levin worked for Texas Representative Lloyd Doggett.
Together Greenberg and Levin lead Indivisible, the nonprofit that organized the No Kings marches. These marches targeted President Donald Trump, who they call an aspiring dictator. This is an easy case to make because Trump recently sent newly-minted ICE agents to Chicago, Portland, New York, and Memphis, where they kidnap brown people and dispatch them to foreign gulags. The rest of Indivisible’s agenda is, however, less convincing because the No Kings marches only focus on US domestic policy, not foreign policy, especially the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, which are mostly fought with US weapons and advisors, despite little popular support.
This shortcoming is understandable because if Indivisible had included these foreign policy issues, the 7,000,000 demonstrators would have been at odds with the Democratic Party’s leaders. If this took place, Indivisible would then need to switch its animosity to the entire political “establishment”, not just Trump and his Republican followers.
This is because US foreign policy – especially its military components -- is almost always bi-partisan. It has little to do with voters, who are much less militaristic than Democratic and Republican politicians in Washington. If the views of potential participants were the organizers’ major concern, the No Kings rallies would have included the massive US military role in Gaza and the Ukraine. But, unlike the millions of No Kings marchers, most Congressional Democrats support these wars. Including these issues would have forced the Democratic Party’s enormous internal disagreements to the surface.
This is why the No Kings marches focused on domestic issues, like sending ICE to Chicago and Portland. It was not because Indivisible thought including US support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza would reduce participation. It was their knowledge that the Democratic Party’s leaders strongly supported the US military role in Gaza and Ukraine, plus preparations for war with China.
What is the historical record of the Democratic Party on US wars?
1) As far back as President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), Democrats in the White House and Congress were a war party. Wilson brought the US into World War 1, and also initiated enormous amounts of state repression to curb this country’s anti-war movement. This included the 1917 Espionage Act and 1918’s Sedition Act. This legislation resulted in the prosecution of 2000 Americans, who were either deported or sentenced to 20 year prison terms for sedition. Wilson’s program also included a vast domestic propaganda campaign to instill hatred of Germans.
2) The Truman Administration, which began with President Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, ushered in a long period of domestic political repression. In addition to the Democratic Party’s support for wars in Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza, Washington’s bipartisan pro-war consensus strongly supports the US military role in Gaza and the Ukraine.
3) Evidence for the pro-war consensus in Congress – as opposed to the public – can be seen in Pentagon appropriation votes. For example, the Senate passed an enormous military bill for $914 billion on October 9, in a 77-20 vote, as part of a total military budget of $1.5 trillion.
4) One consequence of these pro-war votes by most Congressional Democrats is increasing economic inequality. It results in half of older workers with no savings, while a quarter of seniors get by on $15,000 a year or less. According to Norman Solomon, in Truthout:
“The Democratic Party establishment now denounces President Trump’s vicious assaults on vital departments and social programs. Unfortunately, three decades ago it cleared a path that led toward the likes of the DOGE wrecking crew. A clarion call in that direction came from President Bill Clinton when, in his 1996 State of the Union address, he exulted that “the era of big government is over.”
When we consider the views of the Democratic Party’s leaders, we should hardly be surprised that the No Kings marches only address domestic issues. Saturday’s demonstrations deliberately avoided war and peace topics since they reveal the enormous gaps between the party’s leaders and the party’s voters.
(Victor Rothman is a California-based policy analyst and regular contributor to CityWatchLA.com)
NOTE: For another critique of the No Kings marches, check out Jimmy Dore.
