I asked that question after the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2017, the day after Donald Trump’s first inauguration as president.

I asked it again on June 17, 2025 after the first “No Kings” demonstration.

I posed in once more after the second “No Kings” protest on October 18, 2025.

And now I am asking it again after the third “No Kings” outcry on March 28, 2026.

Sadly, the answer in each case: Nothing.

I have argued about the ineffectiveness of the demonstrations with several “No Kings” supporters but none can point to anything — anything — that has changed.

Not one Trump policy has been altered. Trump has not begun to tell the truth — not even once. He has not tempered his ugly rhetoric. He has not even taken off his crown to rest his head.

And there is a good reason for the impotence of the protests. The two main ones:  No clearly defined objective, and no potent meaningful followed up.

On the first point, I also asked “No Kings” defenders, what was their objective(s)?  The answers varied all over the place: stop the Iran war; protect the environment; close up ICE; make abortion legal; fire Steve Miller; bring down gas prices and allocate more money for animal shelters (the last included facetiously just to prove the point).

The goals are so varied that even protestors cannot agree among themselves what to fight for. This kind of diffusion causes political paralysis.

It all leads to ambiguity and here comes the worst part:

The organizers, when asked about the lack of objectives, proudly proclaimed that “ambiguity” was the major objective. Well, that they achieved. Congratulations!

Unfortunately, effective protests need clearly defined goals, ones which all involved understand and support. Participants need unanimity; they need to speak with one powerful voice.

Ghandi was not ambiguous in his very targeted nonviolent civil disobedience that helped India wins its independence from the British; Martin Luther King, Jr. was not ambiguous in his fight for justice for blacks. There was nothing ambiguous about the goals of Walter Reuther, the legendary UAW president, and what he wanted to achieve for working men and women. Most important, his opposition — employers — understood his goals and what Reuther was prepared to do and sacrifice to achieve labor reform.

Which brings us to the second point: Meaningful follow up. Protests are not enough, not even millions of protestors on the streets.

The opposition must be faced with actions that threaten their power and hurt them economically.

Dr. King did not just lead picket lines; he initiated economic boycotts in the South.  He made segregationists pay for their racism.

Reuther and other labor leaders led local and national strikes to force changes in unfair and abusive labor policies.

(Just a couple of minor examples: What if the eight million in the most recent protest had pledged not to purchase anything from Amazon for several months. Jeff Bezos might get the message.

(What if they all pledged not to go to work for a month or longer — declare a national strike. Yes, sometimes sacrifice is required. King and many of his supporters went to prison, some were beaten bloody as was Reuther in the Battle of the Overpass at the Ford Motor Co. in 1937.

(There is no shortage of actions the “No Kings” participants could invoke.)

Countless examples exist throughout the world of effective protests — including revolutions — and “No Kings” organizers would be well-served to study some history on this subject before hitting the streets.

Reading thousands of news clippings and watching TV coverage of the demonstrations may be satisfying, but it does nothing to produce meaningful change. As one protestor put it: “We must do more than carry clever signs.”

Said the Christian Science Monitor: “…voicing opposition is one thing. Turning it into action is another. The long history of American protests, dating back to the original Boston Tea Party in 1773, shows that not all mass movements produce tangible or lasting results.”

Susan Olzak, emerita professor of sociology at Stanford University, told the paper that to achieve their goals, most movements benefit from sustained activity, media attention, and a stable organizational structure, as well as a clear vision and execution.

“Movements with a focused and coherent message are often more effective than those appealing to a broad but heterogeneous audience,” she said.

I am going to go out on the limb and state that I believe many went home after the protests feeling a little empty, while asking themselves: “What did I achieve? What happens now?”

If another “No Kings” protest is planned, I may differ with the objective organizers adopt, but please, please no more ambiguity.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)