Organizers of last weekend’s “No Kings” protests estimate that seven million people participated in over 2,700 cities and towns across the country. Fox News reported this week that, according to researchers at American University who track protest movements, one segment of the population dominated the rallies: “the typical attendee was an educated white woman in her 40s who learned about the demonstration through friends or social media.”
Fox reached out to psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert for an explanation. “What we’re seeing is a kind of group therapy playing out in the streets,” he noted. “The protests were a snapshot of an era when emotional catharsis and civic activism have begun to blur.”
Alpert elaborated further:
The ‘No Kings’ movement allows people to feel belonging and community. Sharing grievances with like-minded people feels good, but it doesn’t necessarily change anything.”Therapy speak” is everywhere — in dating apps, on the news, even in political rallies. People start labeling others as narcissists or traumatized when those aren’t clinical diagnoses.People are craving community, and this gives them a place to channel that. They’re surrounded by others who validate how they feel, and that validation can be addictive. Some protesters are equating the “No Kings” movement with the Civil Rights Movement. In their minds, there’s an equivalency, but there really isn’t. They want to be part of something historically meaningful, and that longing can distort perspective.That fleeting catharsis can also mask something darker.A lot of times people are unhappy in their own lives. They may have anxiety or anger, and they project that onto others. That’s partly what we’re seeing play out at these rallies.
Alpert may be onto something. A decade of dealing with President Trump has clearly pushed Democrats over the edge. Over time, their collective case of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has deepened, and their assaults on Trump and his supporters have grown less tactical and disciplined, and more reactive and desperate in tone.
Trump’s victory last year left Democrats reeling. They’d thrown every possible obstacle in his path, including lawfare, yet there he was on Jan. 20, taking the oath of office as the 47th president of the United States.
As Alpert noted, sharing grievances with like-minded people can be deeply reassuring. Protesters knew they would be surrounded by others who share their view that Trump represents an authoritarian threat. No matter how detached from reality those beliefs may be, the crowd would validate them, creating a temporary sense of safety in a like-minded environment.
Additionally, psychological research actually has found “a statistical correlation between liberal political affiliation and higher levels of neuroticism, especially among women.”
While it’s obvious that many factors shape both political orientation and mental well-being, and it’s impossible to say with certainty that self-identified liberal women are more neurotic than their conservative counterparts, numerous studies have found a stronger association between liberal political views and higher levels of reported distress or neurotic traits compared with conservatives.
The American Affairs Journal looked at the various studies out there on this topic and concluded not only that a “well-being gap” between liberals and conservatives is a real thing, but also that “conservatives are happier than liberals.”
The gap manifests clearly across all age groups and is present as far back as the polling goes. In the General Social Survey, for instance, there has been a consistent 10 percentage point gap between the share of conservatives versus liberals who report being “very happy” in virtually every iteration since 1972 (when the GSS was launched).Academic research consistently finds the same pattern. Conservatives do not just report higher levels of happiness, they also report higher levels of meaning in their lives. The effects of conservatism seem to be enhanced when conservatives are surrounded by others like themselves.
Alpert’s conclusions about the unusually high turnout for the “No Kings” protests, particularly by educated, liberal, white women in their 40s, point to a very different reality than organizers would have us believe. Rather than demonstrating that large numbers of Americans see Trump as a unique danger to democracy, the response suggests that participation in these rallies may have helped fill a personal psychological need among attendees.
As Democrats have drifted away from traditional religious affiliation in recent years, many appear to have brought a kind of religious fervor into their politics. When confronted with opposing views, they often respond with emotional appeals and personal attacks, while conservatives tend to approach disagreements in a more grounded and fact-focused manner. And, frankly, conservative women may simply have more constructive ways to spend a lovely autumn afternoon than attending a political protest.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY