Letter to the editor
Published 1:30 am Wednesday, April 1, 2026
They know exactly what they’re fighting for
The critics who dismiss Grays Harbor protesters have apparently never spoken to one.
They show up at rallies with signs and conviction, and the critics on social media — experts at sound bites and short on content — are ready. “They don’t even know what they’re protesting.” “They have no idea what democracy means.” It’s a repeated dismissal, and it requires no evidence, because the critics never actually talk to the protesters.
I did.
At Aberdeen’s No Kings rally this past weekend, I found something that I already knew but the online commentary is not prepared to hear: people who are deeply, carefully, and soberly paying attention.
Keelee, tears in her eyes, poignantly described the grief of watching symbols she loved — the flag, the cross — weaponized to justify cruelty. A man named TC said he wasn’t a Democrat or a Republican; he was an American, and he was disgusted by what he called self-profiteering from an administration that was supposed to serve the public. Lindsey and her aunt Julie spoke about the erasure of minority communities from the national story and why it matters that small towns like ours bear witness to resistance.
Others worried about maintaining the separation of powers and the diminished independence of the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court. And there was an overwhelming concern about ICE and its unconstitutional lawlessness.
These are not just talking points. These are convictions, earned over lifetimes.
Rick, who has worked with refugees first hand and watched people surrender everything for a chance at what we take for granted.
Brenda cited the SAVE Act — and walked through, in careful detail, how she believes it would disproportionately burden women, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Jennifer and Brielle talked about historical pattern recognition: the gradual erosion of rights, and the conflict on the horizon and John questioned the sanity of removing counter-intelligence people before starting an unauthorized war.
Alan, who remembers Vietnam, put it plainly: “If we don’t make it through this, we won’t have a republic to save.”
And then there were the students.
Since the critics are especially fond of condescending to young protesters, I paid particular attention here. What I found was inconvenient for that narrative. River pointed out, correctly, that today’s young people have more access to information than any generation in history. Karina, Ollie, and Madison described monitoring the news as an “obsession” which is usually associated with people who have something personal at stake — because they do. They will inherit the mess we leave behind.
They had detailed views on the SAVE Act. They understood its mechanics and its likely effects. They noted, with some sharpness, that if their political opinions were being shaped by teachers in a conservative county, they’d be leaning right — not left. One young woman added simply: “It’s hard to be a Republican when your family is poor.”
The criticism that protesters are uninformed isn’t really an argument. It’s a way of avoiding one.
Because if you engage with what these people actually believe — that the separation of powers is being dismantled, that voting rights are under calculated pressure, that the rule of law is being treated as optional by the people sworn to uphold it — then you have to respond to the substance. That’s harder than a dismissive tweet.
“Democracy doesn’t die overnight,” said Kim, Joni, and Nancy. “It’s chipped away a little bit at a time. People need to pay attention.”
An elementary school teacher at the rally described the awkward moment when her very young students observe that the government isn’t working the way she teaches it should. She has to explain that people aren’t following the rules. That’s not a partisan talking point. That’s a civics lesson delivered by reality.
The United States has a protest tradition older than the republic itself. The right to assemble and protest is not a footnote to the Constitution — it’s the First Amendment. The people who showed up in Aberdeen this weekend weren’t confused about their country’s history or their rights. They were exercising them clearly and deliberately.
You can disagree with their conclusions. But the argument that they don’t understand what they’re doing? I spent an afternoon with them. That argument doesn’t hold up.
Trina Young
Elma
