“No kings.”
It’s the kind of slogan that fits neatly on a protest sign and sounds great shouted through a megaphone. Revolutionary. Defiant. American.
Also, increasingly hollow.
Because in today’s political climate, “No Kings” doesn’t mean no kings. It means no kings we don’t like.
Let’s be honest about what’s happening.
The same voices invoking the Founders and thundering against “authoritarianism” are often perfectly comfortable with raw, centralized power—so long as it’s being exercised by their side. Executive orders? Fine. Sweeping agency authority? Necessary. Courts stretching interpretations? Applauded.
The principle isn’t “limit power.” It’s “control power.”
That’s not a rejection of monarchy. It’s a rebranding of it.
America’s founding idea wasn’t just anti-king—it was pro-constraint. Power was to be divided, checked, and constantly distrusted. The system was designed on the assumption that everyone is dangerous with too much authority, not just the other party.
But that consistency has vanished.
Today, “No Kings” gets deployed selectively:
- When a political opponent pushes boundaries, it’s tyranny.
- When an ally does the same thing, it’s “leadership.”
That’s not principle. That’s partisanship dressed up in revolutionary cosplay.
Even worse, modern power rarely looks like a crown and scepter. It’s embedded in sprawling bureaucracies, insulated institutions, and unaccountable decision-makers who never face voters but shape policy all the same. If you’re serious about opposing “kings,” you’d be just as skeptical of that machinery as you are of any elected official.
But many aren’t.
Because the truth is uncomfortable: a lot of people don’t actually want less concentrated power. They just want to be the ones holding it—or at least standing close to the throne.
Here’s the bottom line.
If you believe in “No Kings,” then it has to apply across the board:
- Your side and the other side
- Policies you like and policies you hate
- Moments of crisis and moments of calm
Otherwise, it’s not a principle. It’s a talking point.
And Americans didn’t fight a revolution to trade one king for another—they fought to make sure no one ever got that comfortable with power again.
No comments:
Post a Comment