In 2014, I wrote a post titled “Less like a president than a king,” warning of the long, unchecked expansion of executive power in the United States. I made that case during the Obama administration, when the Supreme Court unanimously rebuked the president for exceeding his constitutional authority. Back then, there was little appetite on the political left to hear concerns about presidential overreach, because their party held power.
Fast forward to today, and protests have erupted under the banner “No Kings.” Predictably concentrated in deep-blue cities, these demonstrations have been organized or supported by a who's who of progressive activist groups: Indivisible, MoveOn, the ACLU, unions, and others.
The message, at first glance, is a noble one—opposition to authoritarian rule. Many participants are sincere and good people, and I do not seek to offend them or diminish their participation in a cherished First Amendment liberty to protest. I even admire them for engaging. However, these protests are not about tyranny; they are about partisanship. They are not a spontaneous defense of liberty, but an organized campaign effort.
The slogan “No Kings” is not a call for constitutional restraint—it’s a campaign slogan, just like “Move On.” “Resist” and “Black Lives Matter,” formulated by powerful organizers who have developed networks, communications strategies, funding pipelines, and local chapters precisely to mobilize around virtually any progressive cause at short notice.
The irony, of course, is that the expansion of executive power has been building for more than a century. It accelerated dramatically under the Obama administration, continued under Trump, and intensified even further under Joe Biden. Presidents from both parties have tested these boundaries. Richard Nixon's abuses of power gave birth to the term "imperial presidency" itself, and George W. Bush’s post-9/11 expansions of surveillance and wartime authority marked another significant leap. Each new president inherits the tools left behind by the previous one and builds upon them. Each new party in power forgets the warnings it once issued when the other party held the White House.
To be clear, many Americans attending No Kings protests may be sincere. They may truly fear the return of Donald Trump. They may honestly believe that democracy is under threat. But sincerity without consistency is not a principle; it’s partisanship. These voices were largely silent during the Obama and Biden expansions of federal authority. They did not take to the streets when executive orders flowed freely, when mandates came down from on high, or when the press often celebrated unilateral action as necessary in the face of a “do-nothing Congress.”
These protests, like so many before them, aren’t changing anyone’s mind and may be counterproductive. They’re not aimed at persuading the skeptical middle. They’re not trying to win over voters with facts or arguments. They are public rituals of confirmation bias - emotional reinforcement masquerading as civic engagement.
For many Americans in the political center, the symbolism of these protests is increasingly alienating. The imagery on display rarely includes the American flag, considered oppressive by many on the left. Instead, one sees a chaotic sea of interest group banners—Pride flags, trans flags, Palestinian flags, Mexican flags, and countless emblems representing causes few Americans even recognize. There are no appeals to common citizenship, no unifying symbols, no sense that this is a protest meant for everyone. The message unintentionally sent is not one of unity or constitutional fidelity, but of ideological separatism.
The message of alienation is all the more potent because of the frequency. Worse yet, the frequency and sameness of left-wing protests have led to fatigue. When every issue becomes a “moral emergency,” and every Saturday brings another march or rally, people tune out. The theatrics become tired. The outrage loses its force. Protest, once a powerful form of dissent, has become just another background noise in the progressive media ecosystem.
In the latest round of demonstrations, violent outbreaks occurred in Portland, Los Angeles, Denver, and other cities. The press often frames the violence as separate from the “main protest.” But the public is not fooled when a reporter stands in front of a burning building, saying the demonstration was largely peaceful. When bricks fly, windows shatter, and police are attacked, Americans notice. And because these incidents almost always accompany left-wing protests, many conclude that the organizers and their allies quietly tolerate the violence.
Every broken window and toppled statue in the name of protest becomes another brick in Trump’s political comeback. These spectacles don’t discredit him—they validate the fears that led many voters to support him in the first place. The more chaotic these protests appear, the more persuasive he becomes as a bulwark against cultural disorder.
Far from scaring people into voting against Trump, the disorder reminds voters why they turned to him in the first place: because they saw in him a bulwark against the very cultural chaos these protests now represent. The more these spectacles escalate, the more the center recoils.
If concern about tyranny only surfaces when one’s political opponents hold office, it is not actually a concern about tyranny. It is a concern about losing.
The Founders feared that liberty would not be lost all at once but eroded slowly by the unchecked ambitions of government factions. The presidency was never meant to be the center of gravity in our constitutional system. But today, both parties have helped transform it into exactly that.
The truth is this: the problem is not who wears the crown. The problem is that we have allowed the presidency to become a throne. Both parties have contributed to the growth of executive power. And unless Americans of all stripes recognize that danger, regardless of who holds office, we will not preserve the republic.
“No Kings” is a compelling slogan. But until we mean it—every time—it’s just another partisan costume in a very old play.
****
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.
I received a comment on Facebook in response to this blog post as follows:
ReplyDelete"Respectfully, I think real problem is that Congress does nothing. There is no effort whatsoever to find bipartisan solutions. I attended our No Kings rally here in Plymouth yesterday. To set the record straight there were plenty of American flags. It was fun, festive and peaceful. As a woman, I will tell you that I find this administration oppressive, those other groups you mention are also oppressed. I consider myself a centrist but I believe in the constitution which provides for the separation of church and state and equal rights for all. One of the biggest problems in my opinion is that Donald Trump and those he has installed in his cabinet do not believe that."
I responded as follows:
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I agree that congressional dysfunction is a major contributor to the rise of executive power. In fact, back in 2014 I wrote that this expansion has been fueled not just by a passive Congress, but also by weakened cabinet independence, a self-interested federal bureaucracy, and media entanglement with political power.
One of the most damaging shifts has been Congress’s loyalty to party over institution. In earlier eras, members of both parties more vigorously defended the legislative branch from executive overreach. Today, congressional leaders on both sides—whether Pelosi and Schumer or McConnell and Johnson—often serve as party functionaries, delivering partisan votes rather than asserting institutional authority. The fact that Congress hasn’t passed all 12 appropriations bills on time since 1997 says a lot about its decline.
I take your point about the Plymouth protest, and I don’t doubt there were American flags and peaceful intentions there. But across the broader landscape of progressive protests, the imagery often lacks national symbols or features flags of other nations, which can come across as alienating to many in the middle. That said, I respect that each event is different.
As for your feeling that this administration is oppressive, I understand that perception is deeply personal. I only suggest that if we’re going to claim constitutional violations by any administration, we should look closely at specific actions or policies. I’d welcome that conversation if you have examples in mind.
Again, thank you for engaging respectfully—I appreciate it.