Photo: Adobe Stock
As they have done in the past, liberals recently took to the streets with their “No Kings” rallies across America. The storyline remains the same: critics of President Donald Trump accuse him of violating his constitutional authority and label him a king.
A brief history lesson shows that the very foundation of the U.S. Constitution and the system of federalism render any monarchical comparison moot.
Champions of small government, leaders like Presidents Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump, have consistently resisted the left’s vision of expansive federal control. Each proved through policy and principle that government can, in fact, be restrained. That alone separates them from any notion of kingship, for a true monarch never seeks to limit his own power.
Yet the growing threat of socialism, nothing short of full-blown communism, has taken control of a major wing of the Democrat Party. Genuine monarchical control limits the power of the people and places authority in the hands of the state.
In the U.S. federal system, the troubling concentration of power and control lies mostly in dark blue states.
Examples include states like Massachusetts, which limit the types of firearms their citizens may own and even require personal interviews with law enforcement officials for approval. Such measures have strayed far from the original patriotism that once defined the state, the very state that fired the shot heard round the world, the definitive cry against central control. Now, that same state (MA) seeks to pre-approve what instruments of liberty its own citizens may possess.
Monarchical governments care little for the people, demanding submission through control. Such is the case in other blue states that seek to dictate what type of vehicle one may own or where children must attend school.
The irony of the “No Kings” protests remains that communism, and the modern socialist movement in the U.S., has the most in common with traditional monarchies. Within communism, there is a head of state who holds extreme power, while the rest of the public is defined as equal and part of the working class. Does this not resemble the concept of a monarchy, with the king and elites in control and everyone else regarded as peasants?
Conservatism emphasizes freedom and limited government.
Critics of President Trump often claim he behaves like a king by imposing mass deportations, sending National Guard troops into out-of-control cities, or cutting government funding.
A careful examination, though, shows he is protecting his citizens and upholding the very constitutional boundaries that limit centralized power. In America, you have a voice and the right to protest, but not the right to harm law enforcement officers or destroy government property.
From President Eisenhower, who sent federal troops to Little Rock to restore order, to President Reagan, who ended violent campus riots, President Trump follows in the tradition of Republican leaders who restored law and order, always with the security of the American people in mind.
The “No Kings” movement has it backward. The true monarchs are those who believe the state should rule every thought, transaction, and conviction under the guise of equality, lest we forget the forced COVID lockdowns, when even churches were controlled by the state.
Trump’s critics seem not to understand the meaning of authority.
The very concept of We the People centers on constitutional freedom from large government, protected and upheld by patriotism.
What liberals tend to forget is that patriotism was originally defined as loyalty to liberty and freedom from oppressive government. The American people were always the focus of that movement, not outsiders, and certainly not those who despise the history of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Freedom endures only when government remembers its place, as servant, not master.
