“No Kings” Progressives Seek to Crown Themselves

The chant “No Kings!” is the rallying cry for progressive activists and Democratic politicians opposing Donald Trump and his vision for America

The rallies grew in size and sophistication, drawing thousands who claimed they genuinely believe they are defending democracy from a would-be tyrant. Yet beneath this passionate display of anti-royal sentiment lies a profound irony: those who most vociferously denounce kingship are simultaneously constructing the framework for their own centralized authority, proving that the allure of absolute power transcends political ideology and that the most dangerous monarchies are often those established in the name of preventing them.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”--C.S. Lewis

The chant “No Kings!” is the rallying cry for progressive activists and Democratic politicians opposing Donald Trump and his vision for America. It is a slogan that is actually a political projection. It claims false ideas about constitutional governance, masking that it is really a defining reality about their own political aspirations. While they decry Trump as a would-be monarch, they simultaneously advocate for a system that would effectively crown themselves through centralized power, ideological conformity, and the dismantling of constitutional checks and balances.

The irony is stark: President Trump has actually demonstrated tendencies in the opposite direction of traditional power-seekers. He refuses to take for himself the salary of the presidency, has worked to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, has sought to return authority to the states on issues like education and abortion, and he has eliminated an unbelievable amount of federal regulations. These are not the actions of someone consolidating power, but rather of someone dispersing it; precisely the opposite of what we'd expect from a king seeking to expand their dominion.

Democratic Socialists of America and their allies in the Democratic Party reveal their true aspirations

A “king” needs not be an individual. It can manifest as a system, oligarchy, or even tyranny of the majority--which is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared. The American constitutional system was deliberately designed to prevent any single entity from achieving absolute power, whether that entity be a monarch, a legislature, a judiciary, or even the people themselves in their raw democratic form.

James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 about the “mischiefs of faction” and how a well-constructed union could control the “violence of faction.” He understood that pure democracy could become just as tyrannical as monarchy when 51% of the population imposes its will on the remaining 49%. This is why the Founders established a republic with multiple layers of representation, separation of powers, and federalism--to diffuse power across institutions and jurisdictions.

The Democratic Socialists of America and their allies in the Democratic Party reveal their true aspirations through their policy proposals. Their platform calls for:

• Abolishing the presidency (under the guise of preventing monarchy)
• Eliminating the Senate (described as an undemocratic relic)
• Packing or otherwise neutralizing the Supreme Court
• Concentrating power in the House of Representatives

This isn’t opposition to kingship. It’s a plan to relocate the throne. By removing all institutional checks on their power, they seek to establish what might be called an “ideological kingdom” where their vision of collectivism reigns supreme. The House of Representatives would become their instrument of rule, granting them absolute control through pure majority rule.

The progressive movement has always sought to concentrate power in centralized authorities, whether in Washington or in international bodies. Their opposition to ‘kings’ is really opposition to any authority that might stand in the way of their own power.

They have no principles other than power, and their communist dreams, and the way to achieve that power and hold on to it indefinitely, from their point of view, is pure democracy and a dismantling of the system of checks and balances created by the United States Constitution.

Tyranny is like any other evil. It does not appear in its true form, but as an angel of light, cloaked in the language of liberation

This pattern of accusing opponents of monarchy while seeking to establish one’s own centralized control has historical precedent. During the French Revolution, radicals denounced the monarchy only to establish the Committee of Public Safety, which exercised power even more arbitrarily than the deposed king. In the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar only to create a system with far more pervasive control over individual lives.

Tyranny is like any other evil. It does not appear in its true form, but as an angel of light, cloaked in the language of liberation. It’s George Orwell’s observation in his book 1984 where there must always be an enemy--a scapegoat--that is more terrifying than Big Brother’s tyranny so as to justify their existence and the continuation of the cause. The progressive movement today follows this pattern by denouncing “kings” while building their own throne of centralized authority.

The solution to this paradox lies in returning to the Founders' vision of a properly limited federal government with meaningful checks and balances. This requires:

• Reaffirming Federalism: The Tenth Amendment must be restored as a meaningful constraint on federal power, returning authority to states and local communities on issues not explicitly delegated to the federal government.

• Institutional Integrity: Rather than abolishing institutions like the Senate and Electoral College, we should restore them to their proper function as deliberative bodies that moderate political passions and protect minority interests. This would entail repealing the 17th Amendment, reversing Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and restoring the Electoral College to its original structure in which the electors are voted into position by congressional district vote, and an appointment by each of the two state houses of legislature, and a pure vote rather than a “winner take all” vote as we see in all states today (other than Maine and Nebraska).

• Constitutional Constraints: The Constitution must be understood as it was originally intended as a document that limits government power rather than creates it. As Justice Antonin Scalia often reminded us, the Constitution is not a living document that can be reshaped to fit contemporary preferences.

• Civic Education: Americans must be reeducated about their system of government and why the Founders created a republic rather than a democracy. This includes understanding that the purpose of government is to protect pre-existing rights, not to create new ones or redistribute wealth. (My book Repeal Democracy addresses the difference between a democracy and a republic).

The threat to American liberty today comes not from those who seek to reduce the size of government, but from those who would concentrate power in the name of democracy. We must:

• Support candidates and organizations committed to constitutional principles and limited government

• Educate our fellow citizens about the difference between a republic and a democracy

• Defend institutional checks and balances even when they produce outcomes we dislike

• Advocate for returning authority to states and local communities wherever possible

The true “No Kings” movement is not one that eliminates institutional constraints but one that embraces them as essential protections for liberty. Only by restoring the constitutional system of diffused power can we ensure that no single group, whether progressive or conservative, can establish itself as ruler over all others.

As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, the Founders gave us “a republic, if you can keep it.” Keeping it today requires recognizing that the greatest threat to our system comes not from those who seek to reduce government power, but from those who would concentrate it in the name of progress.