No Kings in our Future

Yesterday, there were “No Kings” rallies all over the country, including quite a few in Arizona. While the mood was positive (and often festive), the message was clear – we want to retain a democracy and not fall into autocracy.

I think that most people understand that message, including the historical context – after all, that was much of the point of the American Revolution. While our daily concerns are typically more about kitchen table issues, we depend on our freedoms, and on a government that doesn’t intrude on them.

And yet, there are some in our current government who seek to muddy the waters, obscuring the clear and obvious focus of the protests. Representative Biggs, who now hopes to wrest the Governor’s seat from Katie Hobbs, has noted that we still have the freedom to protest; but his odd conclusion is that there’s no reason to demonstrate our opposition to kings. 

Shouldn’t we still bring an umbrella before an oncoming storm, even though it isn’t raining yet (and some nearby neighborhoods are already soaked)?

What’s happening to our democracy already?

While there have been sudden descents into dictatorship, it is also common to have a more gradual reduction in freedom. 

Trump has done a lot to hurt our democracy in the last 9 months:

• perverting the Department of Justice, 
• sending masked and unbadged heavily armed officers to attack the public.
• Ignoring many court orders,
• and much, much more

Meanwhile, the Republican majority has largely surrendered their power, and the Supreme Court has granted him new ones (immunity from prosecution for anything done in the process of his job). So the basic checks and balances are seriously under attack.

Mr. Biggs is correct that we don’t have a literal king – but his emphasis on this trivial truth is misleading. We have already accepted violations of democratic norms that are reminiscent of dictatorships. We risk further descent into that direction – as the insightful Sam Wang has noted, the limited number of competitive districts makes it easier for disruptive actions by a repressive government to sway electoral outcomes. And this would be even more of a factor if the Supreme Court further emasculates the Voting Rights Act, based on an all-too-likely decision next year on racial gerrymandering in Louisiana. 

We get it

I think that most people protesting (including those I spoke to yesterday) understand that “No Kings” is a bumper sticker phrase, not a scholarly treatise. It is a metaphor, one that reminds us that our country’s objection to King George was his dictatorial actions, and that we have the same desire for freedom that the Founders had. Protestors absolutely understood that we still have the freedom to demonstrate – but we have felt it necessary to do so now, in the face of diminished freedoms, before it was too late.

Journalists at the Pentagon have turned in their press badges rather than submit to restrictions on freedom of the press; MIT and other universities have resisted pressure to surrender academic freedom. The rest of us must step up and resist as well, and public demonstrations are necessary. Probably not sufficient. But they are definitely necessary. 

And not silly (even if we had some fun).