We recently had another round of “Not a King” demonstrations. As many have noted, we still do not have a king. So, good for us.
One might have wished these crowds had been out in force for a “Not a Communist Dictatorship” march as China was crushing the democracy in Hong Kong, carrying “Free Jimmy Lai” signs, or for a “No Tyranny in Ukraine” march as Russian missiles were falling on hospitals and churches in Ukraine. Or perhaps a “Stop the Killing of Christians in Nigeria,” as radical Islamists continue their constant attacks. Then there were the 73 million children killed worldwide in induced abortions last year; that might have merited some outrage.
I was not near “Not a King 2,” but I accidentally drove through the mostly peaceful “Not a King 1” demonstration this past summer. It was so “mostly peaceful,” in fact, it was “completely peaceful.” And yet, it was still somewhat disquieting driving slowly (and oh-so-carefully) through a phalanx of people holding signs and shouting angry slogans.
I support my fellow citizens’ First Amendment constitutional right “peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But on that score, there was something odd about this way of petitioning the government, since all the government buildings were several blocks away. Wouldn’t logic dictate they should have been demonstrating there? Their presence in that particular spot on the street would seem to imply that they weren’t demonstrating against the government as much as they were demonstrating against their fellow citizens—people like me driving through town rather than standing by the side of the street holding a sign and shouting at passing cars.
Their explanation for why they weren’t protesting in front of the local county-city building might have been that the people in that building cannot redress the grievances they have against Donald Trump. But then again, neither can I—nor could any of the rest of the people driving through the phalanx of protestors blocking our way on a major city thoroughfare.
I would have welcomed the opportunity to engage any of these people in a conversation about the issues bothering them. But setting themselves up on either side of a major street through town did not exactly put them in the optimal location for a public, civic-minded discussion. But I suppose reasoned discourse and discussion is not what mob demonstrations are really about. It’s more an expression of power than reasonable persuasion.
So, if this group had set itself up outside the federal building, with a list of arguments as to why they disagree with government policy, that would be worth considering seriously. But instead, they were making a gauntlet on a public street with signs that said things like, “Not a king!” and “Save democracy!”
The “Save democracy!” signs struck me as a little odd, given that we had an election, and as I recall, the majority of votes, both of the populace and the electoral college, went to Donald Trump. It strikes me as an odd thing to petition the government to “save democracy” from the voters. In that case, isn’t the sign really saying: “Save democracy from the people who vote differently from me,” which is not exactly what most people think of when they hear the words “Save democracy.”
Also odd, in this particular city, is that you cannot get elected if you are not a Democrat. That political party controls every part of the government. So if I were a demonstrator down by the city-county building with a sign that said, “Save democracy!” in a city where most people dependably vote Democratic election after election, regardless of the candidate or the outcome for the city, they might be a little offended. I get that.
To be fair, had they held up signs proclaiming, “Save the federalist system!” or “Save our constitutional-republican form of government with its separation of powers and the system of checks and balances,” I probably would have given a big thumbs up or honked the horn in agreement. As a general rule, though, I would rather spend my civic energies voting for senators and representatives who are not partisan hacks, who have a sense of the common good of the nation, and who understand their responsibilities under the Constitution.
Be that as it may, I admit to having a certain affinity with many of the “Not a king” demonstrators. I have had the same concern for a good number of years. When Barack Obama said, “I’ve got a phone and a pen,” I thought, “We elected a president, not a king.” And when Joe Biden started passing out money to his favorite “green” corporations and “forgiving” student loan debt (which meant passing it on to the taxpayers), I remember thinking: “Who gave him the authority to do any of that? Not the Constitution! We elected a president, not a king.”
So, yes, I am with them on the “not a king” thing. I was against it when it was Obama; I was against it when it was Biden; and I am against it when it’s Trump. The president’s executive powers are broad, but they are also limited in important ways by the Constitution. He does not have the constitutional authority to tax, to set tariffs, or to refuse to obey the orders of the Supreme Court. Nor does he have the authority to favor certain businesses over others or tell families how they should or should not raise and educate their children.
The president does, however, I would think, have the authority to cut the number of staff in the Executive Branch. I cannot think of a business in which the management does not have leave to cut its workforce if the circumstances demand it. Most of us have been laid off enough times to know this. Why government employees should be shielded from this reality escapes me.
Please understand, I am against all those in the government who act beyond their constitutionally granted authority, whether they are members of the Executive or Judicial branches, as I am in favor of the Congress taking the responsibility to do its constitutional duty, which the members of both houses have been shirking for a good many years. So, although I would agree with anyone who opposes presidents overstepping their constitutional authority, I do not recall these same people out demonstrating angrily in the streets when Obama and Biden were busy ruling by executive fiat.
The theologian Oliver O’Donovan has suggested that, for progressives, everything that characterizes our current situation is associated with our fallen state, which is why it is not enough to reform the system; the system itself must be judged as fallen and corrupt. It is something that we must “progress beyond” in the inevitable march of history. It is for this reason, writes O’Donovan, that “protests, rather than administrative evolution,” are assumed to be “the engine that propels history forwards on its way.” Cultural transformation is achieved, on this view, by “raising people’s consciousness,” not by engaging in the hard work of legislative discussion and compromise.
The progressive speaks for what he or she takes to be the arc of history and the proper evolution of culture. Theirs is a “living Constitution,” not a set constitutional order with limits that both sides must obey. Thus, “progressive” politicians and judicial judgments must be embraced wholeheartedly, but those that are deemed “regressive” must be opposed by any means possible. Constitutional limits can be jettisoned because, on this view, those limits are things that, with a “living Constitution,” we must progress beyond.
What role should Catholics play in all this? One thing they might have done during our recent marches was to suggest that protesting against a person is not enough. To do some good and to be taken seriously, a group needs a list of proposals, or at least a list of specific grievances needing redress. They need to specify: Here are the things we are against; here are the things we are for. You take those proposals before the American people—you make the best case you can—and then you must accept the judgment of the voters. You do whatever can be done to serve the common good in a republican form of government.
Shouting in the streets is not democracy. One thing the Framers of the Constitution feared as much as tyranny was mob rule. They feared it precisely because they knew it usually led to tyranny. This is why they crafted a republic, not a pure democracy.
Catholics are meant to be a leaven in society that helps the whole loaf rise. Simply joining one side or the other of the partisan debate, repeating its basic terms and slogans, by adding our voices to the shouting of others, merely conforms us to the self-image of the age. Our founders may have been mistaken about some things in their devotion to Hobbes and Locke, but they weren’t mistaken about the importance of reasoned discourse within the context of a republican constitutional order.
Formulating clear definitions and wise distinctions; eschewing emotional, one-sided partisanship; integrity in one’s moral principles that do not shift from one group to another or from one part in power to another; and a dedication to getting the whole truth rather than making partisan points—these are the things Catholics could do to help the nation during this period of upheaval, chaos, and confusion.
We need to face challenges and solve problems with reasonable compromises, listening to all sides. Shouting in the streets, posting snarky comments on Twitter, or posting one-sided partisan “facts” on Facebook—these do less than nothing. They just poison the civic well water from which we all must drink.
We are Catholics and Americans. We should act like it and make ourselves worthy of that calling.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“We need to face challenges and solve problems with reasonable compromises, listening to all sides.”
What possible compromise is there, for example, to the demand that abortion is-contra Bill Clinton-not “safe, legal and rare”, but subsidized, common and unopposed?
There is none. That is why, I think, the author said “reasonable compromises”. He’s not saying that truth has to be compromised.
During the recent No Kings protests, Hakeem Jeffries led a group chant of “This is what democracy looks like.” Indeed, but what occurred last November when Trump won the popular vote as well as the Electoral College is also what democracy looks like. Would Rep. Jeffries care to acknowledge that?
Seriously, Ken T? Do you believe that the January 6 attack on the U.S.Capital, where Donald J Trump instructed the MOB to fight like hell, is what democacy should look like.
January 6th became a riot & that riot was orchestrated in part. But not by Donald Trump.
The headline, “Protesting WHO,” should be “WHOM”!!!
This piece is reasonable, well thought out and well written.
There is, however, one adjective missing in describing the protests which in my opinion should have been used at LEAST once – stupid. This, of course then brings to mind the immortal words of POTUS Andrew Shepherd – “We have serious problems and we need serious people to solve them.”
Trump should have marched right out there with them, “No Kings or Queens” sign in hand.
“No Kings”=Free elections?
Br.Jaques: elections need to not only be “free” ( many tolitarian regimes claim to have free elections) but they must be conducted by the rules. No third term. No postponement of election by imposition of Marshal law. Voter registration should not be changed. District lines not moved to change outcome etc. All elections should be fair and honest. No more attempts to storm the congress to change the election . All parties to get equal access to media advertising etc.
Pres. Trump and many other rich people have given much of their money away to worthy charities and churches–and they don’t brag about it. Yes, they do get tax benefits from it, but so do all of us who donate even modestly to charities that we support. I know of at least one worthy charitable cause that Pres. Trump saved from dissolving because of his generosity (back before he became POTUS)–there was never any publicity, and only those of us involved with the charity found out about it. Thank you, Donald Trump–because of you, many young ladies from poor backgrounds are now successful in life!
Several millionaires in my former large parish in Northern Illinois each donated a million dollars to the parish’s building project to see it completed in record time, which turned out to be a great blessing to the parish that was crowded and had no meeting rooms that could accommodate a crowd. They also donate to many of the local pro-life organizations, St. Vincent’s charities and other worthy charities, and they help out individuals. Yet, you would never know how wealthy they are if you were greeted by them in the church after Mass.
You would never know how wealthy my brother is–he dresses in shabby work clothing, drives a junk car that he bought for a thousand dollars and fixed up himself, and spends most of his days fixing up the apartments and houses that he rents out at a very cheap rent to individuals who are willing to plant some flowers in the yard, or paint a room in their apartment or house. He also donates 100K to museums that have great history exhibitions–he’s a passionate reader of history, especially the histories of small rural towns. But he looks like he surely lives in a rescue mission!
Don’t judge anyone by their appearance or by the stereotypes of “self-centered wealthy fat cats”, and don’t be too quick to believe what the people in the media are telling us. Be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. And remember that angels walk among us!
The Donald j. Trump charitable foundation was dissolved because of unethical practices and they had to pay a $2,000,000 fine.
Yes, our country still has the most generous, giving people on the planet. One could have added to the unheard protests listed in the good article some possible protests against the de-Christianization of Ukraine: the non-elected president of Ukraine (he has cancelled elections; plus the previous legitimate neutral government was overthrown in a coup probably engineered by the CIA in 2014 and the present anti-Russia regime was installed; then the Christian Russian minorities in the East of Ukraine were deprived of the use of Russian language, were attacked, etc.) is now persecuting clerics, closing churches, etc. all over Ukraine.
The “establishment” news media in the West does not mention the expansion, after the fall of the Communist Soviet Union, of the NATO military alliance to the former pro-Soviet countries in Eastern Europe, in violation of agreements between Gorbachev and the West to keep those countries neutral; instead they have been used to encroach NATO military forces around present day Christian Russia.
Upon the fall of Marxism-Leninism–“Communism”–in Russia the country has experienced an extraordinary return of Christian faith–as the Third Secret of Fatima wanted–and become arguably the most Christian country in the world today. This miraculous—the Communists in the Soviet Union, like those in China today, systematically undermined Christianity in the land–is one more reason for the anti-Russian hatred by the de-Christianized Western governments.
Sharon,
Bravo to your brother!! I don’t know when it became a bad thing to work hard to become wealthy, but here we are. I find the mindset of that disturbing and a blight on the national character. An awful lot of wealthy people do an awful lot of good. Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia, which has preserved and brought to life American Colonial history so well for decades, was funded by Rockefeller money. Without it, its likely the place would not exist. Thomas Jefferson donated his personal library to kick-start the US Library of Congress. The same could doubtless be said of many historic places and charities, including the charity which was assisted by Donald Trump, as you pointed out. Frank Sinatra was another wealthy person who did a lot of charitable things, and never wanted public credit.
I am tired of hearing the grievance crowd make demands for free stuff they have not earned. I dont think “you owe me” plays well as a quality we want to encourage in the national character. Sadly, I think that President Kennedy was the last democrat to suggest people ask what they can do for their country, instead of shoveling out dollars.. Young people need to understand that if they want something, they have an obligation to work for it themselves.
What happened to the Donald J. Trump charitable foundation?
Who cares? Are you equally upset by the financial dishonesty of the Democrats you support?
If you take the standard deduction there’s no additional tax benefits for charity, is there?
“The “Save democracy!” signs struck me as a little odd, given that we had an election, and as I recall, the majority of votes, both of the populace and the electoral college, went to Donald Trump.”
****
Exactly. Thank you.
“Catholics are meant to be a leaven in society that helps the whole loaf rise” – Love this line.
Mrs. Sharon Whitlock; Re. – Your 10/23 @6:19 – Thanks, I needed that.
And I would venture that many others did too.
A big part of the problem of Executive overreach (tariffs are taxes and should be set by Congress) is that Congress has abdicated its’ Constitutional responsibility and cannot even pass a budget, their primary responsibility. Thus they have created a vacuum which has been filled by Presidents of both parties. Congress is less and less capable of doing anything. Instead of serious legislators we now have performance artists like Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC.
We did elect Trump, but he is a President, who must abide by the Constitution. He is not a divine right monarch. No kings from either party.
The day that these protests (as long as they are peaceful) are shut down, will be a sad day for our country. This is the way dissatisfaction can be expressed publicly. The same rules should be for pro life and other hot button issues. This is a way that legislators can measure the pulse of public opinion. We should never write them off because we disagree with them, but rather try to understand where they are coming from and how to peacefully address their concerns and fears. Dialogue is always better than confrontation.
Right, says the guy who calls people “climate deniers.” Maybe you should follow your own advice first.
I absolutely agree with you that peaceful protests are a good thing that our government/constitution permits. I also agree that peaceful protests help us to understand what others are thinking and believe is right, and this helps us to feel more “unified” in a country where dissent between the populace is allowed in our Constitution.
I think (JMO) that many of the current protests are being “managed” by people who have a skewed understanding of current government and the needs of most Americans. But it will be through the polite and reasonable responses to them that these folks will hopefully develop a more thorough understanding of the needs and preferences of most groups of Americans.
And I think that many of these protests are against the man, Donald Trump, and not against the policies.
It is not easy to like Donald Trump, although I happen to admire him because he saved a locally-run charitable program in NYC from failing. An ice-skating coach started an organization in Harlem, NYC for girls only, with only three strict rules for those participating (no drugs, no “skipping school”, no run-ins with the law). If the girls kept these rules, ALL their skating expenses were paid by this coach out of her savings–and ice skating is NOT a “cheap” sport. Figure skates alone cost hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars. (My late husband was an ice dancer and my two daughters are in their 40s and still skating and coaching.)
Obviously a non-famous skating coach is going to run out of money. She started appealing to the wealthy people in NYC–and Donald Trump stepped in and paid all the expenses for her “club,” which has continued to thrive and grow and in recent years, has graduated many girls from high school who have gone on to college–and continue to give THEIR financial and volunteer support to their skating club in Harlem. At this point, the skating club has attracted A-list celebrities and stars, including the beloved Al Roker, who give monies and attend the events and ice shows. And Figure Skating in Harlem is attempting to develop franchises in impoverished neighborhoods in other American cities.
It was Donald Trump who “saved” this great organization. And I’ll bet you and most of the other readers of this forum didn’t know that. He’s never said anything about it in public.
I’m guessing that he has probably done a lot of other “good things” that he has not bragged about and only those who benefitted from his generosity know about.
He has a personality trait that I can identify with–I love to hash through issues and talk out loud about these issues while I am attempting to arrive at the “best decision” about how to deal with the issue. This used to be the norm in various settings–workplaces, schools, neighborhoods. People would “debate” about issues (political, religious, neighborhood activities, etc.) but remain friends.
Now we fight about them and call those who disagree with us “enemies” or “nutcases.”
I think that Pres. Trump’s habit of “brainstorming out loud” is probably something that many Americans are uncomfortable with because they don’t realize that this is common among entrepreneurs. Most of us are not entrepreneurs and don’t want to hear a bunch of ideas. We want to hear just the “facts, ma’am, and make sure it’s the truth, not just your wild ideas.”
But Donald Trump is first and foremost, a businessman who inherited the business of investing in real estate and construction of large buildings from his father. He is approaching governing the nation as a businessman approaches business–getting an idea, developing it, and then trashing it if it doesn’t work, loses money or workers, or isn’t feasible.
The very fair and balanced American media personalities (I’m eye rolling!) are very critical about this approach and consider his ideas “insane” or “harmful”, not realizing that he won’t do many of the things he describes out loud because he will see, through his aides and advisors, that these ideas are not feasible or wise, and will end up trashing the idea. Is that really a bad thing? I don’t think so. I often do the same thing–decide to paint a room, check out paint colors and the cost–and it’s usually the cost, along with my lack of painting ability, that causes me to reject my plan and come up with an idea that is more feasible (and cheaper!).
It’s very different method than politicians use. Most of them are lawyers and approach governing as “making and enforcing laws” that they think will help their country. I think this is why a lot of the head-butting happens–most politicians are not businesspeople and entrepreneurs, and neither are most Americans.
Do you remember back in the 1990s and early 2000s, when Donald Trump developed several TV shows featuring celebrities who “won” the game by developing various charitable programs and activities? Those shows were fun to watch and inspiring, too!
Donald Trump was required by his father to work alongside of the workmen who built his buildings and understand their lives and their needs. Donald Trump also required his children to work in his construction business and learn firsthand, by helping out on the worksite, about the needs and wants of all those employees who worked for him.
It’s interesting that we never hear negative things about Donald Trump from those who worked for him over the years. I’m sure that some of them did “hate their boss,” and that’s pretty normal for all us, as we have times when we are not happy with the person who is in charge of whatever business or profession or factory we work in! But generally speaking, we just haven’t heard anything or seen any books attempting to prove that Donald Trump was an evil taskmaster who exploited his employees.
Did you notice that at his victory party after the election, his ex-wives and all his children were there, except for Ivana, who had died a few years earlier after a fall?
MOST of our politicians, including our Founding Fathers, were lawyers, and most were wealthy (just as Donald Trump is wealthy). Occasionally, we elect a farmer, a doctor, or some other person who is not a lawyer and not fabulously wealthy, to serve in a government position–and this, IMO, is a GOOD THING and I wish we could do more of it! IMO, campaign spending should be limited to just a few thousand dollars so that regular people could afford to take some time off from their jobs to campaign for public office! Lawyers elected to government positions sometimes seem to have a skewed idea of what the average American wants and needs, based on some of the weird and harmful policies that they often set up or attempt to set up as “laws.”
Finally, would you have preferred to have Kamala Harris as our President, and Tim Walz as our VP? I realize that for many Americans, and that may include you, that BOTH of these candidates were objectionable, but—in a Presidential election, we Americans have to select and vote for the least-objectional candidate, and in this past election, that candidate was clearly Donald Trump! Yes, there were probably candidates on the ballot that were ideal for Christians to vote for, but…they wouldn’t have won, even if every Christian (Catholic and Protestant) had voted for them, and we would have ended up with a very objectionable President and VP and policies that, e.g., continued to promote abortion and transgender surgery as “healthcare.”
No Kings demonstrations as all of us who participated know and understand was a protest against a president who behaves like a king and refuses to play by the rules set down by this country’s founders. A man without integrity who proudly speaks like a racist misogynist power hungry maniac is in the process of wrecking this country, the planet as well with his lust for revenge, power, and money. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Ah. So it was about protesting Joe Biden? Now it makes more sense.
Well said,(yoteech) It seems the author of this article and many of the snide commenters want to ignore what has happened since Donald Trump became president, you must be exhausted defending him. Release the Epstein files!
“No Kings” fits right in with the Jacobinian mindset of the French Revolution. Recent riots have included guillotines. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has referred to the far left Democratic party as Jacobins. The rioters are showing an increasing comfort with the use of violence to advance their agenda. When they gained control the French revolutionaries lost their minds. The victims of the Rein of Terror were killed because they belonged to an out of favor social group. Identity politics run amuck.