No Kings

I put this together in response to a mocking question about No Kings.  This one was co-written with my spouse, who added the more academic sounding content. :)

Whether the job title is king, lord protector, emperor, chancellor, fuhrer, kaiser, pharaoh, ayatollah, sultan, caliph, prime minister, party chairman, or president, the behaviour of a king, as opposed to the leader of a republic who respects democratic norms, is recognizable. The king uses his state or government position to enrich himself (or herself in some cases) or his family or close associates. The king ignores, undermines, weakens, intimidates, or subverts institutions such as the media, courts, the professional national military, the professional civil service, the legal profession, the education system, and the legislature. The king seeks to replace the apolitical national military with one that is loyal to him, not to the nation. He empowers informal militias and street thugs to intimidate people. He uses ethnic, religious, and other facets of society to divide and weaken people, shift blame, scapegoat, and distract. He deploys the military and national police or police-like organizations to control his own people.

Between 1998 and 2019, I lived all over the world, including South Asia, Southern and Eastern Europe, West Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific. So I know places that have dealt with civil unrest and civil war. Places that have seen dictators and communism, and at times called themselves a democracy.

Let me tell you a little about what I've seen and experienced, and the historical context I've learned directly from the people who lived it. You know what preceded communism? Dictators and oligarchs. Countries where the wealthy 1% keep their people uneducated, blame any outsider they can and funnel money to themselves, their family members and their cronies. The people buy it for a while, but at some point they get wise to it and revolt. Sadly, the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other and sometimes back and forth. Democracy is supposed to be the better way, letting the people have a voice. I've always loved the old line that democracy isn't perfect, but it's better than all the rest. I do believe that with all my heart. But democracies have to be valued and protected.

Let me make another point. Socialism and communism aren't the same thing. Lumping them together makes an easy target, but it's nothing more than a red herring (pun intended). The real problem is any government, whether its economic system is socialist, communist, capitalist or otherwise, that's ruled by an authoritarian regime or by those who aspire to be one. They all do it the same way, by taking apart whatever could check them.

I know the signs of a flailing or failing democracy. The US government uses a version of them itself (hopefully still does), through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, to decide which countries are eligible for our development aid: freedom of information, government accountability, personal freedom, rule of law, government effectiveness, and control of corruption are the factors used to determine eligibility. I also realize the MCC's goal is to help the US provide aid. But those criteria were developed for a reason, and I think they're strong markers in any case.

There are just so many examples to choose from, but this is already an essay. So, here are a few I see when I look at those markers in the US right now. Reporters have been shut out of the White House over their coverage and pushed out of the Pentagon for refusing to sign a pledge, and even Fox News objected. There's an effort to restrict mail ballots. People have been targeted for what they say, including a US senator. Service members who are transgender, after years of serving our country with honor, are being treated as disposable and denied the benefits they earned. Law firms were bullied into deals because of who they represent. Career government workers are at risk of losing their job protections, inspectors general have been sidelined and there are serious questions about the president profiting from his office. It adds up. And, it's overwhelming.

I know courts have blocked some of this, and I hope they keep doing it. What worries me is how much now comes through emergency orders with little or no explanation, and how a ruling only checks anything if it's followed. Any one of these would be bad enough. Every president pushes on limits, and I've disagreed with plenty of them. But I haven't seen another president do so many at once. In the places I've lived, no single thing tipped a democracy. It was the pile-up, each weakened check making the next one easier to remove.

Here's the part that worries me most. I have serious doubts about whether a peaceful alternance of government and transfer of power will always be possible. A leader who wants to keep himself or his chosen successors in power undermines the integrity of elections, threatens to cancel or delay them, and uses legal, rhetorical, and potentially violent action to prevent the transfer of power. We haven't seen a president cancel an election, and I hope we never do. But after 2020, I watched what looked to me like an effort to stay in power after losing, from the pressure on state officials to January 6th. So when I see talk of restricting ballots and questioning results, I don't think it's dramatic to worry about where that road goes. I'd rather say it out loud now than wish I had later.

You don't have to agree with my reasons or my examples; that's your right, and as a patriotic American, I will honor that right until the day I die. But you asked, and I'm giving you my good-faith effort to respond. I'm not trying to change your mind. I am, however, hoping that by responding in good faith, you will at least see that I have meaningful reasons to worry about our country and the path I see us on, the path I've seen other countries take. That is why I protest. If there ever comes a day when I am not allowed to, that will be the day it's too late, and I want to make sure that day never comes.