The “No Kings” protest involves millions of people, so it had to mean many different things to many groups of people. Some seem to have been motivated by sincere opposition to President Trump, without reference to a specific policy issue. Others objected to the military parade the president put on. And some were just looking for a chance to join another protest.

But, in theory, the No Kings protest was primarily intended to counter Trump, authoritarianism and purported democratic backsliding in the United States.

Color me skeptical about that. Increasingly, authoritarianism and democracy are in the eye of the beholder. The left loves their kings (and queens) - when they support the left’s (short-term) policy objectives.

Consider the praise of the Biden administration for its repeated attempts to “forgive” student loan debt. The president argued he could do so unilaterally through emergency powers or by re-interpreting the law to shift billions in debt from college attendees to taxpayers. It was an illegitimate use of power done because the president disagreed with Congress’s decision to reject the proposal.

But few on the left denounced King Biden for this attack on a democratically elected Congress. Most praised the move and criticized the courts for striking down the student loan giveaway.

Consider the COVID-19 lockdowns. Sidestepping the debate over whether the specific shutting down of schools, churches and industry was effective, let’s talk about the process. In many states, governors and county executives seized unilateral power, often by using emergency authority intended for natural or other types of disasters and imposing them for broad and sweeping social control. This continued well after the immediate emergency was over.

And there was a partisan tilt to this. Democratic executives and liberal areas were far more likely to keep shutdowns in place than were Republican or conservative ones.

In Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer imposed hundreds of arbitrary shutdown orders. She ignored a clearly written law to do so. The Michigan Supreme Court, split between liberal and conservative justices, unanimously said the governor violated the law and narrowly found one of the laws she relied on to be unconstitutional.

There were definitely protests about the lockdowns. But where were the left’s protests against Queen Gretchen?

And when the administrative state ignores the clear reading of laws to impose what it wants, is that not anti-democratic? The Environmental Protection Agency, at the urging of the president, tried to go around Congress to limit emissions, despite no authorization to do so in the law. What about departments imposing massive financial and administrative costs on entire industries without any vote from lawmakers?

Much of this is partisanship or confirmation bias. People cheer the policy they want and rarely care how that is arrived at. But rejecting Constitutional restraints on power for short-term policy wins is not worth it.

During the previous and current Trump elections, it was encouraging to see that the Democratic Party and many on the left became skeptical of executive power. It is nice that people are joining, though I wish it were because of principle rather than partisanship.

There is increasing criticism of the courts nowadays. But the critics on the left should also see that the judicial branch often stands as the last bulwark against unilateral executive power. Conservative justices – many nominated by Trump – have struck down Trump orders dozens of times. Being skeptical of executive power even when it is wielded by the political party you are likely to agree with shows the health of our constitutional republic.

So, in name, I support the “No Kings” protest. I just hope the people who showed up at the rallies also want strong constitutional restraints on the executive, regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat sits in the Oval Office.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.