America’s resident prince, Harry, recently went on late-night television to disparage Americans. Now, Harry was admittedly participating in a political comedy sketch where he wanted to play a television prince for a Christmas movie. Nevertheless, the wayward prince claimed that “Americans are obsessed with Christmas movies,” and also “clearly obsessed with royalty.”
“I heard you elected a king,” Harry continues in the sketch which was clearly a dig on American culture and a thinly veiled reference to the No Kings movement.
It might seem funny to some when a foreign prince and progressive late-night show host disparage Americans, Republican voters, and the president of the United States, but despite the later comedic reference to King George III, the progressive writers and the No Kings movement activists they alluded to all lack a basic understanding of republicanism.
I’ll assume Prince Harry was simply delivering prepared lines, but even he should know that the republicans in his own country seek to replace his father’s monarchy with a republic and an elected head of state.
Regarding our own form of government, you might recall a popular story about Benjamin Franklin, who was approached by a group of citizens as he left the Constitutional Convention in September 1787. “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” one woman asked him. “A republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied.
Simply put, the United States of America have not recognized a king since July 4, 1776. Instead, we have a republic comprised of three independent branches of government: executive, legislative, judicial. Our head of state is an elected president and our upper and lower houses of Congress are comprised of elected members. To protect against the disproportionate influence of densely populated urban areas, the upper house has equal representation, while the lower house is proportional to state populations. In our republic, individuals and states can challenge the various levels of government if they disagree with their policies. This point is often frustrating when your party is in power, but it’s this very system that provides the checks and balances that have, for the most part, kept our country together.
At its core, republicanism believes in civic participation and separation of powers. These elements help manage competing interests within society, focus on the public good, and guard against tyrannical, oligarchical and democratic rule. These aren’t new ideas. Plato and Aristotle were writing about the merits of republicanism in Ancient Greece, and their concepts carried forward to the Enlightenment period that helped shape the America we enjoy today. Our Founding Fathers understood the delusions of democracy and what would later be called Marxist Theory. This isn’t a personal position, it’s simply a reading of the points James Madison made clear back in 1787 in Federalist Number 10:
[I]t may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized, and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
This is basic stuff, not complex historical or legal argumentation.
Unfortunately, activists, such as those in the No Kings movement, don’t let reality get in the way of good old-fashioned name calling. If you read their manifesto you’ll find that they proclaim to defend democracy. But one way they intend to defend democracy is by defining who can participate in government. In their view, it’s acceptable to be a millionaire in government, but not a billionaire. If they’re still around in a few years, do you think they’ll revise their manifesto to include millionaires and billionaires in government, while excluding trillionaires? I say that in jest, but who are those in the No Kings movement to suggest that they have the power to dictate who can participate in American government?
Yes, this is just the latest iteration of so-called grassroots activists using modern communications to mobilize against something they dislike. It must be exhausting to be the only ones standing against unchecked power and holding leaders accountable by nagging commuters and complaining online. The hubris and naivety of this movement are absurd. They’re absurd because they espouse republican positions in their anti-king rhetoric without even knowing it. Maybe they should read “Stop saying democracy” and Federalist Number 10.
So, don't get upset by leftist name calling. No Kings proponents are just the latest self-proclaimed defenders of democracy temporarily interrupting your day if you’re unfortunate enough to drive past one of their gaggles or read their name in a headline. Nothing more.
Dr. Tobias Vogt von Heselholt (shortened to “Vote”) is a retired U.S. Army officer, former professor, author, and elected member of the Alabama Republican Executive Committee. For more, see his author page at Amazon.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
