Counterpoint: What ‘No Kings’ protests are actually about

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In a June 29 commentary — “ ‘No Kings’ but for the kingly presidents we’ve already had?” — John C. “Chuck” Chalberg is tilting at windmills.

The flaws in the piece are many; the two major ones are a failure of understanding what the recent “No Kings” protests throughout the country were about and trying to build an argument on the energy of presidents, invoking Hamilton’s Federalist Papers.

To compare the “energetic” presidencies of tier one Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or even tier two Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson, is to tilt history and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 70 beyond anything acceptable or reasonable. While we won’t know Donald Trump’s place in the presidential lineup of greats for many years (currently he sees himself as No. 2), based on his first term and nearly six months of a second term, I imagine he’ll end up in the dustbin of history, unless he’s impeached before his current term ends. But that’s another essay, so back to “kingly presidents.”

Chalberg argues that Trump’s actions align him with the “energetic” actions of both tier one and two presidents; he also argues that Trump’s actions are precisely what Hamilton had in mind in writing Federalist No. 70. I’m no historian, but I’d like to think I know my history, so I returned to Hamilton’s papers, particularly No. 70.

Like Trump and too many of the GOP (DFLers, too; all of us, actually), Chalberg tilts, obfuscates, buries, ignores, changes facts and history to suit his political perspective.

Yes, the Federalist Papers, particularly No. 70, advocate for an “energetic” executive branch. Hamilton argues that “energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government.” He believed that a strong, decisive executive was essential for protecting the country from foreign attacks, the steady administering of laws, and protecting property and liberty. That’s the sweeping statement, but there’s more.

Hamilton emphasized the importance of a single executive to ensure decisiveness and accountability. A unified executive could act with the necessary speed and efficiency to address crises and enforce laws. What’s not mentioned in Chalberg’s article and was key for Hamilton is that while advocating for an energetic executive, Hamilton stressed the importance of checks and balances to prevent tyranny. He believed that the executive’s power should be balanced by the legislature, and when necessary by the people.

Trump’s actions have little to do with protecting us from foreign attacks: Think of what was going on during the terms of Washington, Lincoln and F. Roosevelt; they did what needed doing, “energetically,” and, I imagine, in retrospect recognized some regrettable mistakes. Trump has hardly been the example of setting forth the “steady” administration of laws protecting property and securing liberty against ambition, faction and anarchy; in fact, I’d argue he’s been the exemplar of the reverse: Anarchy seems to be an underlying principle of his presidency.

Further, executive energy, Hamilton argued, was needed to ensure the consistent and effective application of laws and the safeguarding of citizens’ rights: If anything, citizens’ rights, states’ rights and even judicial rights have been ignored. Worse, instead of safeguarding these rights, Trump and his surrogates have violated them. Yes, he’s acted speedily, but in response to what crisis exactly? (Again, think Washington, Lincoln and F. Roosevelt; they had crises.) And what was key to Hamilton, checks and balances, is precisely what Trump has ignored and flown in the face of in order to establish tyranny rather than prevent it.

Before our Constitution, there were the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist Papers were written to support the ratification of the Constitution which would create a stronger federal government. The Articles lacked a strong executive and the Papers’ authors believed this a weakness that would contribute to the nation’s instability.

Now, once again, think Washington, Lincoln and F. Roosevelt. They are the three agreed-upon “greats” not because of their “energy” but because of their presence, leadership, compassion, understanding, knowing and wherewithal that helped prevent this country from falling into instability (or getting stuck there). Look around today and decide what role the president has assumed in assuring stability: tariffs, threatening law firms, reporters, judges, universities, decimating our intelligence and health communities, and let’s not forget his rhetoric, the kind that’s contributed to our instability rather than stability. Find me public language of any previous president that comes close to Trump’s.

And we wonder what’s wrong inside our borders.

While Hamilton advocates for a strong executive and acknowledges some similarities between the president and the king, he does not equate an energetic president with a kingly one in the sense of absolute power. And if anyone thinks Trump is not after absolute power, they’re not paying close enough attention.

The importance of executive energy is simultaneously highlighted by checks and balances that Chalberg either conveniently forgets or ignores. It’s there to prevent the president from becoming a monarchal figure. And that’s what the “No Kings” protests were about at their core. These protests, also known as “No Dictators” or “No Tyrants,” were about Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, his disregard for civil rights and social services, a rejection of one-person rule and a call for democratic accountability. Hamilton would have been there, placard in hand.

While the president’s power is limited by the Constitution, Trump has challenged it as often as possible; while the president’s power is also subject to the people through elections, the people seem to have forgotten his first term and weren’t listening to what was beneath the hyperbolic promises made in his run for re-election. And while the president’s power is limited and accountable to Congress through impeachment, Congress as a whole has been absent — partisan pushes to impeachment don’t work and the articles of impeachment need to be grounded in what matters: a president acting like a king.

And, last, while we can analyze and assess, even attempt to apply Federalist No. 70 to Trump, all in the end is subjective. Chalberg argues that Trump’s decisive actions and willingness to challenge established norms could be seen as aligning with the concept of executive energy. For example, “Drill, baby, drill” might exemplify Trump’s focus on “unleashing American energy” through policy changes. This could be interpreted as an energetic approach to economic issues. Could be but with blinders on.

On the other hand, Federalist No. 70 emphasizes that a strong (energetic) executive needs to be held accountable. Trump’s lack of commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law, his rhetoric and focus on “his” justices, the courts and Congress could equally be seen as potentially conflicting with the ideals of a responsible and energetic executive. Hamilton laid out an ideal, the Federalist Papers in total envisioned such an ideal. Washington, Lincoln and F. Roosevelt tried live up to that ideal; Trump seems to know nothing of that ideal or believes the ideal of self trumps all.

So where does all this leave us? Well, to quote the historical novelist Thomas Mallon, “nouns always trump adjectives.” And so with that belief in mind, perhaps Trump, as his predecessors, might begin to act as a president and leave the kingly to kings. And Chalberg do more than tilt at windmills.

Ray Anschel, of Bloomington, is retired. He taught writing and literature at Normandale Community College.