In October, hundreds of “No Kings” rallies took place across the U.S., framed largely as protests against President Trump. Protesters accused him not just of authoritarianism but of seeking to become a tyrant. Critics often cite Trump’s aggressive use of executive power and his inflammatory rhetoric as evidence of this. However, the article argues that such claims of authoritarianism overlook historical context and the nature of American political discourse.
While Trump has indeed wielded executive power sharply, the author points out that this trend has been long-standing, with predecessors like Obama and Biden also exercising significant executive authority without similar backlash. The article contends that the intense dislike of Trump and his approach seems to have morphed the political rhetoric of his opponents into an earnest belief in their accusations, leading to a more divisive view of his supporters as complicit in an alleged authoritarian agenda.
The author suggests that political attacks have often been hyperbolic and part of a broader spectacle, where past presidents have made similarly extreme claims against opponents without vilifying their supporters. Today’s climate, however, sees a shift where critics feel compelled to demonize not just Trump but those who support him, reflecting a deeper rift in political discourse. The article concludes that while it may be necessary to reassess the tone of political rhetoric, it’s equally important to recognize the performative nature of much of it, and to avoid conflating political hyperbole with a genuine threat to democracy.
