In the op-ed “No Kings! Except the ones we like…”, published in the Nov. 6 edition of The Campus, the author argues that the protest movement across the country is an example of selective outrage, and that the standard for criticism and condemnation is not applied evenly. While I see merit in some of the writer’s arguments regarding selective outrage and blind partisanship, I disagree with their interpretation of the protest as merely a symptom of partisan selective outrage. While leaders on both sides of the political spectrum have truly abused the power vested in them and acted in ways contrary to modern ethics, I find myself wondering whether, at any time in history, the gross violations by our leaders have been this public and brazen.
I find the writer’s arguments regarding Covid-19 lockdowns as a form of governmental overreach, dubious at best. The 10th Amendment authorized most of the actions. Still, litigation ensued, and the courts, except for in a small percentage of cases, ruled that lockdowns were legal. The writer’s argument regarding vaccine mandates does hold significant constitutional and legal merit. However, I struggle to see how a measure intended for the benefit of greater public health constitutes “an expansion of government influence over personal behavior,” especially when vaccine mandates have been a disease prevention mechanism in public health policy for over a century and were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905. Regarding Kamala Harris’s selection as the Democratic nominee being largely undemocratic: this issue was widely debated amongst the media and the public, and the situation overall was unprecedented in a modern election setting, especially given the 107 days left until election day. The author made a convincing argument regarding historical abuses of power by former Presidents Nixon, Roosevelt, Johnson, Bush, and Obama. What I struggle to understand is how these examples truly relate, as these actions still provoke significant outrage even to this day. Nixon resigned, in part, due to his own Attorney General's refusal to support him, Bush’s legacy was stained by his actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and Obama has faced significant criticism for his actions throughout and after his presidential term.
These arguments fail to convincingly address the writer's core argument about current selective outrage, and the writer struggles to find any circumstance from the past that parallels the present day. A present day in which the President of the U.S. is actively engaged in the prosecution of his political enemies, utilizing his office for personal gain, and engaging in actions reminiscent of early-stage authoritarianism. These actions range from forcing the resignation of a U.S Attorney who refused to indict Trump’s enemies which Trump even announced publicly, removing the Associated Press from the White House press pool for not using the Gulf of America in its internationally based publications and often alluding to the wish of running for a third term in complete defiance of the 22nd amendment. These actions are in addition to verbally attacking President Zelensky of Ukraine, threatening and sending the national guard to U.S cities and posting an AI-generated video of him attacking protestors by dumping feces on them with a jet. While I do agree that the outrage towards Trump can often be disproportionate compared to similar actions by prior leaders, his actions frequently set new precedents for executive overreach and, in many ways, constitute one of the greatest reckonings of American political power structures in our history. This is why the No Kings protest occurred, and will likely continue until either President Trump or Congress shifts actions and rhetoric to be more in line with U.S. political norms and the Constitution.
