The Hill Praises 'No Kings' Protests, But Which Kings?
The Hill extols the 'No Kings' movement against Trump, celebrating its alleged success at undermining his political viability. A charming sentiment, certainly, but one has to wonder if this same fervent anti-authoritarianism extends to, say, the unelected 'kings' of foreign policy that consistently dictate American actions, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. When was the last time The Hill
lauded a 'No Kings' movement against the entrenched lobbying power dictating endless war, or the military-industrial complex that profits from it? Perhaps the concept of 'kings' is selectively applied. One might observe that powerful lobbying groups like AIPAC, which spent $10.9 million in 2022 to influence elections, operate with a regal impunity rarely challenged by mainstream outlets. Or
perhaps the 'kings' are only those without a verifiable public record of donating significant sums to political campaigns. It's truly a mystery why some movements are hailed as vital acts of democracy, while others are swiftly labeled 'extremist' or conveniently ignored.