A curious dynamic unfolded during the recent nationwide “No Kings” protests, drawing attention to a potential contradiction within the movement itself. While demonstrators rallied against oligarchy and authoritarianism, a prominent voice questioned the sincerity of those objections, suggesting principles bend when aligned with preferred ideologies.
Guy Benson, a columnist, pointedly noted the participation of figures like Senator Bernie Sanders, a vocal opponent of authoritarianism during the protests. Benson then recalled Sanders’ 1988 honeymoon in the Soviet Union, a nation embodying the very systems he now publicly denounces.
The trip sparked earlier commentary, with Sanders himself suggesting the potential to integrate positive aspects of the Soviet system with those of Vermont. This historical detail fueled Benson’s argument: opposition to authoritarianism, he contends, isn’t universal, but contingent on who wields the power.
The observation resonated on a business news program, where a host even referenced an old joke about Sanders’ extended stay in the Soviet Union, playfully suggesting he “never came back.” The anecdote underscored the perceived irony of his current stance.
Beyond the ideological debate, the protests appear to be achieving a practical effect for the Democratic Party. Benson suggested they function as a “pressure valve,” channeling energy and potentially serving as a mechanism to boost voter turnout in the upcoming 2026 elections.
However, not all observers view the protests as genuine grassroots movements. Another columnist characterized them as “contrived,” pointing to evidence of significant coordination from a large number of groups – over 500, according to one investigation.
This level of organization casts doubt on the protests’ organic origins, raising questions about their authenticity. The argument extends to internal party dynamics, with critics highlighting the Democratic National Committee’s past actions to favor certain candidates.
Specifically, the selection of a presidential nominee was cited as a potential contradiction to the “No Kings” message, given the party’s established leadership structure and past interventions in primary elections, as revealed in past disclosures.
