The Importance of Accepting Criticism in Democracy

No one enjoys being told they’re wrong or that their views are unpopular, especially politicians in democratic systems. Yet, without the freedom to criticize and highlight the shortcomings of government policies, democracy risks becoming hollow. It’s crucial that political leaders cultivate a “civic sensibility,” allowing them to accept—and perhaps even embrace—criticism.

This is, well, not something that was a strong point for former President Trump. He often reacts to any form of criticism, no matter how mild, as if it’s a catastrophic attack on his authority.

Nowhere is this tendency clearer than in his attempts to stifle protests against his immigration policies in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. His administration routinely inflates the risks associated with these protests, claiming they threaten public safety and hinder federal operations.

A prime example of this was Attorney General John Sauer, who urged the Supreme Court to support the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago. He referred to the protests as a “protracted and organized violent resistance” that supposedly jeopardized lives and hampered law enforcement.

However, this claim was ultimately rejected by several federal courts. On October 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined others in deeming the President’s perspective unrealistic at best. The ruling provided insightful distinctions between protest and rebellion.

Before diving into the court’s ruling, it’s worth reflecting on the value of protests in our society.

Political scientist Michael Lipsky has described protests as acts of political dissent aimed at opposing certain policies or conditions. They typically involve showmanship and are meant to provoke change—while staying within the established political system.

In this context, protests serve as a means of voicing discontent. While they can target specific policies, they also express broader opposition to a president and his administration.

For instance, the recent MAGA gathering in Washington that labeled protests as “America Hate” highlights a dismissive attitude toward differing viewpoints. On the day of those protests, Trump took to social media, sharing a video that presented him in a fighter jet—quite an exaggerated display, frankly.

To oppose protests outright is to undermine the very essence of democracy. Demonstrators emerge when they believe their government is straying from national values, revealing a deep commitment to those principles. Some commentators noted that the recent protests were indeed an example of genuine patriotism.

The Seventh Circuit reaffirmed the right to protest, emphasizing that political dissent doesn’t equate to rebellion. Instead, the court indicated that protests do not transform into insurrections simply because they are organized or call for significant changes to governmental structures.

They criticized the president for failing to recognize that isolated acts of violence by a few participants do not redefine protests as insurrections. The ongoing, sometimes turbulent demonstrations against immigration policies do not inherently signal a revolt against government authority, they stated.

Even if the Supreme Court were to overturn the decision limiting Trump’s ability to deploy the National Guard, the sentiments from the Seventh Circuit remain relevant. Their opinion serves as a caution against the exaggerated rhetoric surrounding violence and insurrection.

Moreover, the court pointed out how inflated these claims can be, noting that there were only a handful of protesters at an ICE detention center in Chicago the same day Trump ordered National Guard support, citing a so-called “coordinated assault” against federal law enforcement.

This stark contrast illustrates a significant disconnect from reality concerning the President’s assertions.

We should all take note when he conflates protests with insurrections. It’s also essential for political leaders in a democratic society to refrain from escalating instances of public dissent into federal lawsuits, no matter how large or small those protests may be.