No Kings Day Debate: Is the U.S. President a Modern King?

Introduction by Ken Burns 

In 1776, a group of ordinary citizens declared something extraordinary: that there would be no kings in America. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the idea that sovereignty rests not in a crown, but in the people themselves.

Yet, two and a half centuries later, the question echoes still: Who holds the crown today? Is it the president, elected every four years, yet cloaked in rituals and symbols of immense power? Is it the unelected forces — wealth, bureaucracy, and influence — that shape decisions behind the scenes? Or is it, as the Founders intended, the people themselves?

On this ‘No Kings Day,’ Americans march, shout, and debate. Some see it as proof of freedom; others see it as a symptom of fracture. But the truth is this: democracy has always been a fragile experiment, tested by dissent and strengthened by debate. Tonight, we gather not to answer the question once and for all, but to listen as thoughtful voices wrestle with it — in the hope that through dialogue, we might discover something lasting about who we are, and what kind of republic we wish to remain.

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.)

Topic 1: Who Is the King in a Democracy?

Moderator: Fareed Zakaria.
Participants: Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren, Ben Shapiro, Nikki Haley, Cory Booker.

Fareed Zakaria (Moderator):
Welcome to our discussion. The theme of “No Kings Day” challenges us to ask: in a democracy, who truly wears the crown? Is it the elected president, the people, or something else altogether? Let’s begin with the first question.

First Question

If democracy rejects kings, then who or what is the “king” today — the presidency, the system, or the people themselves?

Elizabeth Warren:
In a democracy, the king isn’t supposed to exist. Yet when concentrated wealth dictates our laws and lobbyists set the agenda, we’ve effectively crowned corporations and the donor class. The president may carry symbolic power, but the deeper monarchy is money in politics. That is what rules people’s lives.

Ben Shapiro:
I would argue that the “king” in America isn’t the president or money — it’s the bureaucracy. The unelected administrative state often dictates policy more than elected officials do. Presidents come and go, but the machinery of government rolls on, insulated from voters. That’s more like a monarchy than a presidency bound by elections.

Cory Booker:
I see it differently. If we’re faithful to democracy, the real sovereign is the people. The problem isn’t that presidents act like kings, but that too many citizens disengage. Power abhors a vacuum. If people don’t show up — to vote, to participate, to hold leaders accountable — then someone else will fill that throne.

Nikki Haley:
Having served both domestically and at the UN, I’ve seen how much power the presidency has symbolically. But a president here is not a king — they are constrained by Congress, the courts, and the ballot box. The danger is not in the office itself, but in how citizens and media elevate the presidency to almost monarchical levels.

Ted Cruz:
I’d add that the Founders designed the presidency as an executive role, not as royalty. But culturally, we have drifted toward treating the president as a national monarch — expecting them to solve every problem, command moral authority, and act as our voice in the world. That mindset, not the Constitution, makes the office feel like a crown.

Second Question

Does calling a duly-elected president a “king” weaken democracy, or is it a legitimate form of protest?

Ben Shapiro:
It’s mostly sloganeering. Calling a president a “king” is less about political analysis and more about venting frustration. But I think it undermines trust. If every president you don’t like is a “tyrant,” then eventually the word loses meaning. Real tyranny exists — but if you cheapen it, you weaken the argument against actual authoritarianism.

Elizabeth Warren:
I disagree somewhat. Protest language has always been sharp — think of calling out “tyranny” in the American Revolution. People use the word “king” to signal that power feels overreaching. We shouldn’t dismiss that. Instead, we should ask: what are people afraid of losing, and how can we restore accountability? That’s the democratic task.

Nikki Haley:
I think it depends on intent. Protest is essential in democracy. But when criticism blurs into delegitimization — claiming that every president is illegitimate, every election rigged — that’s corrosive. Calling a president a “king” may be cathartic, but it risks convincing citizens that their vote doesn’t matter, which is dangerous.

Cory Booker:
Exactly. Our democracy depends on both dissent and faith in the process. Protesting against leaders is a sign of freedom, but democracy collapses if we no longer believe the system can work. The key is to protest without abandoning hope. When we call a president a “king,” we should be clear we’re opposing policies, not democracy itself.

Ted Cruz:
I’ll be blunt: when my colleagues on the left compared Trump to a king, they weren’t just protesting policies — they were painting his presidency as illegitimate. And the same thing happens in reverse against Biden. It’s a bipartisan problem. If we normalize calling presidents kings, we’re sawing off the very branch of legitimacy we all sit on.

Third Question

If America truly had a king, protests like “No Kings Day” wouldn’t be possible. So does the existence of protest prove democracy is alive, or does it show how fragile it’s become?

Cory Booker:
Protest is democracy in motion. Every chant, every march, is a reminder that this system still gives us a voice. The fragility isn’t in the protest — it’s in whether we listen to each other afterward. Democracy dies not when people shout, but when no one hears.

Ted Cruz:
I’d caution, though, that endless protest can also become performative. If every election is followed by delegitimization and protest, it erodes confidence in peaceful transfer of power. Yes, protests prove freedom. But the test of democracy is whether citizens accept outcomes they dislike, not whether they endlessly reject them.

Elizabeth Warren:
I believe protest is democracy’s guardrail. Without it, power calcifies. With it, we remember leaders are accountable. Fragility comes not from protest, but from silencing it. The Founders feared kings because kings silenced opposition. So long as we can demonstrate freely, democracy is working — even when it feels messy.

Nikki Haley:
Both are true. Protests show freedom, but they can also reveal fracture. If half the nation constantly feels disenfranchised, then protests are less about policies and more about legitimacy. That’s when the system wobbles. We need civic education, stronger institutions, and leaders who remind us we are one nation, not two camps.

Ben Shapiro:
I’ll close with this: protests prove liberty, yes, but liberty without responsibility is chaos. A republic survives only when protest is matched with civic duty — voting, respecting institutions, and engaging constructively. Otherwise, the king isn’t the president or the system. The king is chaos itself.

Fareed Zakaria (Moderator):
Thank you. What we’ve heard is a rich debate: some see the presidency drifting toward symbolic kingship, others see money or bureaucracy as the hidden throne. We’ve heard that protest both affirms democracy and threatens it, depending on how it’s used. Perhaps “No Kings Day” is less about rejecting one leader and more about reminding us that power, in America, belongs to no crown — unless we, the people, give it one.

Topic 2: The Paradox of Protest — Proof of Freedom or Symptom of Division?

Bret Baier (Moderator):
Thank you all for being here again. “No Kings Day” was a striking protest, but it raises a dilemma: are such demonstrations evidence that democracy is alive and well, or do they show just how divided we’ve become? Let’s open with our first question.

First Question

When people take to the streets to denounce a president as a “king,” is that a healthy act of freedom or a dangerous rejection of democratic outcomes?

Nikki Haley:
Protest is an American right. It’s baked into our DNA since 1776. But when the language shifts from policy critique to declaring presidents illegitimate, that’s a step too far. It’s one thing to oppose; it’s another to deny the system itself. I support protest, but I worry when it turns into permanent resistance.

Cory Booker:
I’d say protest is both a right and a responsibility. It’s how people express urgency when they feel unheard. But Nikki’s point is important — we can’t let protests become substitutes for governing or excuses for gridlock. The true test is whether protest leads to dialogue and reform, not endless anger.

Ted Cruz:
Let’s be clear: protesting is healthy, but calling every president you dislike a king or a tyrant is corrosive. That language delegitimizes not just the officeholder but the process. I don’t mind the marching; what I mind is the narrative that America is no longer a democracy because your side lost. That’s dangerous.

Elizabeth Warren:
For me, protest is democracy breathing. People don’t march in the streets unless they feel something has gone deeply wrong. When folks call a president a king, they’re saying they feel shut out of the decisions affecting their lives. We should listen to the underlying fear, not just critique the slogan.

Ben Shapiro:
I agree partly with Ted. Protest is fine, but equating democratic leaders with monarchs cheapens the word tyranny. Real kings exist in history and in the world today — and they don’t allow protests at all. So when we use “king” as shorthand for “I don’t like this guy,” we weaken serious arguments against actual authoritarianism.

Second Question

Do protests strengthen democracy by showing leaders they’re accountable, or do they weaken it by fueling mistrust and division among citizens?

Elizabeth Warren:
They strengthen it. Democracy without protest is hollow. Leaders need to feel pressure from below; otherwise, power hardens. Yes, it can create tension, but tension is part of progress. Division becomes dangerous not because people protest, but because leaders refuse to respond.

Ben Shapiro:
I think they weaken it when protests become the primary political tool. Democracy is supposed to function through elections, legislatures, and debate. When we skip those and default to shouting in the streets, we encourage mistrust of institutions. Accountability should come through the ballot box first, protest second.

Cory Booker:
I’d bridge the two points. Protests are like alarms — they wake us up to something we’d rather ignore. But alarms alone don’t fix the house. We need institutions to respond. Protests without institutional pathways can feel like division, but protests with responsive leadership can renew democracy.

Ted Cruz:
The problem is proportionality. If you protest every policy, every bill, every outcome, then the system becomes ungovernable. Accountability matters, but so does stability. A democracy can’t survive if every election is followed by years of permanent resistance. At some point, the losing side has to accept the result.

Nikki Haley:
Yes — it’s about balance. Protests are necessary, but they’re not sufficient. We should ask: does the protest lead to constructive outcomes, or just division? I’ve seen in international settings where endless protests tore countries apart. America needs both spirited dissent and a willingness to compromise. That’s the paradox.

Third Question

If protests are proof of freedom, how do we ensure they don’t spiral into permanent polarization where every president is treated as illegitimate?

Ted Cruz:
It starts with civic education. Americans need to understand that disagreement is not illegitimacy. We can oppose fiercely, but still respect the outcome of elections. Without that distinction, protests turn into rebellions of mistrust.

Cory Booker:
I’d add empathy. Protests often reveal pain — communities struggling, voices unheard. If we approach protest not as a threat but as a cry for dignity, we can transform polarization into dialogue. It’s harder to demonize your fellow citizens when you listen to why they’re marching.

Elizabeth Warren:
The solution is accountability. If leaders respond to protests with meaningful reforms, people gain confidence in the system. When they don’t, the protests harden into polarization. The answer isn’t to shut people down — it’s to prove democracy can deliver.

Ben Shapiro:
Here’s the blunt truth: protests won’t stop polarization because our culture treats politics like religion. Every president becomes a messiah or an antichrist. The only fix is cultural — teaching people that politics is not salvation. We need to lower the stakes of politics so that losing doesn’t feel like the end of the world.

Nikki Haley:
That’s where leadership matters. Presidents themselves must avoid behaving like kings. If they act as servants of the people, not rulers, it sets a tone. Leaders can de-escalate polarization by modeling humility, restraint, and respect for their opponents. Without that, protests will always flare into division.

Bret Baier (Moderator):
Thank you. What we’ve uncovered is the very paradox itself: protests are both proof that America is free and reminders of its divisions. They show that democracy breathes, but they also test whether democracy can heal. Perhaps the true danger isn’t the protest itself, but whether leaders and citizens see it as the beginning of a conversation or the end of one.

Topic 3: Symbol vs. Substance — Is a President Just a Temporary King?

Walter Isaacson (Moderator):
Thank you all for continuing this exploration. We now turn to the symbolic and substantive powers of the presidency. The rituals of American leadership — inaugurations, motorcades, the Oval Office — can look a lot like monarchy. But is the president truly just a “temporary king,” or something fundamentally different? Let’s begin.

First Question

Does the symbolism of the presidency — the pomp, the rituals, the reverence — risk turning the president into a kind of monarch, even if the substance of their power is limited?

Cory Booker:
Symbols matter. When a president takes the oath on the Capitol steps, the whole world watches. That moment can look like coronation, but at its core it’s renewal — a peaceful transfer of power. The difference is that every citizen contributed to that moment through their vote. It’s not monarchy; it’s collective symbolism.

Ben Shapiro:
I’d argue the symbolism absolutely feeds a monarch-like view of the presidency. Think about the way media fixates on the First Family as if they’re royalty. People project kingly expectations onto presidents: solve every problem, embody national virtue, even shape culture. That’s not what the Constitution designed. The danger is cultural coronation.

Elizabeth Warren:
But symbolism can be a democratic tool. When a president stands at the Lincoln Memorial or lays a wreath at Arlington, it connects people to a shared story of sacrifice and hope. Yes, there’s pageantry, but that doesn’t make it monarchy. It makes it civic religion — something a democracy needs to bind people together.

Ted Cruz:
I lean closer to Ben here. The office has taken on trappings the Founders never intended. We talk about presidents like kings — as if they’re supposed to save the nation singlehandedly. That’s unhealthy. Congress was meant to be first among equals, but the symbolism of the presidency has overshadowed that balance.

Nikki Haley:
Having seen the presidency from the inside, I can say the rituals aren’t meant to crown a monarch but to project stability. When you walk into the Oval Office, you feel the weight of history. It’s not about reverence for one person; it’s about reverence for the office. The danger isn’t in the ceremony itself, but in forgetting that distinction.

Second Question

Beyond symbolism, do presidents wield powers that make them more like monarchs in practice — executive orders, war powers, vast media influence?

Ted Cruz:
Yes, and it’s a serious problem. Over decades, power has shifted from Congress to the presidency. Wars are waged without declarations, executive orders substitute for legislation. That’s monarchy in practice, even if temporary. The Founders would be alarmed by how imperial the presidency has become.

Elizabeth Warren:
I don’t see it as monarchy, but as imbalance. Presidents use executive tools because Congress too often fails to act. If we want less presidential overreach, we need a functioning legislature. The answer isn’t to strip presidents, but to restore balance so they don’t feel compelled to govern alone.

Ben Shapiro:
The imperial presidency is real. Media makes it worse — everything a president tweets or says becomes global news. That cultural dominance amplifies their practical powers. Combine unilateral action with media saturation, and yes, you get a figure that looks monarchic, at least for four years.

Nikki Haley:
But here’s the difference: presidents face accountability. Kings do not. Every four years, Americans decide if they want to keep that power in place. Executive orders can be undone. Policies can be reversed. That’s the essence of democracy. What looks like monarchy is really a pendulum of choice.

Cory Booker:
I agree with Nikki. Yes, presidents have enormous influence, but that influence is temporary, conditional, and reversible. Real monarchy doesn’t end with a ballot box. What we need is not less symbolism or even less executive action, but more citizen engagement to ensure those powers are used responsibly.

Third Question

If every president risks being seen as a “temporary king,” how do we preserve respect for the office without turning it into reverence for the person?

Elizabeth Warren:
We separate the person from the policies. Respect the office, critique the decisions. When citizens learn to distinguish between reverence for democracy and accountability for leaders, we avoid the trap of monarchy.

Ted Cruz:
We need institutional humility. Presidents should resist acting like celebrities or monarchs. The more they present themselves as “saviors,” the more dangerous the office becomes. Leaders must remind the public: they are servants, not sovereigns.

Nikki Haley:
It comes down to leadership style. A president who models humility — who listens, who admits mistakes — reaffirms that they’re not a king. Symbols don’t have to crown; they can anchor. Leadership should ground, not exalt.

Cory Booker:
I’d stress civic culture. If we raise a generation that sees presidents as neighbors elevated to service, not demigods, we maintain respect without idolatry. Democracy thrives when citizens see themselves in the office, not under it.

Ben Shapiro:
And we must stop treating presidents as pop icons. The media and public hunger for “royalty” leads to unhealthy reverence. If we can dial back the cult of personality, we can protect the office without inflating the individual.

Walter Isaacson (Moderator):
What we’ve heard is striking: the presidency is both symbolic and substantive, carrying rituals that resemble monarchy but rooted in democratic renewal. Some of you warn that executive power has drifted too close to monarchy in practice; others emphasize the accountability that distinguishes presidents from kings. Perhaps the lesson is that America must honor its symbols, but never mistake them for crowns.

Topic 4: Freedom of Demonstration — The Right Kings Would Never Allow

Doris Kearns Goodwin (Moderator):
Throughout American history, the right to assemble and protest has been both cherished and contested. “No Kings Day” makes us ask: is the freedom to protest the ultimate evidence that America is not a monarchy? Or does the sheer intensity of modern protests show cracks in our democratic foundation? Let’s begin.

First Question

Would a true king ever allow “No Kings Day” to exist? And does the fact that protests are possible prove that America is, at its core, still a functioning democracy?

Ben Shapiro:
Of course not. A king would crush “No Kings Day” before it even started. The very fact people can take to the streets, criticize the president, and not face imprisonment proves the system is democratic. The danger is that people forget this and equate strong disagreement with actual tyranny.

Cory Booker:
I agree the freedom itself is proof of democracy. But we should go further — protests don’t just show freedom, they strengthen it. Every time citizens march, they remind leaders that power flows upward, not downward. Kings rule by silencing; democracies thrive by listening.

Nikki Haley:
Yes, but there’s another side. Protest is vital, but unchecked protest without responsibility can destabilize. In countries where I worked diplomatically, endless demonstrations sometimes paralyzed governments. The fact that we allow them proves democracy, but the health of democracy depends on what comes after the protest — dialogue, not just noise.

Elizabeth Warren:
We can’t underestimate this freedom. My mother’s generation fought for labor rights; my generation fought for civil rights. All of those struggles would have been impossible under kings. To me, every protest is living testimony that America remains a democracy, even when we disagree about its direction.

Ted Cruz:
I’ll add that the freedom to protest is essential, but it’s also misused. Too often, people treat protest as license to delegitimize outcomes. Kings would forbid protest altogether. We allow it, but democracy requires more than just permission — it requires acceptance of results after the shouting ends.

Second Question

Is there a danger that unlimited protest, while proving freedom, could also weaken democracy by making it impossible to govern?

Ted Cruz:
Absolutely. If every action by a president is met with street demonstrations, government grinds to a halt. Democracy requires compromise, not permanent revolt. Otherwise, we edge toward anarchy.

Elizabeth Warren:
But the alternative is worse. Without protest, the powerful face no pushback. Kings don’t allow protest precisely because it threatens their authority. We must preserve the right, even if it feels messy. Governance can’t come at the cost of silencing voices.

Ben Shapiro:
I’d split the difference. Protests are essential, but they’re not the primary mechanism of democracy. Elections are. If protests become the default way to express discontent, we undermine institutions. It’s not about banning protests — it’s about restoring faith in the ballot box as the main arena of change.

Cory Booker:
I think democracy is resilient enough to handle protest. Yes, it can be noisy, disruptive, even frustrating. But democracy is not about efficiency; it’s about legitimacy. Citizens who feel they can speak out are more likely to buy into the system overall. The real danger isn’t too much protest, but too little trust afterward.

Nikki Haley:
That’s why leadership matters. Presidents and legislators must distinguish between listening and yielding. Listening shows respect; yielding blindly creates paralysis. Unlimited protest doesn’t have to weaken democracy, but without wise leadership, it can.

Third Question

How should America preserve the right to protest while ensuring it remains constructive and doesn’t descend into chaos or polarization?

Elizabeth Warren:
By protecting the right vigorously. Once you start restricting protests, you slide toward monarchy. But we can encourage responsibility through civic education, teaching that protest should push for justice, not just vent rage.

Nikki Haley:
We need clearer civic norms. Peaceful protest must be protected, but violence and destruction cannot be tolerated. The line between the two has to be enforced. Kings crush all protest; democracies must protect peaceful ones while defending public order.

Cory Booker:
I’d add empathy again. Protest often reflects pain. If leaders treat protest as nuisance instead of signal, anger deepens. If leaders listen, even while maintaining order, protest can become a channel for healing rather than division.

Ben Shapiro:
And we need cultural recalibration. Protest is a tool, not a religion. If every political disagreement becomes a march, we cheapen the process. Citizens should remember: protest amplifies, but elections decide. That balance is what keeps protest constructive.

Ted Cruz:
Finally, we need to restore trust in institutions. Protests shouldn’t be the only way people feel heard. If Congress did its job, if courts were respected, if elections were trusted, protest would be a supplement, not a substitute. That’s how we avoid chaos.

Doris Kearns Goodwin (Moderator):
History teaches us that protest is both a spark and a safeguard. Kings fear it; democracies require it. Yet, as you’ve all pointed out, the health of a republic depends on balancing freedom with responsibility, passion with patience, protest with acceptance. The right to demonstrate is proof America is not a monarchy, but the way we use that right will determine whether democracy grows stronger — or more fragile.

Topic 5: Democracy’s Fragile Balance — Unity vs. Rebellion

Ken Burns (Moderator):
When I make films about America’s history, I’m struck by a recurring theme: this nation is strongest when unified, but it has often teetered on the edge of fracture. Today, protests like “No Kings Day” force us to ask whether treating presidents as illegitimate rulers weakens democracy itself. Let’s begin with our first question.

First Question

If half the country treats the president as illegitimate, can democracy still function — or does it risk collapsing into permanent rebellion?

Nikki Haley:
Democracy can function with disagreement, but not with permanent rebellion. When leaders are constantly delegitimized, it erodes trust in the system itself. Disagree with policies, yes — but respect the outcome. If we don’t, we stop being a nation of laws and become a nation of endless campaigns against whoever is in office.

Elizabeth Warren:
We need to be honest: delegitimization often arises because people feel the system is stacked against them. When wealth dominates politics, when votes feel suppressed, it’s no surprise some view presidents as illegitimate. The answer isn’t to shame that feeling, but to restore fairness — so that people can trust outcomes again.

Ted Cruz:
I’ve seen both sides of this coin. Democrats treated Trump as illegitimate; Republicans did the same to Biden. This tit-for-tat is dangerous. A democracy cannot survive if citizens believe elections are fake every time they lose. The office of president becomes meaningless if half the country refuses to accept its authority.

Cory Booker:
I’d frame it differently. Democracy can survive delegitimization if we commit to dialogue. Our history is filled with fierce opposition, even rebellion — but we found ways back to common ground. What democracy can’t survive is cynicism: the belief that no compromise is possible. Unity doesn’t mean agreement; it means faith in the process.

Ben Shapiro:
To me, the problem is cultural absolutism. Politics has become a battle of good vs. evil in people’s minds. If your opponent is evil, then of course they’re illegitimate. That mindset guarantees permanent rebellion. Democracy requires us to see opponents as wrong, not wicked. That’s the balance we’ve lost.

Second Question

How do we reconcile the need for unity with the democratic right — even the duty — to dissent?

Cory Booker:
Unity doesn’t mean silence. It means embracing dissent as part of our shared project. The real question is: can we dissent without dehumanizing? That’s how reconciliation happens — when protest doesn’t become annihilation.

Ben Shapiro:
Unity comes from boundaries. Dissent is fine, but when dissent morphs into refusing to acknowledge basic legitimacy, the system breaks. We need clear cultural norms: you can call policies tyrannical, but you cannot call every president a king and expect democracy to survive.

Elizabeth Warren:
Dissent is what creates unity in the long run. The labor movement, civil rights, women’s suffrage — all began in dissent. The paradox is that protest divides in the short term but unites in the long term when reforms are won. We shouldn’t fear dissent; we should channel it.

Ted Cruz:
But there’s a difference between dissent and destruction. Debate in the Senate? That’s dissent. Peaceful marches? Dissent. But when institutions themselves are attacked — courts, elections, legislatures — that ceases to be dissent and becomes rebellion. A democracy survives protest, but it cannot survive rebellion.

Nikki Haley:
I’d emphasize leadership again. Presidents must encourage unity not by demanding obedience, but by modeling humility. Citizens should dissent vigorously, but leaders must invite dissent into the process rather than shut it out. Unity doesn’t mean fewer arguments; it means more constructive ones.

Third Question

Looking forward, how can America maintain this fragile balance — ensuring unity without stifling rebellion, and preserving democracy without silencing protest?

Elizabeth Warren:
By deepening democracy itself. If every citizen feels their voice truly matters, rebellion softens into reform. Campaign finance reform, voting rights, fair representation — these are the ways to turn fury into trust.

Ted Cruz:
By limiting the power of the presidency. The less we treat presidents as monarchs, the less reason people have to view them as illegitimate kings. Restore Congress’s role, empower states, and we take pressure off the office that too often becomes the lightning rod.

Cory Booker:
By teaching civic love. I know that sounds idealistic, but democracy is sustained by affection — for one another, for our shared destiny. If we can cultivate empathy across divides, we can sustain unity without crushing dissent.

Nikki Haley:
By strengthening institutions. Courts, legislatures, free press — these must be trusted arbiters. If they function, protests have outlets, and unity has anchors. Without strong institutions, protest becomes rebellion, and unity becomes impossible.

Ben Shapiro:
And by reducing political idolatry. When people stop treating politics as religion, every election won’t feel like salvation or damnation. Democracy thrives when we remember it’s a system, not a crusade. That cultural shift is what will save the republic.

Ken Burns (Moderator):
What you’ve all described is the central tension of American history. From the Revolution to the Civil Rights Movement, we’ve balanced unity with dissent, rebellion with renewal. The danger today is that our dissent becomes permanent rebellion, and our unity becomes fragile theater. But if we recall that democracy is not about crowning kings, nor about tearing them down, but about sustaining a shared story — then perhaps the republic can endure, even flourish.

Final Thoughts by Doris Kearns Goodwin 

What we’ve heard in these conversations is the essence of American democracy — messy, contentious, imperfect, but alive. We’ve wrestled with symbols of power, the role of protest, the dangers of division, and the balance between unity and rebellion. And through it all, one truth emerges: democracy does not crown kings, it entrusts citizens.

History shows us that every generation must answer anew the question of power. Lincoln spoke of government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’ Roosevelt reminded us that the presidency is not an office of privilege, but of service. And every protester, from suffragettes to civil rights marchers, has proven that dissent can be the heartbeat of renewal.

The challenge before us is to ensure that protest does not become paralysis, that opposition does not become delegitimization, and that unity does not mean silence but rather the courage to argue, to listen, and to move forward together.

If we can hold that balance — if we can keep faith with both liberty and responsibility — then ‘No Kings Day’ will not be a lament, but a living reminder: that in America, sovereignty is not a crown upon one head, but a covenant among us all.

Short Bios:

Ken Burns is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker whose works, including The Civil War, Baseball, and The U.S. and the Holocaust, have become landmarks of American storytelling. Known for his narrative voice and deep historical perspective, he brings a reflective lens to questions of democracy and identity.

Doris Kearns Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize–winning presidential historian and bestselling author. Her works on Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson highlight the challenges and lessons of American leadership, offering timeless wisdom on democracy and unity.

Ted Cruz is a U.S. Senator from Texas and former presidential candidate, known for his strong defense of constitutional limits, conservative principles, and critique of federal overreach.

Elizabeth Warren is a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and former presidential candidate, recognized for her progressive advocacy on economic reform, corporate accountability, and strengthening democratic institutions.

Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator, lawyer, and founder of The Daily Wire. He is known for his sharp debates, strong defense of free speech, and critiques of progressive policies.

Nikki Haley is the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former Governor of South Carolina. She is noted for her foreign policy experience, leadership style, and pragmatic conservative approach.

Cory Booker is a U.S. Senator from New Jersey and former mayor of Newark, known for his emphasis on unity, justice, and hope-driven politics, often appealing to a broad vision of American democracy.

Fareed Zakaria is a journalist, author, and host of Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN. With a global perspective on politics and democracy, he is widely respected for his analysis of U.S. leadership in the world.

Bret Baier is chief political anchor at Fox News and host of Special Report. He is respected for his even-handed approach to political journalism and moderating debates.

Walter Isaacson is a historian and biographer, author of works on figures like Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, and Benjamin Franklin. His writing connects leadership, innovation, and democracy through history.