The New Rhetoric I’m Hearing—and Why It’s Dangerous

There’s a shift happening in how people are talking about protest, and it’s subtle enough that it can sound reasonable if you don’t slow down and look at it.

After the shooting of an ICU nurse in Minnesota, I’ve seen a growing number of voices ask a new question—not what happened, not whether it was justified, but why protests are being allowed at all. Some go further and suggest that protests are suspicious if politicians are present, as if public officials lose their constitutional rights the moment they disagree with state power.

That question—why are they even allowing protests?—is the rhetoric I want to name.

Because it’s not neutral. And it’s not harmless.

This Is Delegitimization, Not Concern

When protest itself becomes the target, we’re no longer talking about safety or accountability—we’re talking about delegitimizing dissent.

Protest is not a loophole in democracy. It is one of its core mechanisms. The right to assemble, to speak, to challenge the state publicly is not something granted when it’s convenient—it exists specifically for moments when power needs to be questioned.

Framing protest as destabilizing flips the moral equation:

• Government action becomes assumed justified.

• Public response becomes framed as disorder.

• Accountability gets treated like a threat.

That’s not law and order. That’s insulation.

The Historical Irony Is Hard to Ignore

What makes this rhetoric especially troubling is how selectively it’s applied.

Many of the same political leaders now criticizing protests enthusiastically supported demonstrations after the killing of George Floyd, and even more starkly, defended or minimized January 6—the most overtly political protest-turned-riot in modern U.S. history.

Protest isn’t the issue here. Who is protesting is.

That tells us this isn’t about principle—it’s about power alignment.

What Happens If We Accept This Logic

Once we accept the idea that protest needs justification, approval, or moral vetting, we’ve already surrendered something essential.

Rights quietly turn into permissions.
Dissent becomes conditional.
Speech becomes acceptable only when it’s polite, non-disruptive, and easy to ignore.

And democracy doesn’t collapse with tanks or sirens—it erodes when people stop believing their voice matters unless it agrees with authority.

Why Naming This Matters

You don’t have to agree with every protest.
You don’t have to like the people holding the signs.
You don’t even have to support the cause.

But if we lose the shared belief that protest itself is legitimate, we don’t lose chaos—we lose our leverage.

And without that, democracy doesn’t fail loudly.
It just goes quiet.