The things is: if our country were to devolve into an authoritarian state, life for most of us would go on more or less the same. Most of our citizens would not feel the impact of our loss of freedom in our daily lives even though every one of us would be effected. We'd still go to work, relax on the weekends, hang out with friends and so on. Many people in Russia, China, Iran, and even North Korea are basically living normal lives. The only time living in an authoritarian state becomes a problem is when you cross the State. When you do that. . .well, that's when you have trouble. So the biggest change in an authoritarian state is that you're careful about what you say and who you say it to. You don't protest, you don't complain, you don't criticize. And it's generally not too hard to do that, because the information that the government allows you access to is only what the government wants you to hear. You're unlikely to be upset with the government. As long as you don't belong to a group that the government has deemed undesirable or dangerous and you keep your mouth shut, you'll probably be fine.
But the writers of the Constitution, especially those who demanded a Bill of Rights were worried about exactly that group of people--those that ran afoul of the government. It's kind of strange when you think about it, that the four of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights deal directly with those that are accused of a crime. Why were the founding fathers so worried about protecting "the bad guys"? I mean who really cares what happens to criminals anyway? Let 'em rot, I say! And yet the fourth amendments provides clear restrictions on the governments ability to search and seize a citizen's property. The fifth amendment provides multiple rights to those accused of crimes including the right not to testify against themselves, the right not to be tried twice for the same offense, and the right to due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. The sixth amendment goes on to enumerate still more rights for the accused including a trial by jury, to confront witness against them and get witnesses to testify on their behalf, and the right to counsel. And then the eighth amendment is even worse. Let's say you are found guilty, even then this weepy, bleeding heart, leftist, liberal, criminal loving document we call the Constitution demands that we not saddle the criminal with excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.
What in the world? What were these white guys from the 1700s on about anyway? So much love for the criminals. Don't they care about the innocent at all?
Well, it turns out they do. Very much. You see, the founders understood something that we seem to be losing sight of. That a government that is able to declare you a criminal "because I said so", a government unrestrained by the limitations placed on it by the Bill of Rights, is a government that will almost certainly end up penalizing innocent people. It is vital that the Constitution not specify that it's provisions apply only to the innocent. It has to apply to anyone guilty or innocent. Sure it's annoying to see some monster being defended by his attorney, demanding his rights and what have you. It's odious. But the founders knew that that aggravation was worth putting up with to avoid something far worse. They understood that if rights were only for the innocent, it's only a short step to the government being able to declare that individuals who hold certain opinions or viewpoints, certain groups of people that are undesirable, are guilty and thus not entitled to any rights. Our rights apply to all or they apply to no one.
The founders understood this because they had just escaped an oppressive government that penalized them for protest, that branded them criminals, and gave them little recourse. They were terrified of a national government with too much power. And, it's funny, up until January 20, 2025, many of the same people who now cheer on our slide towards authoritarianism were terrified too. It appears that all along, it was never about the government having too much power--but which government had too much power. As long, at it's our side holding the power, let 'er rip!
So when we argue about whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a gang member, or not. When we dispute whether the college students protesting are anti-Semitic or not, we are kind of missing the point. It's not about whether we think these people are "bad dudes." We have a system. We have due process. We have the rights of the accused. We have a judicial system that exists to prevent the executive branch of government from having untrammeled power. We have the Constitution. And what we should all be worried about is that those things are being disregarded.