Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why a loyal opposition is essential to democracy

Woman's hand showing red thumbs up and blue thumbs down on illustrated green background
PM Images/Getty Images

When I was the U.S. ambassador to Equatorial Guinea, a small, African nation, the long-serving dictator there routinely praised members of the “loyal opposition.” Serving in the two houses of parliament, they belonged to pseudo-opposition parties that voted in lock-step with the ruling party. Their only “loyalty” was to the country’s brutal dictator, who remains in power. He and his cronies rig elections, so these “opposition” politicians never have to fear being voted out of office.

In contrast, the only truly independent party in the country is regularly denounced by the dictator and his ruling party as the “radical opposition.” Its leaders and members are harassed, often imprisoned on false charges and barred from government employment. This genuine opposition party has no representatives at either the national or local level despite considerable popular support. In dictatorships, there can be no loyal opposition.


In fact, the term “loyal opposition” was coined during the 19th century in democratic Great Britain. It referred to members of parliamentary opposition parties who, as long as they pledged loyalty to the crown, could criticize the incumbent government’s policies. This allowed members of the British Parliament’s loyal opposition to dissent without fear of being accused of treason.

The concept of a loyal opposition also exists in our country albeit in somewhat different form. Members of Congress as well as those who serve in government and the military swear an oath of loyalty not to a president, but rather to the U.S. Constitution. Protected by the First Amendment, the party out of power as well as the media, civil society and citizens are free to oppose policies of the president and members of his party by doing so peacefully and abiding by our laws.

But this has not always been the case. In 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Alien Enemies Act, which not only imposed restrictions on immigration, but also limited free speech. Specifically, the Sedition Act criminalized what the Federalist Party then in power deemed to be false and malicious statements against it. Members of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party, as well as journalists supporting them, were sometimes prosecuted. After the Democratic-Republicans came to office, Congress repealed the Sedition Act. But this was not the last time the U.S. government used its power to repress free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The Sedition Act of 1918, passed during World War I, threatened prosecution of anyone who expressed opinions viewed as undermining the war effort. Beyond that, it prohibited language judged to be “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive” against the U.S. government, the American flag and the U.S. armed forces. Justified as necessary in wartime, the act was repealed in 1920.

Sadly, this history could be repeated. At an October rally in Colorado, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump announced Operation Aurora. He said his plan would employ the Aliens Enemies Act of 1798 to arrest and deport criminal gang members allegedly here illegally. And while Trump has not called upon Congress to pass new sedition laws, he has threatened to abridge free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. This includes silencing domestic critics he claims are “enemies from within” who imperil U.S. security. Additionally, the president-elect has said he may cancel broadcast licenses of network-affiliate television stations due to their “unfair” coverage of him and his campaign.

In the coming months, Trump will assume the presidency, and his Republican Party, which already has a Senate majority, is likely to control the House of Representatives as well. For this reason, it is essential they regard the Democratic Party as the loyal opposition. In a democracy, there is a distinction between “enemies” and “adversaries” that should never be forgotten.

Democrats will certainly differ with Republicans and President Trump on major policy issues, but this does not mean the Democratic Party will be “disloyal” in its opposition. Although in the minority, Democratic lawmakers have the right to be heard. Along with President Joe Biden, they are committed to the peaceful transfer of power as required by the U.S. Constitution.

The bedrock of U.S. democracy is showing respect toward political opponents who are loyal to our system of government, its values and our country. Regardless of how you voted, this is what must unite us as Americans.

Asquino is a retired career diplomat and author of “Spanish Connections: My Diplomatic Journey from Venezuela to Equatorial Guinea.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less