In the realm of modern politics, irony often rears its head in the most unexpected places. Take, for instance, the recent hubbub surrounding a movement led by the so-called “No Kings” crew. Their concern? They’re apparently fretting over an impending authoritarian rule supposedly embodied by certain political figures. Yet, it’s hard to ignore a glaring irony: these newfound opponents of authoritarianism were, not too long ago, the very ones cheering on the strictures that kept us locked up like mice in a cage.

Five years ago, you wouldn’t have found a peep of protest from these folks when mandates were suffocating our personal freedoms. Back then, they stood firmly in favor of policies that locked people in their homes and compelled them to don face coverings at the drop of a hat. Remember when some folks, especially in positions of influence, sounded more than happy to tell you where to go, what to wear, and even what to inject into your body? Now, these same voices are suddenly rallying against any whiff of control. It’s quite the dramatic turnaround, wouldn’t you say?

Leading the charge in this recent “No Kings” movement is none other than someone who played a significant role in past authoritative measures. It’s amusing to think that many of those who were adamant about strict control measures are now claiming to be worried about authoritarianism. Ah, but isn’t that a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black?

What’s most puzzling, or perhaps amusing, is the overlapping membership of these groups. If you were to draw one of those Venn diagrams, the circles of those who clamored for lockdowns and those now rallying against supposed authoritarianism would be nearly indistinguishable. It’s a perfect circle, overlapping completely. The same voices that once shouted for confinement and control now demand freedom and liberty. It’s almost as if they’ve forgotten their own recent history or hope that we have.

Here’s the real kicker, though. While they chant for supposed freedom from tyranny, what they’re really seeking is a particular brand of control that suits their agenda—a permission for one-sided freedom, if you will. They haven’t truly abandoned their taste for control; they’ve just become more selective about who gets to wield it and in what circumstances. So, before jumping on the latest social bandwagon, it might be wise to consider the irony and inconsistencies in these messages. Remember, real conservatism understands the balance of freedom and responsibility, not just when it’s convenient.