By: Rebecca Witherspoon, April 27, 2025
The classic fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf offers a timeless warning: when someone repeatedly raises false alarms, people eventually stop listening — even when a real threat appears. Today, the parable feels more relevant than ever in American political life, particularly regarding the left’s tendency to label virtually everything they oppose as a “threat to democracy” or an “attack on democratic institutions.”
This rhetorical overkill has created a dangerous dynamic with public trust eroded, genuine threats ignored, and the political landscape growing even more polarized. Making matters worse, the left has not only overused alarmist language, it’s weaponized the legal system — engaging in frivolous lawfare to block conservative policies instead of persuading voters with better ideas. Then, when faced with legitimate legal consequences for their own actions, they claim they are victims of the very lawfare they pioneered and have used relentlessly for nearly 10 years.
The result? A cynical, distrustful public that increasingly tunes out real dangers, ironically weakening democracy itself.
In recent years, mainstream leftist politicians and media have used “threat to democracy” as a catch-all for any political action or policy they dislike. From Supreme Court rulings they disagree with to state-level election integrity laws, virtually any conservative victory is reflexively labeled not just wrong, but fundamentally illegitimate and dangerous.
Examples include:
- Claims that voter ID laws — popular across all demographics — are “Jim Crow 2.0” and an attack on voting rights.
- Accusations that tax cuts or border security policies are somehow authoritarian acts.
- The assertion that challenging election procedures through legal channels constitutes a coup attempt.
By equating normal political disagreements and constitutional processes with existential threats, the left has diluted the very meaning of “democracy” itself. Democracy now, in their framing, seems to mean “only when we win.”
Rather than winning in the court of public opinion through persuasive policies, the left has increasingly resorted to lawfare — using the court system not to uphold the law, but to block or punish conservative initiatives. Instead of debating ideas openly and earning voter support, they seek to weaponize the judiciary to impose their agenda from the bench. A glaring example of this can be seen in places like Wisconsin, where leftist groups aggressively campaigned to flip the state Supreme Court by installing far-left judges who openly announced how they would rule on key issues like redistricting, abortion, and election laws — before hearing a single case. Judicial activism is no longer something to be denied or hidden; it is now worn as a badge of honor on the left. Yet at the very same time, left-wing operatives and media outlets hypocritically accuse conservative judicial candidates of “politicizing the courts,” projecting their own tactics onto their opponents. In reality, it is the left that has abandoned the principle of impartial justice, replacing it with an ideological loyalty test, where the outcome of cases is predetermined based on political affiliation rather than legal reasoning. This strategic corruption of the courts is just another extension of their broader campaign to bypass the democratic process and entrench their power through unelected means.
Other examples include:
- Suing to overturn commonsense election laws passed by elected legislatures.
- Attempting to use obscure legal theories to disqualify political opponents from ballots.
- Filing endless environmental and immigration lawsuits to paralyze lawful executive actions.
This tactic circumvents the normal democratic process. Instead of convincing voters and passing better laws, leftist activists and officials flood the courts with lawsuits designed to delay, obstruct, and delegitimize conservative governance.
And yet, when conservatives highlight actual lawbreaking — for instance, when progressive officials openly defy immigration enforcement officers, or when activists physically block lawful government operations — the response from the left is not accountability. It is, once again, cries of “attack on democracy!”
In reality, conservatives targeting genuine misconduct through the legal system is not lawfare — it is the proper enforcement of the law. But because the left has grown used to using courts as a shield for their policies rather than as a neutral arbiter, any legal consequence feels, to them, like oppression.
The overuse of “threat to democracy” rhetoric combined with frivolous lawfare has real-world consequences.
When every conservative policy, court ruling, or election result is treated as a crisis, people become numb. They stop believing the warnings. They assume all claims of danger are just political theater. So when a true danger arises — whether from foreign interference, domestic authoritarianism, or civil unrest — citizens are less willing to rally in defense of genuine democratic principles.
This erosion of trust weakens society’s ability to respond cohesively to real emergencies. It fractures the national fabric and emboldens bad actors who benefit from a divided, skeptical public.
The greatest irony in all of this is that the left, in the name of “defending democracy,” often undermines its core principles: free debate, peaceful transition of power, respect for law, and trust in institutions.
Weaponizing the courts to obstruct political opponents is anti-democratic. Screaming that every electoral loss is illegitimate is anti-democratic. Redefining democracy as one-party rule is, quite literally, the opposite of democracy. And crying “threat to democracy” at every policy defeat teaches the public that nothing is sacred and nothing is serious — making real threats harder to recognize and easier to dismiss.
The fable of the boy who cried wolf teaches that credibility is precious and easily squandered. Today, the American left is losing credibility entirely by turning “threat to democracy” into a partisan buzzword and using the courts as political weapons instead of places of impartial justice.
To truly protect democracy, leaders must use precise, honest language — reserving warnings for real dangers, not merely policies they oppose. They must respect the democratic process, win arguments in the public square, and accept lawful outcomes even when they lose.
Democracy dies not just in darkness, but also in noise — and right now, the endless clamor of false alarms is drowning out the real threats we must all be prepared to face.
Musings By Rebecca 