Fireworks are for those with the training, the appropriate equipment, and the appropriate location (and conditions). If you don't have all three — just don't, and leave it to those who do. Big-screen TVs make that a lot easier than when I grew up, when black-and-white console TVs were about the best thing there was…
But I'm perfectly willing to give this King the finger (symbolically, because I'm not detaching it!) because he has no concept of what "democracy," "republic," or "democratic republic" mean, let alone require to function. Neither, for that matter, does the leadership of either major political party (or most of the "third parties" all laying claim to being "third"). Understanding the Constitution, or the preceding Articles of Confederation, or the Declaration of Independence, requires first understanding the model of government to which they aspire and its contrast to what was the norm in the eighteenth century:
Actually democratic/representative government is about persuasion, not preconceived ideology.
Reliance on preconceived ideology as "the answer" to new circumstances — either in detail or more generally — is essentially theocratic. The methods used after decision can devolve to authoritarianism, such as when there's a "permanent majority" in a nonrepresentative or viewpoint-suppressive purported legislature.1 Neither is actually consistent with a government mechanism explicitly incorporating the Speech or Debate Clause, or more generally adopting the absolute right to (peaceably, however passionately and even incivilly) petition the government (and freedom of expression more generally).
In turn, that means that character, judgment, and persuasiveness/persuadability are — or at least should be — more important to functioning of a representative government than loyalty to any person or ideology.2 Of late, there's been too great a tendency toward the easy corollary of "If you can't beat them, join them": "If you can't easily overwhelm authoritarian regimes, be an authoritarian regime (with appropriate camouflage)." There is no decency involved in such aspirations. (Application to "theocracy" is left as an exercise for the student — about a fourth-grade student.)
I'm just as willing to give the finger to the unitary executive, closed primaries, popularly-elected judiciaries, and captured agencies as I am to kings. However, I'm out of fingers on that hand, but I've got another one….
- Yes, I am saying that the Hastert Rule and similar "leadership of the majority party can/does prevent floor debates and voting on proposed legislation introduced without their prior approval" rules are at minimum inconsistent with the meaning of "legislative power," and more probably outright unconstitutional. It's worth pondering why — even in the eighteenth century — European legislatures that had any power at all (primarily England and Scandanavia) overtly separated their "speakers" from their "majority leaders," and that neither the US Constitution nor Articles of Confederation contemplated a "prime minister" or equivalent from the legislative branch… late-twentieth-century practices Over Here to the contrary. Fundamentally, these internal rules are designed and intended not to further democracy or representative government, but to entrench elites. That's rather what at least the rhetoric of the uppity colonists deplored; even if actual meaning is far too complicated and self-contradictory for a footnote (or three hundred).
- Religious or otherwise. Christian nationalism, various forms of nativism, Randism and absolute reliance on/allegiance to markets, virulent anticommunism, etc. are all incompatible. Failure to accept that "sometimes choices are hard and there's a plausible rationale for more than one choice" is worse, especially when combined with personal/ideological determinism.