No, that references a common belief on the right, especially the pre-populist right. The idea is that unrestrained democracy means that the public will naturally vote to appropriate the holdings of the rich and then collapse. The belief is that the Constitution prevents that and thus preserves democracy. Any regs or redistributive policy in that view is an attack on democracy as egregious as Trump's explicit attempt to end it.
The belief can be attacked on a variety of levels, but I have no doubt it is sincere (self-serving for him, of course, though). A secondary belief of a lot of believers there is that they can't be honest about their views because it's not an election winner, which is why you get both absurd claims about regressive policy actually being the way to help the middle class and poor thrive, and the constant attempt to redirect to culture-war fights that have no relevance to electoral politics.