The Price of American Authoritarianism
IN THE WAKE OF DONALD TRUMP’S 2024 REELECTION—AN OUTCOME LEGITIMATED NOT ONLY BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BUT ALSO BY A POPULAR-VOTE PLURALITY—MUCH OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL CLASS RESPONDED WITH A MUTED SHRUG, AS IF THE SYSTEM’S ELASTICITY HAD ALREADY BEEN PROVEN BY THE SURVIVAL OF HIS FIRST TERM AND THE TRAUMA OF JANUARY 6, 2021. THIS REACTION EMBODIED A DEEPLY ROOTED FAITH THAT DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS COULD ABSORB SHOCK WITHOUT FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION. YET THE SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID NOT MERELY STRAIN THESE INSTITUTIONS; IT USHERED THE UNITED STATES ACROSS A CRITICAL THRESHOLD INTO COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM, A HYBRID REGIME FORM IN WHICH ELECTIONS PERSIST BUT THE INCUMBENT SYSTEMATICALLY ABUSES STATE POWER TO DISCIPLINE OPPONENTS AND TILT THE POLITICAL FIELD.
THIS REGIME TYPE—OBSERVED EARLIER IN HUGO CHÁVEZ’S VENEZUELA, RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN’S TURKEY, VIKTOR ORBAN’S HUNGARY, AND NARENDRA MODI’S INDIA—MAINTAINS THE APPEARANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY WHILE HOLLOWING OUT ITS SUBSTANCE. UNDER TRUMP’S SECOND TERM, THE UNITED STATES TRAVERSED THIS PATH WITH UNUSUAL SPEED, PRODUCING A MORE RAPID AND FAR-REACHING AUTHORITARIAN TURN IN ITS FIRST YEAR THAN THOSE EARLIER CASES EXPERIENCED IN THEIR INITIAL PHASES.
THE MECHANISM OF THIS TRANSFORMATION WAS NEITHER A SINGLE COUP NOR A FORMAL ABROGATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT A GRADUAL WEAPONIZATION OF THE STATE. CENTRAL TO THIS PROCESS WAS THE PURGE-AND-PACK STRATEGY: CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, FBI, AND OTHER CRITICAL AGENCIES WERE REMOVED OR SIDELINED AND REPLACED WITH LOYALISTS WHOSE PRIMARY CRITERION OF MERIT WAS PERSONAL FEALTY RATHER THAN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE. WHEN OFFICIALS RESISTED IMPROPER DIRECTIVES OR CLUNG TO TRADITIONAL NORMS OF NEUTRALITY, THEY WERE DISMISSED AND REPLACED BY MORE COMPLIANT FIGURES, INCLUDING PRESIDENTIAL LAWYERS WITH LITTLE RELEVANT EXPERIENCE.
ONCE RECONFIGURED, THESE AGENCIES WERE DEPLOYED SELECTIVELY AGAINST A BROAD ARRAY OF PERCEIVED ENEMIES—STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, OPPOSITION SENATORS, FORMER PROSECUTORS, CIVIC WATCHDOGS, AND EVEN EX-ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO HAD TURNED CRITIC. THE FORMAL CHARGES WERE OFTEN TECHNICAL OR TRIVIAL—ALLEGATIONS OF MORTGAGE IRREGULARITIES, TAX ERRORS, OR REGULATORY VIOLATIONS—BUT THEIR FUNCTION WAS EXEMPLARILY PUNITIVE: TO IMPOSE LEGAL COSTS, DRAIN RESOURCES, AND SIGNAL THAT THE LAW HAD BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF POLITICAL DISCIPLINE RATHER THAN AN IMPARTIAL FRAMEWORK. CONVERSELY, THE SAME JUSTICE SYSTEM OPERATED AS A SHIELD FOR ALLIES: PROSECUTIONS AGAINST STRATEGIC SUPPORTERS WERE CURTAILED, AND TRUMP’S GENEROUS USE OF THE PARDON POWER—INCLUDING FOR JANUARY 6 PARTICIPANTS—COMMUNICATED AN EXPANSIVE IMPUNITY FOR ILLEGALITY COMMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE REGIME.
THIS DOUBLE MOVEMENT—PUNITIVE SELECTIVITY TOWARD OPPONENTS, IMPUNITY FOR LOYALISTS—WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A SYSTEMATIC ASSAULT ON THE SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUSTAINS LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. KEY CIVIL-SOCIETY AND KNOWLEDGE-PRODUCING INSTITUTIONS—UNIVERSITIES, MAJOR LAW FIRMS, CIVIL-SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDEPENDENT MEDIA—FOUND THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATIONS, FUNDING FREEZES, AND REGULATORY HARASSMENT. ADMINISTRATION PRESSURE ON HIGHER EDUCATION, INCLUDING THE ILLEGAL FREEZING OF RESEARCH FUNDS AND DEMANDS FOR LEADERS’ REMOVAL, DIRECTLY TARGETED THE ACADEMIC AUTONOMY THAT HAD LONG FUNCTIONED AS A COUNTERWEIGHT TO EXECUTIVE POWER.
MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS FACED A MIXTURE OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT COERCION: LAWSUITS, FCC INVESTIGATIONS, AND POLITICALLY MEDIATED OWNERSHIP SHIFTS THAT PUSHED CRITICAL OUTLETS INTO THE HANDS OF PRO-GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ALLIES. THE RESULT WAS NOT A TOTALITARIAN CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE BUT A SUBTLER, PERHAPS MORE INSIDIOUS PHENOMENON: STRUCTURAL SELF-CENSORSHIP. JOURNALISTS, EDITORS, ENTERTAINMENT EXECUTIVES, AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS MODERATED CONTENT PREEMPTIVELY, AIMING TO AVOID REGULATORY RETRIBUTION. WHAT DISAPPEARED WAS NOT ALL CRITICISM BUT THE MOST COSTLY AND DIRECT FORMS OF CONFRONTATION, THEREBY NARROWING THE RANGE OF PUBLICLY ARTICULATED DISSENT.
SIMILAR DYNAMICS EMERGED IN THE SPHERE OF POLITICAL FINANCE AND LEGAL ADVOCACY. MAJOR DONORS TO DEMOCRATIC AND PROGRESSIVE CAUSES, FACING THREATS OF INVESTIGATION BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, REDUCED THEIR VISIBILITY OR WITHDREW FROM CONTENTIOUS POLITICS ALTOGETHER. LEADING LAW FIRMS, ONCE CENTRAL TO LITIGATION AGAINST EXECUTIVE OVERREACH, BECAME RELUCTANT TO REPRESENT PLAINTIFFS IN HIGH-PROFILE CASES CHALLENGING THE ADMINISTRATION, LEAVING OPPOSITION GROUPS TO RELY ON SMALLER FIRMS WITH FEWER RESOURCES.
CONCURRENTLY, THE ADMINISTRATION EDGED INTO A DANGEROUS REALM: THE POLITICIZATION OF THE SECURITY APPARATUS. BY EXPANDING AND REPURPOSING IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT INTO A KIND OF PARAMILITARY INTERNAL FORCE AND BY ENCOURAGING PARTISAN EXPRESSIONS AMONG SOLDIERS, THE REGIME TESTED LONG-STANDING NORMS OF CIVIL-MILITARY SEPARATION. THE DEPLOYMENT OF NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS IN U.S. CITIES ON DUBIOUS PRETEXTS—INCLUDING AGAINST THE WISHES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES—RAISED THE SPECTER OF SECURITY FORCES BEING USED AS INSTRUMENTS OF DOMESTIC POLITICAL CONTROL, AN ECHO OF MILITARY REGIMES IN LATIN AMERICA.
MOREOVER, THE ADMINISTRATION’S WILLINGNESS TO NULLIFY OR CIRCUMVENT LEGISLATIVE PREROGATIVES THROUGH FABRICATED NATIONAL EMERGENCIES AND UNILATERAL EXECUTIVE ACTION REPRESENTED NOT MERELY HARD POLITICS BUT A STRUCTURAL EROSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS. WHEREAS PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS—GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, AND JOE BIDEN—HAD, HOWEVER IMPERFECTLY, ACCEPTED LIMITS TO THE POLITICIZATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, RESPECTED ELECTORAL OUTCOMES, AND REFRAINED FROM USING THE MILITARY AS A TOOL AGAINST DOMESTIC OPPONENTS, TRUMP’S SECOND TERM ABANDONED THIS BIPARTISAN SELF-RESTRAINT.
YET, PRECISELY BECAUSE THE EMERGING ORDER IS COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIAN, ITS AUTHORITARIANISM IS NEITHER TOTAL NOR IRREVERSIBLE. THE UNITED STATES HAS CEASED TO BE A FULL DEMOCRACY IN THE MOLD OF CANADA OR GERMANY, BUT IT RETAINS MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONAL ARENAS IN WHICH OPPOSITION FORCES CAN, IN PRINCIPLE, CONTEST POWER: ELECTIONS, COURTS, SUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, AND A STILL-PLURAL MEDIA ENVIRONMENT. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S STRONG PERFORMANCE IN THE 2025 ELECTIONS DEMONSTRATED THAT, DESPITE AN UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD, ELECTORAL OUTCOMES REMAIN UNCERTAIN AND INCUMBENTS CAN BE DEFEATED.
COMPARATIVE EXPERIENCE UNDERSCORES THIS POINT. INDIA AFTER INDIRA GANDHI’S EMERGENCY, MALAYSIA AFTER BARISAN NASIONAL’S DEFEAT, AND POLAND AFTER LAW AND JUSTICE’S REVERSAL ALL ILLUSTRATE THAT COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES CAN BE ROLLED BACK THROUGH ELECTIONS WHEN OPPOSITIONS REMAIN ORGANIZED, UNIFIED, AND DETERMINED. SIMILARLY, IN SERBIA AND UKRAINE, REGIME EFFORTS TO RIG ELECTIONS BACKFIRED, TRIGGERING MASS MOBILIZATION THAT FORCED POLITICAL TRANSITIONS.
THE CRITICAL VARIABLE, THEREFORE, IS NOT ONLY THE REGIME’S COERCIVE CAPACITY BUT THE OPPOSITION’S WILLINGNESS TO REMAIN ENGAGED. THE MOST LETHAL THREAT TO U.S. DEMOCRACY IS NOT REPRESSION ALONE BUT DEMOBILIZATION—A PSYCHOLOGICAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL WITHDRAWAL ROOTED IN EITHER COMPLACENCY (“NOTHING FUNDAMENTAL HAS CHANGED”) OR FATALISM (“NOTHING CAN BE CHANGED”). WHEN ELITES DECIDE THAT RESISTANCE IS FUTILE OR EXCESSIVELY COSTLY, THEY VACATE THE INSTITUTIONAL ARENAS THAT STILL EXIST, THUS TRANSFORMING AUTHORITARIAN TRENDS INTO ENDURING STRUCTURES.
LOOKING FORWARD, THE MOST PLAUSIBLE MEDIUM-TERM SCENARIO FOR THE UNITED STATES IS NEITHER A STABLE LIBERAL DEMOCRACY NOR A FULLY ENTRENCHED DICTATORSHIP, BUT A PHASE OF REGIME INSTABILITY: OSCILLATION BETWEEN DEFECTIVE DEMOCRACY AND COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIAN RULE, WITH EACH ELECTION POSING NOT ONLY POLICY CHOICES BUT A CHOICE OF REGIME TYPE ITSELF. NAVIGATING THIS LIMINAL MOMENT REQUIRES A KIND OF POLITICAL DOUBLE VISION: RECOGNIZING THE REALITY OF AUTHORITARIAN ENCROACHMENT WITHOUT ACCEPTING ITS INEVITABILITY. IF CITIZENS, PARTIES, COURTS, AND CIVIL-SOCIETY ACTORS CONTINUE TO BEHAVE AS IF THEIR ACTIONS STILL MATTER, THE AUTHORITARIAN PROJECT CAN BE ARRESTED OR REVERSED; IF THEY DO NOT, THE SLIDE WILL HARDEN INTO A NEW NORMAL.
Comments
Post a Comment