Are We There Yet?

Making Sense of the Authoritarian Onslaught

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak with NPR reporter Frank Langfitt on the state of American democracy. He asked me a very simple question—just how far down the path to authoritarianism are we, really?

I gave some probably-too-nuanced answer to be readily quotable, but it amounted to the idea that I would not classify the U.S. as authoritarian until there is evidence that our elections are no longer free and fair. At that point, we would transition into what’s known as a competitive authoritarian regime. In these systems, the ruling party holds elections and can lose, but it uses the powers of the state to fundamentally erode the electoral competitiveness of opposition parties. This has become the dominant mode of authoritarianism in the world, and the natural landing spot for backsliding democracies.

My feeling is that we aren’t quite there yet. But in the meantime, things are already happening that may distort the electoral playing field. If it wasn’t clear after he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, it is abundantly clear now—Trump operates in the mode of an authoritarian political leader, and the present-day GOP should no longer be considered a normal democratic party.

His first 100 days have seen efforts to defund universities he sees as ideologically hostile, to impeach judges that rule against him, to attack law firms that sue him, to exclude press outlets that question him, and to detain students that might protest against him. His sycophants in Congress are calling for him to stay in power past 2028, and he has hinted at his desire to do so. He is engaging in unprecedented levels of corruption basically out in the open. None of this is remotely normal or democratic, and our business, media, and political elites that refuse to challenge Trump are complicit in the active erosion of our democracy.

The more complete answer then is that Trump is authoritarian, his faction of the GOP is authoritarian, but the U.S. as a country is not yet itself authoritarian. It all comes down to the 2026 and 2028 elections, and whether Trump can effectively use the tools of the state to tilt electoral competition in his favor. He clearly wants to do so. All the actions I just mentioned are sort of a prelude to that.

Making Sense of the Authoritarian Onslaught

At times there is just so much going on it is difficult to make sense of it all, to figure out which events and actions are of real consequence. In the table below I take a stab at trying to organize the different authoritarian tactics we have seen in the first few months:

We can broadly place things in three buckets. 1.) Moves that erode electoral competition, making it harder for opposition parties to compete. 2.) Moves that suppress civil society, making it harder for journalists, nonprofits, activists and other actors to mobilize and criticize and 3.) Moves that erode checks and balances, making it harder for the other branches of government to hold Trump accountable. For those that have read How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, this loosely maps to their typology of “tilting the playing field, sidelining key players, and capturing the referees.”

Two caveats. First, many of the actions cut across lines. The threats to ActBlue also affect the ability of civil society organizations to mobilize, for example. Second, there are also plenty of things I’ve left out, and please feel free to suggest some in the comments and I will update the table. The table is meant to be illustrative, not “mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive” (to use consultant-speak).

When we array things in this way, we see quickly how the last four months have been a multi-faceted attack on democracy. The scale, scope and pace of that attack is scary and impressive. We also see how the different pieces fit together to amount to something more.

Of all the measures above, the ones that worry me the most are those in the first bucket. Elections are the only real way out of this, and I think we should be focusing our collective attention on this area. There is plenty to be outraged about, like the upcoming military/birthday parade, or the $400 million Qatari jet. But these things are the sideshow. They show Trump for what he is, they force the GOP to rationalize his actions, they may erode some of his support at the elite level. But they do not meaningfully affect the resilience of our democracy, and they may well throw us off the scent of more nefarious tactics.

Sour Grapes?

The NPR story came with the headline: “Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism.” That numerical assessment is based on surveys of political scientists conducted by Bright Line Watch, as well as the fact that many of us signed a petition in the early days of the Trump administration expressing concern over his anti-democratic behavior.

The story also made a point of highlighting dissenting views, and it included one quote from James Campbell, a retired political scientist from the University at Buffalo, SUNY. Here’s the part from Campbell:

"I think they've done an excellent job," Campbell says of the Trump administration.

Campbell adds that he thinks many political scientists may see Trump as autocratic because they don't like him or his politics.

"I think most of them are coming from the political left," he says. "There's a comfort in all of them getting together and saying, 'Oh, Trump's a bad guy. He's authoritarian.”

I do not know Campbell personally, so my comments are not motivated by personal animus. But it is wildly disappointing to see a colleague dismiss the concerns of hundreds of people in his field as simply partisan sour grapes. This political moment is no longer about partisan politics and the competition between liberal and conservative ideas. It’s about people who understand what Trump is doing as fundamentally authoritarian, and those that refuse to see it, out of partisan blindness or personal ambition.

Next week I will write about why people accept and rationalize authoritarian leaders. A lot of it comes down to the “willful blindness” that Campbell exhibits— people downplaying authoritarian behavior because it aligns with their policy preferences.

Some Logistics

You might have noticed that I have formally turned on paid subscriptions for this Substack. I did so because I am learning that as a platform, Substack really only rewards writers that generate revenue, and if you keep things entirely free it seems like you get stymied by the algorithm. They don’t really say that out loud but that seems to be a consensus view from what I can tell.

So… I have turned on paid subscriptions, but I want to be clear about how I am approaching it. My goal with this newsletter is to build a community and help give people some analytical tools to think about authoritarianism, in the U.S. and elsewhere. I am not in it for money, and I do not intend to paywall any content or push for paid subscriptions that way. I also understand that times are tight for many people, that subscriptions add up, and that there is a lot of economic uncertainty in the air.

You may now choose to make a financial contribution to this newsletter (see link below), and I am always appreciative of that support. But please only do so if the following conditions hold:

1. The $5 a month does not present a financial hardship in any way, and you are financially secure.

2. You have seen sustained value in my writing over time.

3. You are not a current or recent student or are in some other form of hierarchical relationship with me (i.e. junior faculty, etc.).

If any of these do not hold, please do not pay. It doesn’t hurt my feelings, and I am just as appreciative of you reading and sharing my posts.

That’s all for today. Thanks for reading, and as always please share with others who you think might enjoy. I am working on a bigger project for this summer that I hope to unveil in the next couple weeks. To that end, if anybody out there is a graphic designer and is interested in contributing to a civic project, please message me.

Best,

Rory