What Exactly Do We Call This?

Donald Trump and the Grey Zone

Image from Toe Coe via Unsplash

What are the right terms to describe Donald Trump and the modern-day Republican party? How exactly should we describe what’s happening here? My post today is a bit of me thinking out loud about something I’m struggling with as a scholar of authoritarianism.

We have a leader who was selected democratically in what should be considered a free and fair election, so definitionally it is not quite appropriate to call him an autocrat. He has democratic legitimacy, and that is important. But this very leader also sought to steal an election just four years ago, and had he succeeded at that time, the United States would have presented a very clear-cut case of democratic backsliding—a transition from democracy to authoritarianism.

Labels matter. If they are used excessively or incorrectly, they can undermine the democratic opposition, and make the concerns resonate less with the broader population. Or they can beget reactionary political violence. It’s clear that most Americans do not view Trump as a fascist dictator, and running on “defend democracy” as an issue is unfortunately not a winning strategy, for now at least. There is no shortage of people on the left calling Trump a fascist, Hitler, a dictator, and so forth. I find a lot of that discussion to be hyperbolic and emotional.

Conversely, if we downplay what is happening, and consider this just a more brutish version of democratic politics, we risk normalizing Trump and those around him and failing to meet the urgency of the moment. The more we talk about tariff levels or Greenland or TikTok or any other policy issue, we risk losing sight of the bigger picture stakes. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

I asked a few of my colleagues their thoughts on this question. There was no consensus view about how to label Trump. I heard back from Milan Svolik, who is widely regarded as one of the leading scholars of authoritarianism, and his response really resonated with me. He permitted me to share it here:

My sense is that we are having a hard time coming up with a fitting label for Trump because our labels emerged in an era – the Cold War period -- when the dichotomy between democracy and dictatorships was an apt categorization for the vast majority of political systems. And so those who governed democracies would be called democrats, and those who governed dictatorships would be dictators or autocrats or authoritarians. If one of those autocrats worked really hard, he may even make it to a “tyrant”. And it worked well.

But now that some of the most interesting variation in regime dynamics occurs in the grey zone between democracy and dictatorship, and we are having a hard time coming with a fitting label for the leaders of these regimes. That label would ideally capture the tension and contradictions involved in having a leader who has clearly authoritarian ambitions but must still function within a system with significant constitutional checks and an electoral mandate – like Trump. Labels like “backsliding democracy” or “hybrid regime” or even “electoral autocracy” capture some of those contradictions at the level of the system, but they do not lend themselves to a natural-sounding label for the leader.

Another lesson from Milan is that perhaps the single most important difference between authoritarian and democratic political systems is the role of violence. In authoritarian systems, political control is predicated on the threat of violence. Revolution from the masses is prevented through an extensive coercive apparatus, and any hint of real resistance is quashed by the police and armed forces. In populist systems, groups within society are dehumanized as “enemies of the people” or “enemies from within,” making space for others to use violence against them. At the elite level, politics is a violent, dangerous game, and the losers frequently wind up dead or in jail.

Democracies, in contrast, are predicated on rules and norms. Parties and the political forces behind them agree to play by the rules, to honor the outcomes of elections, and to forego and condemn political violence.

After writing that last sentence, it is quite clear that given the events of the last few years, and the last few days, that the Trump faction (and it is a faction) of the GOP is fundamentally authoritarian in nature. The price of entry into this club is to deny the results of the 2020 election, and now, to condone (and even praise) the group of citizens that tried to overthrow the federal government through violence on January 6^th. Trump’s message to his supporters is clear—commit violence on my behalf, and you will face no consequences. You will be lauded as a hero. His message to Republican elites is equally clear— repeat my lies, or you will be ostracized.

At this stage, I believe the most appropriate label for Trump is a “proto autocrat”—hat tip to Carla Seaquist for this language. As a prefix, proto means “first” or “early form of.” Think protozoa— “first animal.” If I were to try to write a political science paper about this, I would define the concept as follows:

Proto Autocrat - A democratically elected leader that has demonstrated through their behavior the intention to transition the country to authoritarianism by compromising the integrity of the electoral process.

This definition probably could use some work, but it captures a few things. One, there is a life cycle to this sort of political figure. Two, it places the emphasis on deeds, not words. And three, it places the focus on free elections, which mark the difference between democracy and authoritarianism.

If we think of the life cycle of an autocrat, Trump is really just at the beginning—he tried once already to steal an election, but he failed, and he has yet to fully consolidate power and vanquish the democratic (with a small “d”, not the Democratic Party) opposition. That’s precisely what he is trying to do right now.

Whether or not Trump evolves from a proto autocrat to a full-on autocrat will depend largely on the petri dish of institutional constraints around him. The question moving forward is just how far things will go; how much our institutions can take. Will Trump allow the 2026 election to proceed unfettered? Will he target high profile members of the political opposition, either with prosecution, or by unleashing his armed supporters on them? Will he attempt to stay in power past 2028? Will he declare martial law or use the military for domestic matters?

We are seeing hints of all this already, and it’s only been a week:

- New legislation in the House that would allow Trump to run again in 2028

- The declaration of a national emergency at the Southern border

- The removal of security details for John Bolton and Mike Pompeo among others

I regret if this post sounds alarmist. The alarm bells are ringing.

Thanks as always for reading. Please share or forward this to some people if you found it useful. I appreciate the support.

Rory