SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
autocracy
Wake Up! Trump Is Moving Swiftly to Become the First American Dictator
Will American democracy survive this onslaught, straight out of the Dictator’s Playbook? To a large extent, that will depend on you, me, and our elected officials summoning the courage to resist and protest loudly. And our media to call it out for what it is.
Oct 01, 2025
Most jobs have a “playbook,” a sort of instruction manual or checklist for how to do the job right, whether it’s running an assembly line, piloting an aircraft, or redoing a house’s plumbing.
Although our media seems oblivious to it, dictators have a playbook, too.
It’s one that’s been carefully followed in recent times by Putin, Orbán, Erdoğon, Duterte, Bolsonaro, and numerous initially-elected leaders of other smaller nations. In previous generations the Dictator’s Playbook was followed, step-by-step, by Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Marcos, Pinochet, Stalin, and Tojo (among others).
And now it’s being followed by Donald Trump and JD Vance, who’re a bit more than halfway through the list. Trump’s speech yesterday before our assembled military generals and admirals — telling them they should use our American cities as “training grounds” for the military whose job is to “kill people and break things” — is getting us closer to the final steps.
“We are under invasion from within,” Trump said, “no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways, because they don’t wear uniforms. … We’re under invasion from within.”
And who is this enemy that’s so bad, so evil, that Trump just declared war against? He was explicit that the “enemies” are his political opponents and average people who live in our big cities:
“The ones that are run by the radical left Democrats... what they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places. And we’re going to straighten them out one by one. This is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”
What’s most astonishing about the reporting on this meeting is that none of the media I follow have even once mentioned that militarizing the nation’s cities is one of the most significant steps in the Dictator’s Playbook.
Combine that with the demand for absolute loyalty to the Dear Leader — Trump told the generals “If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room” — and he’s declared himself the absolute ruler of America wielding the most lethal military in the history of the world against our nation’s own citizens.
Rachel Maddow recently laid out five moves that dictators reliably make.
— First, they identify an internal enemy to blame for social ills; Trump has spent years turning immigrants, big cities, and universities into scapegoats. Now, like every dictator listed above has done, he’s claiming that the opposition political party, the Democrats, are an “enemy within.”
— Second, they turn security forces inward, exactly what Trump’s new call for turning our military against our cities represents. The moment a dictator turns military forces built to destroy foreign adversaries against his own people, the rest of the transformation becomes easier.
— Third, they criminalize dissent and protest, insisting that when people show up in the streets it is not constitutionally protected free speech and the right “peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances” but a security “threat” to be crushed rather than heard and responded to.
— Fourth, they intimidate or capture the press and punish truth-telling, as we’re seeing now with rightwing billionaires capturing virtually every major traditional and social media source in America.
— Fifth, they seize control of independent institutions like universities, law firms, or the civil service to eliminate any professional standards that interfere with Dear Leader’s will.
Overlay that list with the work of historians and political scientists like Timothy Snyder, Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Jason Stanley, and M. Gessen. Their research on how democracies die all point to the same ingredients:
— Deny or rewrite election results to delegitimize democracy itself.
— Declare political opponents enemies of the state.
— Turn independent institutions like the Department of Justice, the civil service, and the military into personal tools.
— Flood the public square with lies so thoroughly (Steve Bannon proudly called it “flooding the zone with shit”) that reality itself becomes negotiable.
— Tolerate or celebrate political violence on behalf of the dictator, and demonize violence against his followers and mouthpieces as sedition and treason.
— Demand personal loyalty instead of constitutional duty.
— Invoke a mythic past and promise national rebirth if only the strongman is given total sovereignty.
— Use his office to rapidly enrich himself and his family while creating a patronage network of loyalists who owe their fortunes to him.
There is also the money. Autocrats rarely forget to convert state power into private wealth. Trump’s hotels, golf courses, and commercial properties brought in millions from foreign governments during his first time in office, as documented by House Oversight Committee findings.
His son-in-law Jared Kushner secured a two-billion-dollar investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund almost immediately after leaving the White House. Ivanka Trump picked up fast-tracked Chinese trademarks while advising her father in government.
Kleptocracy is not a side effect of authoritarianism or fascism: it’s essential, particularly when some of that fortune is shared with those willing to break the law to support Dear Leader. So far, according to reporting, Trump and his family have made at least $5 billion from his 9-month-long presidency. It’s a core feature of the Dictator’s Playbook.
And when people protest the theft of the nation’s resources and the personal enrichment based on handing out favors, dictators go after them in the most brutal ways imaginable. It begins with investigations, but never ends there. Just look at what he’s doing to Jim Comey and Miles Taylor.
And now Trump has issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum that essentially says Democrats, atheists, Muslims, Jews, socialists, and queer people are terrorists. Not because of anything they’ve done, but because of who they are or what they believe.
It directs the FBI, DOJ, and over 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces coordinated with police forces across the country to investigate anybody who meet it’s “indica” (indicators) of potential terrorism. They include, as Ken Klippenstein reported:
“[A]nti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, support for the overthrow of the United States Government, extremism on migration, extremism on race, extremism on gender, hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality.”
Do any of those sound like you? If Trump and Republicans continue down this road, get ready to have your life turned upside down as they tear apart your social media profiles, search your email and postal mail, surveil you, and one day bang on your door in the middle of the night.
And you don’t have to have actually done a thing. Trump’s order explicitly calls on the FBI and local police coordinating with them to “intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
To go after you before you do anything, based entirely on who you are, who you love, what you believe, and what you say.
That is not the America our Founders, or the men and women who’ve fought and died to keep us free for 249 years, envisioned. And, again, the mainstream media almost entirely missed it while rightwing media ignored it altogether. Even though one day it may be directed against them if they say or do anything to offend Donald Trump or his henchmen.
When Trump told the generals he would remove anyone who does not “agree with everything I say,” he also embraced the logic of tyrants who treat disagreement as insubordination.
Democracies rely on officers sworn to the Constitution, not to one man. Trump is trying to undo that distinction. He’s demanding personal loyalty backed by the threat of firing, demotion, or public shaming. Civilian control of the military that George Washington and James Madison insisted on becomes a hollow phrase when the civilian in charge demands the military serve his whims.
What once sounded like fringe rhetoric is now proclaimed loudly to the uniformed leadership of the United States. The generals who heard him are not hypothetical. They command forces, oversee operations, and embody the principle that the military does not exist to occupy American streets.
The notion that they should roll tanks into urban neighborhoods to harden troops for foreign war is not law enforcement: it’s preparation for ruling America by force, a force that may well be preparing for the November, 2026 elections.
This is the kind of moment historians point back to later with disbelief. The warnings have been clear for years, but now the mask is off.
Even though our media insists on ignoring it, the Dictator’s Playbook has always included using a nation’s biggest cities as the stage for demonstrating power. It’s always required replacing officers and officials who follow the laws and traditions of a nation with loyalists who obey without question. It’s always depended on turning people against one another so Dear Leader and his lickspittles can step in as the only source of safety or authority.
Nobody can say this is a surprise: Trump pretty much campaigned on exactly what he’s doing now, and people from former intelligence, military, and FBI leaders to scholars of fascism warned us this was coming if Republicans suppressed enough votes for him to win. (Without the GOP having prevented 4.2 million registered citizen voters from voting or having their votes counted, Kamala Harris would have won and the House and Senate would today be under Democratic control).
The question now is whether Americans will accept a president who treats their hometowns as battle simulations and sees disagreement by generals and agency leaders as an offense punishable by firing, imprisonment, or exile.
As I point out in my new book The Last American President, it’ll depend on whether we’ll stand up and speak out. Or whether, like our media and so many universities, law firms, media outlets, and giant corporations, we’ll cower in fear and submit to Trump’s demands.
That is not law and order, and it’s not democracy in a free republic. It’s the language of autocracy that yesterday was spoken out loud in front of the armed forces of the United States and is echoed every time Trump attacks a reporter, media outlet, or one of his many “enemies.”
Will American democracy survive this onslaught, straight out of the Dictator’s Playbook? To a large extent, that will depend on you, me, and our elected officials summoning the courage to resist and protest loudly. And our media to call it out for what it is.
The clock is ticking, and these guys are racing for the finish line.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is What Autocrats Do': Concern Grows Over Single Paragraph Buried Deep in GOP Bill
The provision would force those challenging Trump "to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."
May 31, 2025
A single paragraph buried deep in a spending bill that passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month is causing growing concern among democracy watchdogs who warn the provision will make it so only the well-to-do would be in a good position to launch legal challenges against a Trump administration that has shown over and over again its disdain and disregard for oversight or judicial restraint of any kind.
Coming just about half-way through what President Donald Trump has dubbed the Republican Party's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—which progressive critics point out is a giant giveaway to the nation's wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the common good—the language in question is slight, but could have far-reaching impacts.
"This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."
On Saturday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a detailed social media thread how the provision "hasn't gotten nearly enough scrutiny" from lawmakers or the public.
A recent piece by USA Today columnist Chris Brennan put it this way:
One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond.
Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.
HRW details how the provision, if included in the final legislation, "would make it more expensive to fight Trump's policies in court by invoking a federal rule that effectively punishes anyone willing to stand up against the administration."
Anyone seeking a legal action that would involve an injunction request against a presidential order or policy, the group said, would to face a much larger barrier because Republicans would make it so that anyone challenging Trump in court in this way would "have to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, was among the first to highlight the buried provision, calling it both "unprecedented" and "terrible" in a May 19 essay in which he argued that the ultimate effect of the provision is to shield members of the administration from contempt of court orders through the extraordinary limit on those who can bring challenges in the first place. Chemerinsky writes:
By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."
But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.
Given his critique, Chemerinsky argued, "There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."
Human Rights Watch appeared to agree with the profound dangers to the rule of law if the provision survives to Trump's desk for signature.
"This is yet another sign of Trump's brazen attempts to stop the judicial branch from holding him accountable," the group warned. "This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Popular Fury Grows in Turkey Against Tyrannical Erdoğan Emboldened by Trump
The imprisonment of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, the far-right president's top political rival, has unleashed a new wave of protests against increasingly autocratic rule.
Mar 24, 2025
International outrage and charges of "viciousness" and "outright autocracy" have followed Sunday's imprisonment of Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's top political rival, the popular Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, who is seen as Erdogan's likeliest opposition challenger in upcoming national elections.
The corruption charges levied against İmamoğlu, a member of the Republican People's Party (CHP), are seen as politically motivated and follow days of sustained protests by opposition voices opposed to Erdoğan's increasingly authoritarian rule.
Tens of thousands marched and clashed with riot police after fresh protests erupted Sunday in Istanbul and elsewhere in the country following the court's actions against İmamoğlu and on Monday, the CHP announced that nearly 15 million people, members and non-members alike, participated in national primaries to support the jailed mayor's candidacy to face off against Erdoğan in the next election.
The non-member vote of more than 13 million, "could indicate," reports NBC News, "that İmamoğlu, 54, enjoys wide public support beyond the party faithful. The party's chairman said it showed the need for early elections."
Writing for Politico Europe, opinion editor Jamie Dettmer argues that that timing of Erdoğan's targeting of İmamoğlu has everything to do with the return of U.S. President Donald Trump to the international scene.
Erdoğan, Dettmer wrote on Saturday, "has spent years eroding democracy, stifling dissent and purging the country's army and civil service. Now, it looks as though he's chosen this geopolitical moment to bury the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the secular founder of the Republic of Turkey." He continued:
Erdoğan would harbor no worries as to Trump’s disapproval. The two have lavished priase on each other for years, and the Turkish leader has said he supports his American counterpart’s peace initiative in Ukraine—no doubt music to Trump’s ears.
Erdoğan isn't alone among the once embattled autocrats—and would-be autocrats—sniffing the change in the geopolitical air, and reckoning they're on the cusp of a new era, able to erase the rules and norms of old and replace them with ones more to their liking. It's influencing their behavior as they look to each other for inspiration and new ideas for running their respective countries—whether it be weaponizing policies affecting sexual minorities, scapegoating migrants, sharpening attacks on independent media, transforming public broadcasters into government mouthpieces or just closing them down.
Since his arrest on March 19, the ousted mayor has denied all charges against him and urged his supporters to continue protests in the face of the government crackdown.
"I totally believe these are bogus charges," Emre Can Erdogdu, a university student in Istanbul who attended street protests Sunday night, told the New York Times. "We entirely lost our trust in the government."
Erdogdu said he feared for the future of Turkey. "A person who could be the next president is now out of politics. It is not just about Istanbul. It is about all of Turkey."
A Turkish court jailed Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, President Erdogan's main rival, pending trial on corruption charges triggering the country's biggest protests in over a decade https://t.co/7P7PwrjZsi pic.twitter.com/e05k1sERXI
— Reuters (@Reuters) March 24, 2025
Özgür Özel, the CHP chair, said the imprisonment would not dampen the party's prospects, but only further ignite the growing opposition. "Starting from tomorrow morning," he said from Istanbul on Sunday evening, "we will initiate a great struggle by harnessing the power of organization and using this strength for the good sake of all of us."
He called for "all democrats and all those who care the future of Turkey" to come out in sustained protest.
According to the Hürriyet Daily News, over 1,100 people have been arrested since mass protests erupted last week over İmamoğlu's initial arrest. Criticism only grew the court on Sunday stripped him of his position and sent him to prison.
"By arresting his main political rival," said human rights advocate and scholar Kenneth Roth, "Erdoğan shows he is too fearful of losing to risk even a managed election."
Roth said Erdoğan, an ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, would rather "opt for an electoral charade" than hold free and fair elections.
Turkish protesters demand "freedom" as police fire rubber bullets and pepper spray at crowds rallying for detained Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu.https://t.co/r7gKpPg0YJ pic.twitter.com/HqAL3Z4kay
— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 24, 2025
With Turkish officials set to visit the United States this week to visit with U.S. counterparts, world's richest man Elon Musk, who has taken a seat as a top advisor to Trump, is under fire for blocking accounts of opposition figures in Turkey on his social media platform X.
As Politico reported over the weekend:
The majority of the suspended accounts were "university-associated activist accounts, basically sharing protest information, locations for students to go," Yusuf Can, coordinator and analyst at the Wilson Center's Middle East Program, told POLITICO. Many of these accounts are "grassroots activists" with their followings in the low tens of thousands, said Can.
Some accounts appear to be suspended only in Turkey and not in the rest of the world. Activist Ömer Faruk Aslan created a second account to avoid censorship. "Yesterday, my account was blocked by a court order because the tweets exceeded 6 million views," he posted.
Last week, Human Rights Watch said that İmamoğlu's arrest, as well as the targeting of other opposition figures, was politically motivated and an assault on the rule of law.
"Ekrem İmamoğlu and others detained should be released from police custody immediately," said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director for the group. "The Erdoğan presidency should ensure that the results of the Istanbul municipal elections are respected and that the criminal justice system is not weaponized for political ends."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Governors Form Coalition to Fight 'Increasing Threats of Autocracy'
"You come for my people, you come through me," said Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker recently.
Nov 13, 2024
With Republicans set to control the White House and both chambers of Congress starting in January, Democratic governors on Wednesday launched an initiative aimed at protecting democracy and countering "emerging threats" from the far-right MAGA movement, pledging that state-level institutions will be safeguarded from President-elect Donald Trump and his allies.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis are leading the initiative, called Governors Safeguarding Democracy (GSD). Democrats currently govern 23 states while Republicans are the governors of 27; Pritzker and Polis did not say on Wednesday which other governors have signed on as members of the coalition.
Pritzker told the Chicago Sun-Times that the coalition is "built off a model that all of us governors have already successfully pioneered through the Reproductive Freedom Alliance. And together, what we're doing is pushing back against increasing threats of autocracy and fortifying the institutions of democracy that our country and our states depend on."
The nonpartisan Reproductive Freedom Alliance was established in 2023 to counter anti-abortion rights legislation in Republican-controlled states. Alliance states have stockpiled medication abortion pills, passed "shield" laws to protect patients and providers from out-of-state efforts to criminalize abortion care, and coordinated efforts to make reproductive healthcare more affordable.
Following the election, said Polis, "protecting democracy has never been more relevant or important, and doing so demands strong leadership at the state level. Governors Safeguarding Democracy shows our shared dedication to defending the democratic principles upon which our country is built."
GSD plans to:
- Leverage governors' collective strength, experience, and institutional knowledge to design and implement affirmative strategies to protect the rule of law and deliver for people in the states;
- Reinforce key state institutions to protect executive agencies, elections, state courts, and other core democratic bodies; and
- Develop playbooks to enable governors and their teams to anticipate and swiftly respond to emerging threats.
Pritzker told the Sun-Times that the coalition would likely focus on strengthening state-level environmental protections. On Monday, Trump announced his nomination of former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Zeldin's record includes voting against clean air and water legislation, the creation of a federal climate resilience office, and to withdraw the U.S. from global climate negotiations.
He also said a plan proposed by Stephen Miller, who Trump has named as his deputy chief of policy adviser, to use red state National Guard members to complete mass deportations in blue states was "unacceptable."
"That's not something that's within Title 32 anybody would anticipate would be allowed, and we would not, certainly not cooperate with that," Pritzker told the Sun-Times, referring to the portion of the U.S. code that defines the National Guard's responsibilities. "Beyond that I can't speak to how they would intend to get that accomplished."
Pritzker pledged that the coalition "will serve as a powerful force in state-level efforts to ensure that our democracy lives up to our ideals and thrives for generations to come."
GSD was announced days after the Illinois governor issued a stark warning to the incoming Trump administration regarding plans for mass deportations and other attacks on marginalized communities: "You come for my people, you come through me."
Since the election, several Democratic governors have pledged to protect their constituents from Trump's policies, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom vowing to "Trump-proof" the state.
Newsom, said he aimed to shore up the state's disaster funds, advocate for waivers that would allow California to phase out fossil fuel-burning vehicles, and pushing for federal approval of several healthcare programs before Trump takes office.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Will Need Each Other to Confront King Trump
We are seeing in real time how autocracy happens, by creating hopelessness and despair among the mass of people who once might have fought back.
Nov 08, 2024
It took only hours after a majority of Americans chose to return Donald Trump as a strongman-style president for the first billionaire supplicant to come forward on bended knee. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the third-richest person on the planet, had already made his intentions clear in the waning days of the 2024 campaign when the influential newspaper he owns, The Washington Post, spiked a long-planned endorsement of rival Kamala Harris at his instruction.
In a rare tweet Wednesday, Bezos—beneficiary of massive federal contracts—laid it on thick. “Big congratulations to our 45th and now 47th President on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory,” Bezos posted on X, which is owned by the richest person on the planet, Elon Musk. “No nation has bigger opportunities. Wishing @realDonaldTrump all success in leading and uniting the America we all love.”
It almost goes without saying that Bezos said nothing Wednesday about the fact that, as owner of the Post, he is also the keeper of a remarkable legacy of watchdog journalism, which defied the White House in 1971 in publishing the secret Pentagon Papers and then produced the investigative reporting that helped bring down Richard Nixon in Watergate. There was no Bezos pep talk to his journalists that such heroism for democracy would be acted out now. Less than 48 hours after Trump’s election as the 47th president, this kind of silence has been deafening.
From the obsequious Bezos to the end of resistance from everyday folk, we are seeing the once unthinkable: the start of American autocracy.
Although it feels almost normal to flip on CNN and watch talking heads speculate on whom the president-elect is picking for his cabinet, there is nothing normal about the Trump transition, even with a president who’s been elected before. So much has changed since the tumultuous autumn of 2016. This time, America is rolling out a red carpet for a king—one who will, in the ultimate irony, preside over the 250th anniversary of that time when we overthrew a monarchy.
I know that sounds like hyperbole, or what The 51% calls “Trump derangement syndrome.” But the nation already on Wednesday received its first major bit of news—and there are going to be many, many more to come—making it clear that Trump is returning to the White House with stunning absolute powers that none of his 44 predecessors (Grover Cleveland, and now Trump, twice) either possessed or were willing to exercise over the American people.
It came in the form of a revelation from the U.S. Justice Department that special counsel Jack Smith—who aggressively, if too belatedly, brought federal indictments against Trump for the 2020 efforts to overturn the last presidential election that culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection, and for Trump taking highly classified documents—is planning steps that would have the likely impact of ending his cases before Trump takes the oath of office.
Multiple news outlets quoted sources within the Justice Department that Smith is now is active talks about how to “wind down” the two cases against Trump—with the one about classified documents already on life support after a zealously pro-Trump, Trump-appointed lower court judge dismissed the charges for now—before he becomes president again on January 20. It’s not yet clear whether Smith is planning to permanently dismiss the charges or—more likely—put them on some type of hold that would nonetheless make justice nearly impossible, since Trump would be 82 if he leaves office as scheduled in 2029, and there would be questions about the statute of limitations.
Such maneuvers would be in line with the controversial and legally debated Justice Department decision from the Nixon era that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, which already gave any POTUS a unique standing above the law. But remember that Trump was on track to stand trial in the January 6 case this year, if not for the U.S. Supreme Court’s stunning 6-3 ruling earlier this year giving presidents sweeping legal immunity for broadly defined “official acts.”
When Smith does appear before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to end the case, it will be a triple exclamation point on how a once revolutionary nation turned a president into a king.
Some legal experts are arguing that Smith is playing the horrendous hand that he’s been dealt here, perhaps scrambling to issue an in-depth report about Trump’s alleged wrongdoing before the new president’s MAGA appointees can fire him. I get that, but my nonlawyer gut tells me that Smith should make Trump and his lackeys dismiss the case themselves, as one more reminder that Trump is trashing every last democratic norm we have.
But how 2017-ish of me to even think that. The decision has already been made in all our former watchdog institutions to obey the new authoritarianism in advance. You can hear it in the quiet of an unseasonably warm November breeze.
The dogs of 2016 and 2017 are not barking. There are no people in the streets chanting, “We! Reject! The president-elect!” or carrying “Not My President” signs like eight years ago. Kids aren’t walking out of high school, and college presidents—reflecting the catastrophic erosions of free speech in America that go well beyond Trumpism—are not issuing statements.
New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote Thursday about the Russian lifestyle of “internal emigration”—turning away from politics to emphasize family or books or gardening or anything else besides the seeming hopelessness of opposing autocracy.
This is exactly what I’m hearing from so many friends and even family here in Greater Philadelphia and on social media. People are leaving Musk’s X in droves, partly to protest the billionaire, but mostly to disengage from politics, at least for now. One boomer woman who threw herself into the so-called Trump Resistance in 2016 wrote me Thursday to say she is done. Protesting Trump, she wrote, “was an utter failure. I’m tired, demoralized, and bitter.”
I don’t blame her, nor would I think of criticizing the many people emphasizing their own mental health over politics at a moment when it’s not even clear what to do next. We are seeing in real time how autocracy happens, by creating hopelessness and despair among the mass of people who once might have fought back. From the obsequious Bezos to the end of resistance from everyday folk, we are seeing the once unthinkable: the start of American autocracy.
I was fortunate Thursday morning to connect with one of the nation’s top experts on authoritarian regimes, the Yale University historian Timothy Snyder, whose words—especially, “do not obey in advance”—from his essential On Tyranny are frequently quoted here. I wanted to ask him the question on so many people’s minds since Tuesday: What has history taught us about how to live now?
Snyder told me the most important thing for the moment is to avoid isolation and be around other people. “They want you to be alone,” the historian said of autocratic governments because isolation feeds the sense of powerlessness that allows the regime to do its dirty work unimpeded. “Nobody is going to fix this alone,” Snyder said. “That’s not how this works.”
Second, he suggested: “This is a good time to figure out what you’re good at. Define some little human-sized zone, whether it’s your library or your garden or your trade union. Take something positive that you know and do it.” He also noted that the political feeling of despair in opposing Trump and his MAGA movement doesn’t mean you can’t work for change on the state and local level, where one can still hash out issues with forward-minded politicians.
Snyder then suggested, with a laugh, what he called “a dumb little idea”—except that it wasn’t.
“Take a moment and write down a letter about the things you care about, that you’re willing to take a stand about. Write that down, put it in an envelope, and take it out of your desk as we’re going through these things”—like when Trump takes office in January, or early in his term.
Those of us who opposed Trump, and who were devastated to learn how many of our fellow citizens want to live under his strongman rule, need time to mourn this week’s news. But it’s well worth listening to Snyder’s words about not just living under tyranny, but someday soon finding reasonable ways to confront it. We are going to need each other, whether it’s in the streets or just at the dog park. And you—we—are not alone.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Autocrats Worse Than Trump? Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid
Here's the question to be asking, both in the U.S. and around the world: at what point will the far right achieve a critical mass of support such that it can kick away the ladder that it used to climb to power?
Jun 23, 2024
Poland is supposed to be one of the politically sane places in Europe right now. The far-right Law and Justice Party lost national elections last year to a centrist coalition and exited power after eight long years of democratic repression. Donald Tusk, who’d previously been the president of the European Council, once again became the Polish prime minister. His government immediately set about restoring the rule of law that the Law and Justice Party had been so determined to dismantle.
Sounds good, right?
Yes, but then there’s Grzegorz Braun.
Braun is a member of a party called Konfederacja that stands just to the left of the Nazis. Think that’s an overstatement? Back in December, Braun used a fire extinguisher to put out the candles on a menorah in the Polish parliament, which had been set up to celebrate Hanukah. Just in case anyone might misinterpret the gesture—perhaps he though it was a fire risk?—Braun denounced the Jewish holiday as “satanic” and insisted that “those who take part in acts of satanic worship should be ashamed.” He also favors the criminalization of homosexuality. And he was the only Polish parliamentarian to oppose a resolution in 2022 denouncing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Is there nothing that far-right politicians can say or do these days that disqualifies them in the minds of voters from holding public office?
And yet, despite these toxic positions, Braun was just elected to represent Poland in the European parliament. And so were five other members of his Konfederacja party, who have equally toxic views. That’s a gain of six seats over their previous showing in the 2019 elections, which had been zero. An astonishing 12 percent of Polish voters endorsed the positions of Braun and his colleagues.
Sure, in those same EU elections, Tusk’s centrist party managed to squeak by Law and Justice, which lost seven of their seats. But it was the party even further to the right that seemed to benefit.
Trump, a crowd surfer without parallel, is riding a wave. Will it crest before November?
Swing to the Right
The big takeaway from the recent European Parliament elections was the success of far-right parties. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally won over 31 percent of the vote in France, prompting French President Emmanuel Macron to make the counter-intuitive decision to dissolve parliament and call new elections. Giorgia Meloni, the far-right leader in Italy, also managed to increase her party’s share of support.
And the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) came in second in Germany with a big boost from the under-30 crowd, who didn’t seem to care about the various scandals involving the far-right party’s leadership. Because of the statements of party member Maximilian Krahl—he said that not all Nazi SS members were war criminals—the AfD was actually kicked out of the Identity and Democracy bloc. And then the AfD kicked Krahl out of the party, not only because of those statements but also because his close ties to Russia and China were attracting unwanted scrutiny. German voters elected him to the European parliament anyway.
Is there nothing that far-right politicians can say or do these days that disqualifies them in the minds of voters from holding public office? Each month, it seems that a new red line is crossed: anti-Semitism, extraordinary corruption, a felony conviction. What’s next, the use of germ warfare?
In the European parliament elections, the far right also took first place in Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia and tied for first in the Netherlands. Indeed, the only places that the far right didn’t do better than their last outing were Sweden, Finland, and Portugal, but even here the results weren’t exactly reassuring. The far-right Sweden Democrats remained steady at 3 seats (as did the Danish People’s Party at one seat). The Portuguese far right Chega party actually made it into the European Parliament for the first time with two seats. Only the True Finns party lost representatives and it was a drop of only one seat.
The good news is that the far-right electoral coalitions—the European Conservatives and Reformists Party (ECR), the Identity and Democracy bloc (ID), and the unaffiliated bloc that includes Fidesz and now the AfD—didn’t win enough votes to take over the leadership of the parliament. The ECR gained 14 seats (thanks largely to Meloni in Italy), the ID gained 9 seats (thanks largely to Le Pen in France), and the now-unaffiliated AfD increased their delegation by six seats. That puts the far right at nearly one-quarter of the total number of seats.
But the center right also did well in the election, increasing their total number of seats to 190. The ECR will not be forced to form a governing coalition with the far right, and that means that the European consensus on the green energy transition will remain more-or-less intact.
The Not-So-Long March
Let’s face it: the European parliament is not the most powerful institution around. What’s important about the far right’s victories is their apparent abandonment of any desire to destroy the EU or, at least, withdraw from it. The new far-right strategy is borrowed from the left (just like some of its economic program): a “long march through the institutions” in order to control them. Bye-bye Brexit and its heir apparents: Nexit, Grexit, Frexit. The far right wants to conquer Brussels.
Meanwhile, it is continuing its long march through national institutions. In Belgium, in federal elections earlier this month, the far-right, Euroskeptical, Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang came in second, behind a right-wing, Euroskeptical, Flemish nationalist party New Flemish Alliance. Traditionally, Belgian parties have agreed not to partner with Vlaams Belang to form governments. But with the New Flemish Alliance moving ever further to the right, the Belgians might be on the verge of breaking with this informal pact. Don’t expect a new government any time soon though: it took 18 months to forge a ruling coalition five years ago.
In Austria, the far-right Freedom Party is on track to win elections in September. Its coalition government with the Christian Democratic People’s Party collapsed in 2019 because of the Ibiza affair, which linked Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache of the Freedom Party to a corrupt deal involving a woman he thought was a well-connected Russian. The Freedom Party’s adulterously close relationship to Russia has not seemed to diminish its popularity. Another recent spy scandal broke, involving a top intelligence official passing information to Russia in exchange for money, which took place when the Freedom Party was in charge of the Interior Ministry. And yet Austrian voters concluded that this was just the type of party to send to the European parliament.
And then there’s France. Who knows, perhaps the French far right, too, will take over after the snap elections that Macron has called. The French, it seems, now hate Paris as much as they hate Brussels (the seat of the EU). Marine Le Pen is taking advantage of an anti-elitist, anti-globalist, anti-technocrat spirit that is rebranding reactionary as merely rebellious (sound familiar?). That’s bad news for Macron, whose every gesture and remark scream “Paris elite.” Fortunately, a more genuine challenge to the French orthodoxy has emerged on the left, as the Socialist, Communist, France Unbowed, and Ecologists parties have formed a new coalition. It is currently running neck and neck with Le Pen’s National Rally.
In The Netherlands, meanwhile, the far right has finally managed to put together a coalition government after their surprise victory in elections last year. Firebrand Geert Wilders had to give up on his desire to become prime minister, but in exchange his Party for Freedom (PVV) will control five ministries.
The new head of the migration and asylum ministry, Marjolein Faber of the PVV, is perhaps the last person you’d want in charge of a sensitive issue like immigration. She favors the abolition of Islam. She has called migration “repopulation,” a popular word in the far-right lexicon that has roots in the German word umvolkung, which was used by the Nazis and which today has much the same connotation as the “replacement” of majority white populations with non-white immigrants. And she has been guilty of the worst kind of racial profiling when she said that a stabbing suspect looked like a “North African” when witnesses reported otherwise.
Be Afraid, Very Afraid
Faber, Krahl, Braun: these far-right politicians make Donald Trump look like a conservative Democrat (which he used to be before opportunism beckoned). Of course, the Eurocrazies don’t have as much power as Trump might once again have. But the really scary part is how routine it has become for such people—who, a generation ago, would have been just kooks making long-winded speeches from the audience at public forums—to now be in positions of real responsibility.
It’s also frightening because it’s not just Europe that has been affected by this peculiar political disease. Narendra Modi, despite a drop in his party’s support in the latest elections, will continue on as prime minister of India. Nayib Bukele, the telegenic autocrat in El Salvador, won a supermajority in parliament earlier this year for his New Ideas party. And Vladimir Putin, no surprise here, won his election in Russia.
Trump was blocked from doing his worst by the institutions of a democratic society (Congress, state governments, courts, conscientious objectors at all levels). The EU, after this near miss with near fascism, will also be able to prevent the far right from unraveling the rule of law.
But at what point will the far right achieve a critical mass of support such that it can kick away the ladder that it used to climb to power? The far right’s long march through the institutions has only one ultimate destination: autocracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
If Democracy Dies, So What?
Whether we like it or not, the 2024 election is a referendum on Joe Biden only insofar as he represents the alternative to authoritarian rule.
May 23, 2024
The Biden campaign has made the 2024 general election into a referendum on democracy. So far, however, the electoral choice between authoritarianism and democracy has not registered among voters as a determining factor. The Times/Siena poll in May indicates that only 2% of registered voters identify the state of democracy as a main factor in their choice of a candidate for the presidency, and only 5% list it as their most important issue. That’s bleak, whichever way you look at it.
Maybe the situation is not quite so bad? The March Reuters/Ipsos poll indicates, for instance, that 23% of the American public consider political extremism or threats to democracy the most important problem facing the US (36% of Democrats, 25% of independents, and 11% of Republicans). Of course, incompatible definitions of democracy, extremism, and threats held by voters of different political persuasions would reduce even further these relatively small numbers of voters who might support Biden to defend democracy from autocracy.
If the candidate for democracy wins, the politics of persuasion in a pluralistic polity and governance by checks and balances continue; if he loses, rule by demagoguery and coercion begins.
Let’s say the number of voters sufficiently troubled by the threat to democracy stands now somewhere between 2% and 23%. Maybe even as many as a third of Democrats plus half of Independents (together amounting to about 25% of voters) currently agree that the Republican Party’s presumptive candidate is a grave enough threat to democracy to vote for Biden despite concerns related to his age, inflation, interest rates, immigration, police reform, the Israel-Gaza war, and more. That is not enough to win the election, unless something changes between now and November to increase the number of voters seriously worried about an authoritarian victory and/or convinced on economic or other grounds to support Biden.
At least among Democratic voters and the subset of independents who tend to vote for Democratic candidates, it should be obvious that Donald Trump’s intentions for a second term are decidedly antidemocratic, that there is good reason to worry his authoritarian rule would not be restrained by democratic norms or institutions, and that a peaceful return to democracy would be unlikely after he takes power. Reminders regularly appear in the news.
Time magazine’s Eric Cortellessa, for instance, recently interviewed Trump to find out what he would do in a second term. The answer, in broad outline, is an imperial presidency that would reshape the country. He would deport millions of people, build migrant detention camps, and deploy the US military both at the border and in the country’s interior. He would allow red states to monitor and prosecute women who seek abortions. He would dictate to the Department of Justice and fire any US Attorney who defies his orders. He would pardon his supporters who attacked the US Capitol and punish his enemies. He would replace existing federal civil servants with political supporters. In short, Cortellessa reports, the 2024 election could amount to a revolution that brings about, in the words of historian Douglas Brinkley, “the end of our democracy.”
Unfortunately, Trump’s MAGA-dominated Republican Party has abandoned democracy to become the party of authoritarian rule. Election 2024 is their final battle to “demolish the deep state,” to “drive out the globalists,” to “cast out the communists … and radical-left thugs that live like vermin,” to “rout the fake-news media,” to “throw off the sick political class that hates our country.” The real threat, Trump proclaims, “is from within,” from the “radical left.” Joe Biden, in Trump’s upside-down rhetoric, is “the true threat to democracy.” As political historian Federico Finchelstein notes, “This is how fascists campaign.” Indeed, Robert Reich observes, Trump has begun to “signal his embrace of fascism.”
Criticism of Joe Biden’s policies, or even concern for his age, is not the problem. Indeed, a healthy democracy engages in spirited debate and is marked by the serious contestation of divergent viewpoints. The problem instead is that translating such concerns and serious differences into a decision not to vote, or even to vote for a third candidate, amounts to a vote against democracy. The 2024 election is a referendum on Joe Biden only insofar as he represents the alternative to authoritarian rule. This election is not a choice between candidates of the two major parties both of whom affirm democratic values. The choice is between constitutional democracy and autocracy. If the candidate for democracy wins, the politics of persuasion in a pluralistic polity and governance by checks and balances continue; if he loses, rule by demagoguery and coercion begins.
This is a stark reality that prompts Bernie Sanders to work for Biden’s re-election, even though he strongly disagrees with Biden’s Israel policy. His announcement to stump for Biden focused primarily on the need to stop Trump and what a Trump administration would do to the country and the world. “If you believe in democracy,” Sanders said, “The next several months will be the most important in modern American history.”
Believing in democracy—in the present case, constitutional democracy—means recognizing the implications of pluralism and engaging politics accordingly. The choice of democracy over the rule of coercion is to practice a politics of inclusion, tolerance, dialogue, dissent, deliberation, and compromise. The democratic quest of a diverse people requires nothing less. Pluralism is a demographic fact but also is a principle of political discourse to address competing expectations that reflect diverging perspectives and conflicting interests. Engaging differences expands overly narrow perspectives on complex issues, which helps to build political community amidst an array of differences and to exercise good judgment on matters of public policy.
Democracy in this sense is a politics of contestation in a world of uncertainties, divided opinions, competing interests, different priorities, and divergent perspectives. It operates on a principle of persuasion, if it is true to itself, and it is guided by a set of values, including liberty, equality, and fairness, among others. At best, these aspirational values are partially and tenuously realized at any given time or place. They are also subject to interpretation—even prevarication, perversion, and subversion—but, absent democratic values, politics is aimless, authority is arbitrary, and power is oppressive.
The difficulty of sustaining a robust democratic practice is rooted in the complexity of political relations. Competing interests and divergent perspectives, beliefs, and priorities are endemic to a large and diverse public. This condition of pluralism is a social reality that tests the limits of tolerance. It requires an ongoing search for common ground and an openness to compromise. As such, pluralism is also a democratic principle of good governance.
The outcome of this prophetic struggle between authoritarian demagoguery and democratic persuasion hinges on this year’s general election.
That said, democracy is a demanding exercise in collective self-rule, especially for a large and diverse people. Deliberating knotty issues tries public patience and creates an opening for authoritarianism and the demagoguery of intolerance. The prospect of collective self-rule is darkened when discord alienates citizens from one another enough to prevent a strong majority from voting against tyranny. As historian Heather Cox Richardson frankly observes, we have entered a time of testing, a time in which America is teetering on the brink of authoritarianism, a time to reclaim democratic principles, a time for a democratic reawakening and to reclaim democratic principles because “democracies die more often through the ballot box than at gunpoint” (Democracy Awakening, 2023, pp. xi, 253).
These are apocalyptic times that test the country’s democratic will. The conceit of white dominion that festers at the base of Trump’s candidacy is at war with the aspirations of a diverse people. The outcome of this prophetic struggle between authoritarian demagoguery and democratic persuasion hinges on this year’s general election. Whether democracy dies slowly or is dispatched quickly should it suffer electoral defeat in November, its demise will impact Americans adversely, more grievously than they expect. Life under authoritarian rule is stifling and harsh. It subdues aspirations, demolishes the freedoms and rights we prize, rescinds the material benefits we take for granted, defaults to coercion, and crushes morale. Alternatively, a coalition opposed to tyranny can still disagree with one another and advocate for competing policies while working together to reawaken the people’s stake in a democratic future and to turn out a decisive majority in November.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Living Under a Trump Dictatorship
If you're not gaming out this scenario in your head, you are doing it wrong.
Mar 22, 2024
We should already be talking about what it would be like, if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, to live under a developing autocracy. Beyond the publicized plans of those around him to gut the federal civil service system and consolidate power in the hands of You Know Who, under Trump 2.0, so much else would change for the worse.
All too many of us who now argue about the Ukraine and Gaza wars and their ensuing humanitarian crises, about police violence and extremism in the military here at home, about all sorts of things, would no longer share a common language. Basics that once might have meant the same thing to you and me, like claiming someone won an election, might become unsafe to mention. In a Trump 2.0 world, more of our journalists would undoubtedly face repercussions and need to find roundabout ways to allude to all too many topics. A moving opinion column by the New York Times’s David French, who faced threats for his writing about Donald Trump, highlighted how some who voiced their views on him already need round-the-clock police protection to ensure their safety and that of their family.
We are entering a new and perilous American world and it’s important to grasp that fact.
I often think about the slippery slope we Americans could soon find ourselves on. After all, from the time Vladimir Putin became Russia’s president in 1999, I spent 20 years traveling to his country and back, working there first as an anthropology doctoral student and later as a human rights researcher. I’ve followed Russian politics closely, including as a therapist specializing in war-affected populations, asylum seekers, and refugees. Friends and colleagues of mine there have faced threats to their safety and their careers amid a Kremlin crackdown on public discussion after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and several fled the country with their families in search of safety and a better life.
To be sure, there are many differences between the United States, with its robust democratic tradition, and Russia, which only briefly had competitive elections and a free press. Nonetheless, my experiences there offer a warning about how a Trumpian version of top-down rule could someday stifle any possibility of calling out state-sponsored violence for what it is, and what it might feel like if that’s our situation here someday.
Tucker Carlson’s Moscow
On first look, far-right journalist Tucker Carlson’s recent visit to Moscow, covered exuberantly by Russia’s state media, might seem like an example of an American tourist’s naïve glorification of another country’s luxuries. Carlson marveled at the fancy tilework of the city’s subway system, visited the national ballet, and noted that you can buy caviar cheaply at the local grocery store. He also pointed out that Moscow’s pristine streets had no homeless people and no apparent poverty.
In the gilded halls of the Kremlin palace, he interviewed President Putin for more than two hours. Despite his guileless expression, Carlson occasionally appeared flummoxed as Putin lectured him endlessly on Russian history and the centuries-old claim he insisted Moscow has on Kyiv as its protector from aggressors near and far. Of course, he never challenged Putin on his rationale for invading that country (nor did he refer to it as an invasion) or any of the Russian leader’s other outrageous claims.
I’m of the school of thought that considers Putin’s Russia exactly the sort of anti-woke paradise the MAGA crowd craves. Anyone of Carlson’s age who grew up during the Cold War and turned on his or her television in that pivotal period when the Berlin Wall fell should certainly know that all of Russia doesn’t look anything like what he was shown. He should also have known about the recent history of economic “shock therapy” that drained Russian public services of funding and human resources, not to speak of the decades of corruption and unfair economic policies that enriched a choice few in Putin’s circle at the expense of so many.
Of course, something had to happen to turn the Moscow that Carlson saw into a sanitized moonscape. If you haven’t been following developments in Russia under Putin, let me summarize what I’ve noticed.
Protesters — even many going to opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s recent memorial service — have been arrested or at least intimidated when appearing to sympathize with anything that’s not part of the Kremlin’s official pro-Putin ideology. Many groups, from Asian migrants to the homeless, have either been rounded up by the police or at least relocated far out of the view of tourists of any sort. In fact, the imprisoned American journalist whom Carlson briefly gestured toward emancipating, Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, had written on the practice of zachistki, or mop-up operations by the Russian authorities that, for instance, relocated homeless services to the outskirts of Moscow, far from public view. Of course, Gershkovich is now imprisoned indefinitely in Russia on charges of espionage for simply reporting on the war in Ukraine, proving the very point Carlson so studiously avoided, that an endless string of lies underscore Putin’s latest war.
What’s more, amid sub-subsistence wages, housing shortages, and the thin walls of so many city apartments, ordinary Russians are not always able to engage in the “hard conversations” that conservatives like Alabama Senator Katie Britt boast of having in their well-furbished kitchens. After all, neighbors are now encouraged to denounce each other for decrying Russia’s war. (You could, it seems, even end up in prison if your child writes “no to war” on a drawing she did for school.)
There are very personal ramifications to living in an autocracy with which Tucker Carlson and, of course, the Orange Jesus himself are signaling their agreement when they entertain the views of leaders like Vladimir Putin or call Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán “fantastic.” They’re signaling what their end goal is to Americans and, sadly enough, it’s not particularly far-fetched anymore to suggest that, someday, we won’t even have the freedom to talk about all of this with each other.
The Thing That Cannot Be Named
Tucker Carlson at least did his homework. He clearly knew that you couldn’t describe the war in Ukraine as an unprovoked Russian invasion, given that country’s carefully crafted censorship laws.
Since his February 2022 invasion, Putin has referred to it as a “special military operation” focused on the defense of Russia from NATO and the “denazification” of Ukraine. During that first spring, the Russian president signed a law forbidding journalists from even calling the invasion a “war,” choosing instead to frame the killing, displacement, abduction, torture, and rape of Ukrainian citizens as a surgical rescue operation provoked by the victims themselves. Broader, vaguer censorship laws were then passed, further limiting what Russians of all stripes could say, including one against “discrediting the army,” which imposed stiff fines and prison sentences, and more recently, property confiscations on anyone deemed to have said anything negative about Russia’s armed forces. While the thousands of arrests made may seem modest, given Russia’s 146 million people, it’s still, in my opinion, thousands too many.
The Russian leader’s perverse framing of his unprovoked war is undoubtedly what also allows him to admit that hundreds of thousands of Russians have been killed or wounded so far, something he couldn’t otherwise say. In a country suffused with right-wing Christian nationalism, it also certainly helps his cause that most of Russia’s war dead come from remote, poor, and predominantly minority regions.
This is the sort of muddling of meaning and motives that autocratic leaders engage in to justify deaths of all kinds. American equivalents might be what the MAGA crowds do when they blame the January 6th far-right assault at the Capitol, aimed at police and lawmakers, on the “Antifa,” or extreme leftists, without disputing that people were hurt. Or consider then-President Donald Trump’s comment that far-right white supremacist Charlottesville rioters and counter-protesters included “very fine people on both sides” — no matter that one such fine person plowed down a counter-protester in his car, murdering her, or that certain of those “fine” white supremacists espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories considered by some an incitement to violence.
For their part, Russians of various political stripes enjoy an ancient tradition of using dark humor and irony to engage in the kinds of conversations they really want to have. Take as an example the way progressive journalists like those at the news stations TV Rain and Novaya Gazeta (since banned from operating) began discussing the war in Ukraine as “the thing that cannot be named.” Eventually, however, sweeping censorship laws prevented even workarounds like those.
It’s not a small thing to live in a place where you can’t say what you want to for fear of political persecution, especially when you’ve grown up in other circumstances. A good friend of mine who came of age after the fall of the Berlin Wall and led a prosperous, happy life in St. Petersburg, fled the country on the last train out of that city to Helsinki, Finland, her young child in tow. Her goal: to start life over from scratch and avoid having to raise her child in a place where he would be brainwashed into thinking Russia’s armed forces and police were infallible and beyond critique. I suspect that many of the hundreds of thousands of Russians who joined her in fleeing the country weren’t that different.
Imagine raising a child whose unquestioning mind you can’t recognize. (That goes for you, too, Trump supporters, because — count on it! — once in office again, he would undoubtedly move toward ending elections as we know them, not to speak of shutting down whatever institutions protect our speech!)
America and the Lie that Begot Other Lies
Events in recent years indicate that Americans — particularly those in the MAGA camp — have grown inured to the public mention of armed violence. Who could forget the moment in 2016 when candidate Trump boasted at a campaign rally before winning the presidency that “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”? As racially and politically motivated violence and threats have proliferated, so many of us seemed to grow ever less bothered by both the incidents themselves and the rationales of those who seek to encourage and justify them.
My own adult life began as Vladimir Putin consolidated power in Russia, while former President George W. Bush launched his — really, our — disastrous Global War on Terror, based on lies like that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, we’ve spilled all too little ink here on the nearly one million people who died across our Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African war zones since 2001 (and the many millions more who lost their lives, even if less directly, or were turned into refugees thanks to those wars of ours). And don’t forget the more than 7,000 American troops (and more than 8,000 contractors!) who died in the process, essentially baptizing our national lies in pools of blood. And how could that not have helped normalize other lies to come like Trump’s giant one about the 2020 election?
Thankfully, in this country we can still say what we want (more or less). We can still, for instance, call out the Pentagon for underreporting the deaths its forces have caused. In other words, something like the Costs of War Project that I helped to found to put our lies in context can still exist. But how long before such things could become punishable, if not by law, then through vigilantism?
Yes, President Biden is arming Israel in its gruesome fight against Hamas while providing only the most modest aid to Gaza’s war-devastated population, but we can still hold him to account for that. If the 2024 election goes to Donald Trump, how long will that be true? If we don’t get to the point right now where all of us are calling out lies all the time, then every Trumpian lie about violence — from Republican members of Congress calling the January 6th rioters “peaceful patriots” to The Donald’s claim that he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his next presidency (a desire supported by a significant majority of Republicans) — will amount to lies as consequential as the 1933 burning of the Reichstag parliament building in Germany, which Hitler’s ascendant Nazi party attributed to communists, setting the stage for him to claim sweeping powers.
We are entering a new and perilous American world and it’s important to grasp that fact. In that context, let me mention a Russian moment when I did no such thing. I still feel guilty about a dinner I had with human-rights colleagues in 2014, including a Russian activist who had dedicated his career to documenting political violence and war crimes committed under successive Russian leaders from Joseph Stalin to Vladimir Putin. I was sitting at the far end of the table where I couldn’t catch much of the conversation and I joked that I was “out in Siberia.” Yes, my dinner companions graciously laughed, but with an undercurrent of discomfort and tension — and for good reason. They knew the dangerous world they were in and, in fact, that very activist has since been sent to a penal colony for his work discrediting the actions of the Russian armed forces. My joke is anything but a joke now and consider that a reminder of how quickly things can change — and not just in Russia, either.
In fact, oppression feels closer than ever in America today and verbal massaging, joking, or willful ignorance can only mask what another Trump presidency could mean for us all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can We Keep Both Fascism and Climate Doom at Bay?
The nation’s anti-democracy, fossil-fuel-loving political minority appears more determined than ever to gain enough power to turn us into a sweltering autocracy. We have less than one year to stop them in their tracks.
Dec 01, 2023
I’ve been arguing now for a year and a half that the enactment of bold new climate policies—bold enough to quickly drive U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions down to zero—can succeed only if we defeat the looming threat of far-right authoritarianism. And today, the nation’s anti-democracy, fossil-fuel-loving political minority appears more determined than ever to gain enough power to turn us into a sweltering autocracy. We have just 11 months left to stop them.
But now, suppose for a moment that do succeed and thwart MAGA extremists’ attempt to gain power over the federal government’s three branches. The road from there to bold climate policies, and many other urgently needed measures, will remain as rough and twisty as ever. Groundswells of public pressure will still be required to convince the timid souls on Capitol Hill to defy corporate resistance and enact strong, effective policies. And even then, it will be a long, hard struggle.
Let’s step back and have a look at why sweeping governmental intervention in the national economy is necessary in this greenhouse century.
And it won’t be a one-and-done victory. Especially with a goal like eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, laws will have to be protected from repeal for decades, and policies pursued with little or no interruption. That will require defeating anti-climate, anti-democracy forces in the Electoral College every four years while relegating them, through fair-and-square elections, to a permanent minority role in Congress. With that, we would essentially be living in a one-party state. Would we still be calling ourselves a democracy?
Before addressing that question, let’s step back and have a look at why sweeping governmental intervention in the national economy is necessary in this greenhouse century, and what it will take to achieve it.
Drastic Measures
In the books The Green New Deal and Beyond and The Path to a Livable Future, I discussed in some detail the policies I believe will be essential to rapidly reducing carbon emissions while ensuring that society adapts well to diminishing inputs of fossil fuels. Reducing emissions will require ever-lower caps on the extraction and use of oil, gas, and coal, along with deep transformation of our built environment and transportation systems. The phaseout of fossil fuels will have to be so rapid that the buildup of renewable energy capacity won’t be able to keep up: the country will have to operate on a much leaner energy diet. Therefore, adaptation will require the allocation of energy and material resources toward meeting society’s basic needs, rationing of fuels and electricity, provision of universal basic services, and other policies.
Needless to say, such an array of policies would constitute a dramatic intervention of federal power into the economy and society—dramatic, but not unprecedented. From 1933 through 1945, Washington took actions just as drastic, and on a similar scale. Such steps were widely viewed as necessary in the face of the tandem existential emergencies the nation faced during those years: the Great Depression and World War II.
The New Deal and wartime policies of the 1940s demonstrated the possibility of sweeping federal action under one-party governance.
The United States was able to enact and implement those policies partly because the government was under one-party control. Throughout those dozen years, President Franklin Roosevelt and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress generally accepted that drastic measures were necessary and carried them out. (Exceptions occurred on those occasions when Democrats representing states in the Jim Crow South killed labor and civil rights bills that they felt would weaken their ability to oppress Black people. Most notorious were the numerous House and Senate votes on anti-lynching legislation in 1934–35, in which southern Democrats killed every bill.)
The New Deal and wartime policies of the 1940s demonstrated the possibility of sweeping federal action under one-party governance. Today’s predicament is more . . . shall we say . . . complicated. In 2022, even with full control of the White House and Congress, Democratic lawmakers struggled to pass even the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act with its tepid provisions for a Green New Deal Lite (while shoring up voting rights was simply not possible). Passage of much bolder climate legislation, such as a fossil-fuel phaseout and planned resource allocation, will be possible only with stronger climate-friendly majorities in Congress, backed by a president who is prepared to take down the fossil-fuel industries once and for all. Even then, success is far from guaranteed.
(Here, a caveat is needed. The New Deal years marked the U.S. government’s last attempt to pursue social and environmental policies while enjoying freedom from the fiscal and moral constraints that come with being a military and imperialist superpower. In the 80 years that followed, under both Democratic and Republican administrations,militarism and imperialism have sapped our domestic resources and wreaked incalculable suffering abroad. Now we have bipartisan U.S. endorsement of Israel’s war on Palestine, which, as of November 19, had killed almost 15,000 civilians (including more than 6,000 children). The New York Times finds that “the pace of death during Israel’s campaign has few precedents in this century”; 34 UN experts have labeled the war a “genocide in the making.” With its complicity in this catastrophe, Washington’s moral standing has reached a new low. Whatever our government claims, both its history and the $3 billion in warmaking funds that it continues to send Israel each year show that any support U.S. officials may express for democracy and justice is only partial and applies only within the 50 states. The pursuit of pluralistic democracy, whether in the United States or worldwide, will continue to be left up to “We the People.”)
Teetering Between Democracy and Autocracy
Far too many Americans remain actively opposed to acting on climate change. Approximately 30 percent of respondents to a recently published Pew Research Center poll oppose U.S. efforts to become carbon-neutral by 2050 and would instead give priority to the expansion of domestic oil, gas, and coal production. Though far from a majority, they speak for tens of millions of people, and one of the two major political parties is enthusiastically advancing their cause. They would probably consider themselves disenfranchised under any future government that carries out a multi-decade, irreversible phaseout of fossil fuels. I confess that my heart wouldn’t bleed for them at all. Minorities who advocate regressive policies that have been rejected by the national majority do not and should not get their way. For example, I suspect that millions of Americans also would like to return to the days of racial segregation, but that’s not going to happen.
Constituents and elected leaders who would work for an economy dedicated to controlling and eventually eliminating greenhouse gases would also promulgate lots of other policies that are anathema to the MAGA right
That said, there’s the additional problem that we don’t live in the realm of individual issues anymore. In recent times, climate denial, Covid-19 denial, election denial, racial bigotry, attraction to authoritarian forms of power, and other dangerous stands are all closely aligned. If you buy into one, you probably buy into the whole package; you don’t want just the three-dollar burger; you get the $5.79 combo.
Constituents and elected leaders who would work for an economy dedicated to controlling and eventually eliminating greenhouse gases would also promulgate lots of other policies that are anathema to the MAGA right—and, by extension, to the economic, social, and political segments of society that it dominates. In a way, the federal government under ecologically sound majority rule would become a photographic negative of notorious state governments like those in Florida and Texas that have come under one-party MAGA control. Where would such a government lie, then, along the spectrum from pluralistic democracy to autocracy? It’s not an easy question.
I’ve recently had the good fortune to contribute a chapter to Democracy in a Hotter Time, a volume edited by David Orr that was published in September by MIT Press. In the book, a wide range of authors propose policies for strengthening and expanding U.S. democracy in the face of multiplying threats, while both curbing and adapting to climate change. But in Chapter 5, Ann Florini, Gordon LaForge, and Anne-Marie Slaughter provide a reality check, stressing the uphill battle that decisive climate action would face:
Even a healthy U.S. democracy would struggle mightily to respond effectively to the “wicked” problem of climate change. As humans, we would have to overcome innate cognitive limitations to accept the connection between everyday actions like driving and attenuated effects on climate. As voters, we would have to appreciate the importance of addressing a problem with limited immediate salience primarily for the benefit of future generations. Politicians would need the courage to fight for policies that would yield no visible benefits for voters in their political lifetimes. Change would have to occur over the tooth-and-nail opposition of the fossil fuel companies.
Given those obstacles, authors of several chapters acknowledge that ambitious climate mitigation policies could be implemented more easily by an authoritarian state than by a pluralistic democracy. But all seem to agree that a healthy, multiparty democracy is necessary if we’re to build a society that operates within critical ecological limits while also guaranteeing justice, equity, and sufficiency to all people.
Fascism’s Back in Fashion
There are precious few ideas today on which there’s broad agreement among politicians, media, and voters across the political spectrum. One of those rare points of bipartisan concurrence is the belief that democracy is at risk in the 2024 presidential election. And it’s not just a social media meme. Our political system indeed appears to be teetering at the midpoint between democracy and fascism, and it could tip either way in coming years.
Since 2017, the organization Protect Democracy has been tracking the ups and downs of the American polity with its Authoritarian Threat Index. The index, defined as a “score from 1 (healthy democracy) to 5 (total dictatorship),” is derived from surveys of academic scholars who study political institutions or democratic decline in countries around the world. In May 2017, the index stood at around 2, on the borderline between “low threat” and “significant threat” of authoritarianism or worse. It then increased steadily, month by month, until it rose above 3—into the “severe threat” zone—in September 2020. In February 2021, after a semi-peaceful transfer of presidential power, it fell back into the “significant threat” zone, but ominously, the index has once again been rising over the past year, threatening a return to “severe.”
It’s not only among right-wing officeholders and candidates that repudiation of democracy is endemic; it is also being expressed by a significant minority of voters. In a 2022 Ipsos survey of more than 8,600 US adults, 19 percent agreed either “strongly” or “very strongly” with the following statement: “Having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy.” Another 23 percent agreed “somewhat” with that statement. Those results, the authors noted, suggest that more than 100 million adults in this country would consider giving up on democracy and accepting authoritarian or even fascist rule—a petrifying prospect.
Regarding a couple of one-word terms often applied to Trump’s and his followers’ vision, former U.S. secretary of labor Robert Reich recently argued that “‘Authoritarianism’ isn’t adequate. It is fascism.” He pointed to five widely accepted core elements of fascism: rage against cultural elites; racist nationalism; subjugation of women and LGBTQ people; rejection of democracy, the rule of law, and equal rights in favor of a strongman; and glorification of brute strength and violence. All of these elements permeate MAGA politics.
To keep the hard right out of power by lawful means requires defeating it at the polls, soundly and consistently, into the long future—in effect, ensuring that the party they control becomes noncompetitive in national elections.
Evidence of that last item in the list—what political philosopher Mark Reiff describes as fascism’s “commitment to a destructive and bloody rebirth of society”—is unfolding right now, day by day. A poll released last month by the Public Religion Research Institute found 23 percent of respondents agreeing with the statement that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”—a frightening increase over the 15 percent agreement expressed just two years earlier.
The real-world impacts of these inflamed attitudes are evident in a trend that Reuters has reported as “the biggest and most sustained increase in political violence since the 1970s” in the United States. Robert Pape, the director of the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats, told Slate last month, “What our data and analysis shows is that 2024 is going to be a very, very volatile year. That is, there is serious reason to be concerned about rising political violence in 2024.”
I agree with my fellow authors of Democracy in a Hotter Time that we need to achieve both pluralistic democracy and strong measures against greenhouse gas emissions if we’re to have a livable future. But on both counts, trends are running against us. Reich’s five features of fascism essentially constitute the Republican Party platform. And climate action has become a casualty of the battle over the nation’s political future. To keep the hard right out of power by lawful means requires defeating it at the polls, soundly and consistently, into the long future—in effect, ensuring that the party they control becomes noncompetitive in national elections.
It’s more urgent than ever to prevail over the would-be autocrats.
Paradoxically, such total victory over an anti-democratic political movement would not necessarily be a triumph of democracy. So argue Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their recent book Tyranny of the Minority. Citing many historical precedents, they write, “Democracy at its heart is about competition, so short-circuiting it for too long can be self-defeating.” While accepting that conclusive defeat of malignant political forces is urgently necessary in emergencies like the one we face today, they argue that non-competitive democracy can’t be sustained for the long term. In this view, for example, the U.S. would need a new party to emerge in the coming years, one committed to multiracial democracy and capable of competing with the Democratic Party in national elections.
What does all this mean for the perfectly reasonable proposition that anti-democratic movements must be defeated if we are to preserve prospects for a livable Earth? I believe it’s more urgent than ever to prevail over the would-be autocrats. But how we should proceed if, sometime in, say, 2025, we see U.S. democracy, warts and all, survive to fight another round? I have no answer to that question; I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get there, should we be so lucky.
By then, we’ll be almost halfway through the 2020s, the very decade in which we were supposed to make dramatic progress in purging fossil fuels from U.S. society but have not. Intense grassroots activism will be required if we’re to finally drag the federal government across the climate starting line—especially if we’re locked, politically, in a rearguard action to keep the fascists at bay for decades to come.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Embraces Autocracies and Deteriorating Democracies to Challenge China
The administration sees the world as divided between U.S. military and economic power and the alliances supporting it, and the only peer competitor facing the United States.
Apr 01, 2023
The Biden administrationopened its second Summit for Democracy this week with a panel featuring India's Narendra Modi and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu. As the leaders of their countries, both have pursued similar forms of exclusionary nationalism.
Indeed, both Modi and Netanyahu were—as they spoke—facing political crises at home in response to their attempts to permanently sideline democratic opposition.
This was a seemingly discordant note with which to begin a democracy conference. Even so, it is very much in keeping with what the Biden administration means when it says that the United States is fighting a global battle for democracy against autocracy. Understanding the counterintuitive meaning of Biden's slogan is important both to see why this framing is so powerful among American leaders and why it is so dangerous to the health of global democracy.
The administration's interpretation is best captured in its 2022 National Security Strategy:
The most pressing strategic challenge facing our vision [of a free, open, prosperous, and secure world] is from powers that layer authoritarian governance with a revisionist foreign policy. It is their behavior that poses a challenge to international peace and stability—especially waging or preparing for wars of aggression, actively undermining the democratic political processes of other countries, leveraging technology and supply chains for coercion and repression, and exporting an illiberal model of international order. Many non-democracies join the world's democracies in forswearing these behaviors. Unfortunately, Russia and the People's Republic of China (PRC) do not.
The salient division in the world, then, is not between democracies and autocracies but between countries that support the existing international order and the two autocracies—China and Russia—that are seeking to reshape it in illiberal ways.
But this raises some awkward questions:
One: Which side are autocratic U.S. allies on if, like Saudi Arabia and UAE, they wage wars of aggression, undermine the democratic political processes of other countries, and use technology for repression?
Two: Which side are democratic countries on if they support China's efforts to reshape the international order? This is quite common, because many of the things that China does to "tilt the global playing field to its benefit" are things that poor countries—democratic or not—must do if they are to achieve economic development.
Three: Which side is the U.S. on? Because the U.S. violates the rules-based order and engages in coercion on a regular basis. Leaving aside a long list of examples under earlier presidents and looking only at the Biden administration, the U.S. is currently incapacitating the world trade dispute resolution system; supporting Russia's argument that it can exempt itself from any economic agreement (in this case, throttling Ukraine's trade) merely by invoking national security; building a comprehensive blockade on Chinese businesses' access to certain advanced technologies; seeking to destroy China's most successful private multinational company, Huawei; and maintaining an extraterritorial sanctions regime that has done terrible damage to Iran's economy.
The United States welcomes as client states outright autocracies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt and deteriorating democracies like India, Israel, and Italy in order to turn back the huge threat that administration officials think a powerful China poses to the principle of democracy itself.
So the particular list of allegations against Russia and China, which does not apply equally to both countries, also fails to clearly distinguish the "democracy" team from the "autocracy" team. But the Biden administration has a deeper rationale in mind. As Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, "China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it." Ultimately the United States welcomes as client states outright autocracies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt and deteriorating democracies like India, Israel, and Italy in order to turn back the huge threat that administration officials think a powerful China poses to the principle of democracy itself.
What is the nature of that threat? Often the administration accuses China of exporting its authoritarian model in the form of surveillance technology—technology that companies in the U.S. and allied states also sell. Or they highlight China's campaign to change "democratic norms" at the United Nations. For example, China has sought to elevate collective rights, such as the right to economic development, to the same level as individual rights.
Members of the Biden administration have argued that such a goal would dilute individual rights and empower autocratic states to speak in the name of their people. This perspective, however, is not shared by the overwhelming majority of democratic developing countries. They stand on this issue and many others alongside their authoritarian counterparts, against the opposition of the rich democratic countries. In U.S. political culture, the interests of wealthy countries are often represented as the interests of democratic countries.
Beijing also rejects the "universal values" that the U.S. champions and seeks respect for "the diversity of civilizations," including those that do not recognize liberal democratic rights and freedoms. The Biden administration has a point here—China does seek to overturn the rhetorical dominance that liberal values have enjoyed in recent decades—but the presence of numerous autocrats and aspiring autocrats in U.S.-led coalitions is eloquent proof that liberal rhetoric does little to restrain authoritarians.
Finally, Biden has made the point that if Chinese authoritarianism is stable and prosperous while U.S. democracy is dysfunctional and stagnant, democracy will lose its appeal around the world. But it is hard to find examples of this happening in practice. China's recent history of Party-state rule sets it apart from most other countries, making it unpersuasive as a model. And third countries are perfectly capable of valuing partnership with China without losing faith in democracy. In a 2022 survey of African leaders, China was preferred over the United States (46% to 9%) as a partner on infrastructure development; yet the U.S. was chosen over China (32% to 1%) when it comes to cooperation around governance and the rule of law.
The idea that a popularity contest between two powerful countries is what determines the choice of political regime in other countries is, in any case, both implausible and insulting.
Why, then, is the idea that China poses a potentially existential threat to democracy so widespread in Washington? Because over the last two decades, the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism ("free markets and free individuals")—which underwrote the narrow concept of democracy that drove the Third Wave of democratization and supplied the intellectual foundations for the U.S. political elite in recent decades—has disintegrated at home and abroad.
This ideology's loss of legitimacy is a global phenomenon, but in Washington it was experienced as the outcome of a series of increasingly disastrous setbacks for U.S. economic and military aspirations, starting with the dotcom crash and 9/11, ramifying through the failures of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the Iraq War, and the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, and culminating in the 2008 global financial crisis and the Great Recession.
The sense of crisis only grew over the following decade as previously marginalized political currents represented by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders suddenly posed a serious challenge to the political status quo in the United States.
For mainstream American political leaders, the three essential parts of the post-Cold War global system—U.S. military hegemony, free market globalization, and a specifically neoliberal vision of democracy and human rights—were inseparably interwoven
For mainstream American political leaders, the three essential parts of the post-Cold War global system—U.S. military hegemony, free market globalization, and a specifically neoliberal vision of democracy and human rights—were inseparably interwoven. Now referred to in Washington as the "rules-based international order," a challenge to any part of the package is considered an attack on the whole, and American leaders are particularly sensitive to such challenges given the fragility of the whole system.
Today's China, though a product of that very system, was also the most prominent country to reject liberal democracy and U.S. hegemony. And in the years since 2008, it has been a step or two ahead of other countries—in some ways constructive and in some horrifying—as every country moves beyond the system. So even though China has been little involved in the specific U.S. failures of the last two decades, it nonetheless stands in as a symbol of all the setbacks that U.S. power and ideology have faced.
Though China's success within the "rules-based international order" has given it a major stake in sustaining and shoring up significant parts of the system, that success has also made China far more powerful than more antagonistic countries like Russia or North Korea. Because Washington sees China as both hostile and powerful, the image of a menacing China offers a shared focus for U.S. leaders that could overcome the debilitating partisan divisions afflicting the country's governance—a point that Biden has made many times.
So it's true that the Biden administration does not see the world as divided between democracies and autocracies. But it does see the world as divided between democracy in the abstract—understood to be the same as U.S. military and economic power and the alliances supporting it—and autocracy in the abstract, represented by the only peer competitor facing the United States, China.
This emerging consensus in Washington is driven by insecurity and defensiveness rather than a serious analysis of the real forces endangering democracy around the world. As such, U.S. leaders have neglected the single most important question: is international conflict and geopolitical bloc formation likely to nourish democracy—or will it strengthen in every country the most threatening authoritarian political currents, namely militarism, nationalism, and nativism?
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy