Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote a prescient bestseller, How Democracies Die, which was published not quite two years after Donald Trump landed in the White House. Although the authors inform us (in the introduction of Tyranny of Minority Rule) that they were surprised by what transpired in the last two years of that term — “We have studied violent insurrections and efforts to overturn elections all over the world, from France and Spain to Ukraine and Russia to the Philippines, Peru, and Venezuela. But we never imagined we’d see them here. Nor did we ever imagine that one of America’s two major parties would turn away from democracy in the 21st century.” — their book offers a clear explanatory framework, foreshadowing what took place after their book went to print in January 2018.
In an interview with Michael Tomasky, they suggest something else they had not foreseen: that as Trump returns to power with Republican control of both houses of Congress, attacks on civil society and on political opponents pose the greatest threat to our democratic institutions.
As Ziblatt puts it: “the need to rewrite the Constitution, say à la Viktor Orbán, is probably not the thing that’s concerning at this moment, because our Constitution works pretty well for the party that’s in control of all branches of government, and really the more serious concern is the risk of those in power going after the democratic opposition in ways that undermine competition. So it’s not about changing the rules, but really attacking civil society, attacking the opposition. That’s something that we really didn’t spell out in that scenario back in 2018, but it’s something that is top of mind for me right now.”
Levitsky suggests that “we’re going to see really classic authoritarian behavior. Many of us tend to think that—particularly given that most of us haven’t experienced authoritarianism in the United States—we tend to think of authoritarianism as dissolving the Constitution, locking up opponents, and eliminating electoral competition. And that’s highly unlikely. It’s very, very unlikely that we see a move toward sort of Putin-style authoritarianism.”
He continues:
But what I think has gotten insufficient attention among Americans is the centrality of simply politicizing the state and deploying it in ways not only to punish rivals, but also to change the cost-benefit calculation of actors across the political spectrum and throughout civil society so that they have an incentive to sort of step to the sidelines. And so, you know, first and foremost, we’ve been told to expect that the Department of Justice will be wielded to punish those who have tried to hold the Trump administration accountable. I think we’ll see it wielded against some politicians. We’ll see it wielded against some businesspeople. We’ll see it wielded against some civil society leaders. We may see it wielded against Harvard and other elite universities.
So I think this government will, far more than the first Trump administration, politicize key state agencies and wield them in ways that raise the cost of continued opposition. There may be a handful, dozens, of exemplary cases, but those cases have the potential to signal to thousands and thousands of other people that it’s just not worth engaging in politics the way they used to before. And so, young lawyers will not jump into politics, but rather stay in the law firm. Young journalists will decide to stick to the sports beat rather than cover politics. Young CEOs will decide that it’s better just not to donate to the Democratic Party. It’s very difficult to gauge how consequential that will be, but that tilting of the playing field is coming.
Let’s underscore that “classic authoritarian” threat (which goes beyond hollowing out effective government agencies and weaponizing law enforcement against Trump’s opponents): to change the cost-benefit calculation of actors across the political spectrum and throughout civil society so that they have an incentive to sort of step to the sidelines.
This authoritarian strategy is already seeing success even before Trump’s return to the White House.
Consider the billionaires and corporate CEOs who own and run mass communications outfits. Two recent headlines describe the threat to these folks (“Trump signals plans to use all levers of power against the media“) and the media’s swift response (“Media’s suck up moment“). Threats from the president-elect and his MAGA allies have hardly been veiled. The folks threatened understand how much financial and reputational damage a hostile federal government could bring. They are already falling into line. That’s anticipatory obedience.
Timothy Snyder, in On Tyranny, warns in Lesson #1: “Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want and then offer themselves without being asked.”
Yeah, that’s happening. Right before our eyes.
And it’s not just media moguls. Once upon a time, in the aftermath of the January 6 rioting at the Capitol, corporations pledged to withhold support for those who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. These businesses were for democracy then. But that promise has gone by the wayside for many of them, as they offer lavish inaugural gifts in tribute to the vindictive soon-to-return president.
The incentives have changed. The world is different. It’s tougher to refuse to obey. Our freedom is more constrained than before.
[Post edited for clarity and additional links added on January 2, 2025.]
Leave a Reply