Dire Days: What if Trump Does Everything He's Promised--and the People Don't Care?

[Celerity]

The authors of the bestselling “How Democracies Die” talk with editor Michael Tomasky about what kind of mark four more years of Donald Trump might leave on this democracy.

https://newrepublic.com/article/189233/trump-2025-second-term-agenda-democracy

https://archive.ph/WZW5W



And here we go again. President-elect Donald Trump wasted little time in signaling to Americans, through his Cabinet nominations and White House appointments, that he plans to move quickly to act on his most extreme promises. What kind of United States will we have in a year, or in four? How will the country and its democratic institutions change? What are the chances he doesn’t succeed? And what if he does—and an apathetic, exhausted, and inward-looking populace shrugs? We could think of no one better to ask these questions than Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, the Harvard scholars who were co-authors of the 2018 bestseller How Democracies Die. They spoke with editor Michael Tomasky on November 25. Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

MICHAEL TOMASKY: I want to start with this question. I was struck by this passage in the last chapter of How Democracies Die, where you posit three possible futures of a post-Trump America. One was the optimistic one. One was kind of a wash. Then another, which was numbered your second, a much darker future, was “one in which President Trump and the Republicans continue to win with a white nationalist appeal. Under this scenario, a pro-Trump GOP would retain the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the vast majority of statehouses, and it would eventually gain a solid majority in the Supreme Court.” Well … I’m not sure when you wrote that whether you thought that would come true, but here we are. And you say that this scenario could lead to confrontation, even violent conflict, which in turn could lead to heightened police repression. Daniel, now that this scenario is about to be reality, what’s your assessment of our situation in this country?

DANIEL ZIBLATT: When we wrote that, we didn’t think it was the most likely scenario. But as you say, here we are, and I think there are serious reasons to have concerns. There continue to be sources of resilience that we’re happy to talk about. One point I would make at the outset is that 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.

TOMASKY: Well, let’s spell it out here. Steven, what would that attack on the democratic opposition look like?

STEVEN LEVITSKY: This is really classic authoritarian stuff. We don’t know how stable the majorities that the Republicans just won will be. I could not have imagined in 2017 a future in which Trump would govern as he governed and then win the popular vote in 2024. We don’t know whether they will have any success in locking these majorities in. We could still very much be in a scenario closer to regime instability than stable authoritarianism. In either case, 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.

snip

[Walleye]

1. If Trump ends his term and our democracy is still working, he will be considered a failure by his foreign backers

[Fichefinder]

2. They will love him more and blame us

[Algernon Moncrieff]

4. I think the "foreign backers" thing has been overstated

During term 1, everyone whispered that Putin had something on him. I bought it at that time, but now I think it's just a mutual admiration society - nothing more. And we saw this coming during Bush 2 - with talk of the "Unitary Executive" and "I am the decider."

My theory is families like the Ricketts and Kochs are calling the shots in Congress, and that they are urging Trump to suppress opposition. This, Trumps score-settling will not bother them. The end game won't be the elimination of elections but the the elevation of the Republican party to that that the PRI once had in Mexico. Opposition will exist but will have no meaningful power.

[Walleye]

5. I never really thought Putin had something on Trump except that Trump admires him and wants to go, which is the same as

Doing businesses to him, like Putin. I think he admires and wants to emulate Putin and his ilk

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. Exactly

It plays into the "we need a businessman to run the country" mindset. Basically a CEO to call the shots.

[sop]

3. America is already a Post-Democracy.

"A post-democratic society is one that continues to have and to use all the institutions of democracy, but in which they increasingly become a formal shell. The energy and innovative drive pass away from the democratic arena and into small circles of a politico-economic elite." - Colin Crouch, 'Post-Democracy'

After Trump takes power, America will move closer to Anocracy, a form of government that is part democracy and part dictatorship.

[2naSalit]

7. I'll be dead...

sooner than I had planned.