American democracy's chance of survival - Distinguishing factors, Part 1
Hi all,
In trying to predict whether America will ultimately prevail in averting a full democratic breakdown, a comparative perspective enables us to examine both the features we share with other cases of democratic resilience/backsliding, but also the primary factors that may distinguish us. This is the first post in a sequence that explores several areas where the United States may differ from the other 95 cases of fascist attacks (identified in the study summarized in the previous post), which may prove significant in our fight to save our democracy.
These are the first three that stand out to me, which I expand on below:
- America’s federalist structure and the complexity and size of our court systems.
- America’s geographic size and diversity of population.
- DOGE and the administration’s fast and frenzied dismantling of governmental institutions and services.
America’s federalist structure.
There are certainly a number of failed democracies that also had federalist government structures. However, in tandem with our comparatively established and stable rule of law (at least, up until recently), the complexity and size of the U.S. federal court system and our 50 state courts (plus DC!) may still somewhat distinguish the United States.
Historically, one of the first moves a fascist campaign makes to subvert a democracy is to capture its courts. And for good reason, considering the critical role that judicial constraints on the executive play in thwarting a fascist attack. The same is true here in the United States, where we have witnessed a decades-long push to capture the courts, largely led by the Federalist Society (and their funders), which has enjoyed moderate success.
However, a credible case can be made that the judicial branch is not entirely lost, as exemplified by the remarkable events of the past week. Since my last post, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 emergency order after midnight on Saturday morning, blocking the administration from banishing a second group of Venezuelan immigrants to a brutal Salvadoran prison camp without due process. Moreover, they issued this order before Alito had a chance to complete his dissent, which speaks to the urgency of the matter, SCOTUS's diminishing willingness to take the DOJ at its word, as well as potentially shifting dynamics within the bench. Here is a really helpful write-up on what happened and its potential significance.
And, here is a powerful opinion issued last week by the 4th Circuit in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, written by a Reagan-appointed, widely-respected conservative judge. Here is a particularly poignant excerpt:
It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order...
...This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear...
...It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
The fact that a meaningful portion of our judiciary still intends to fulfill their role as a bulwark for the preservation of the America’s constitutional democracy, despite a decades-long push to capture the courts, may be aided in part by the size and complexity of our court systems.
The rash of lawsuits around the country pushing back on the administration’s many illegal actions—the vast majority of which have been decided unfavorably (thus far) for the Trump administration, with some of those being presided over by Trump-/GOP-appointed judges—gives additional reason for cautious optimism. Moreover, the increasingly frustrated admonishments by judges for shoddy work suggests that the DOJ's lawyers may already be buckling under the pressure of the rapidly growing mountain of lawsuits, as well as from trying to walk the tightrope between pleasing Trump and making a credible legal argument or even just veribly answering judges' basic factual questions. (Arguably, this alone makes it a bit more difficult for judges, who may otherwise tend to be sympathetic to the administration, to credibly rule in their favor.)
As discussed in the previous post, there is still a big question-mark about how the Supreme Court will rule as more and more of these cases wind their way up to our highest court. And, even if the Supreme Court (unlike Congress) does decide to preserve its own status as a coequal branch of power, the courts are a slow-moving defense. The amount of damage that may be done in the interim could end up being insurmountable.
As also discussed in the last post, we now sit at perhaps the most pivotal juncture for our constitutional crisis—enforcement. If (or, more likely, when) the Trump administration defies court rulings, who is going to take the necessary next steps to hold them in contempt? Trump’s sycophantic Justice Department? The craven congressional Republicans? Flying pigs? Moreover, what (potentially extreme) steps might the administration take if there is an attempt to hold them in contempt?
(Here is one piece that makes the case that Trump realizes it is not in his best interest to undermine the Supreme Court’s legitimacy by refusing to comply, but I remain skeptical that this clash is avoidable.)
How this plays out is one of the most pivotal factors in whether the U.S. will avoid a full democratic breakdown. But, thus far, there is reason for cautious optimism. To that end, I recommend subscribing to the newsletter Democracy Docket, who provides really useful analysis of the latest developments.
America’s geographic size and diversity of population.
Turning now to a related factor that may also distinguish America’s current fight to save its democracy—our geographic size and diversity of population. This is not totally unique to the United States; India is also still in the middle of its own fight against a full democratic breakdown. However, combined with the length of our democratic history (i.e. democratic stock), these factors may provide some buffer from the current fascist attack on our democracy.
Protests and mass mobilization are essential in resisting the early stages of an assault on a democracy, which is why aspiring-fascists endeavor to shut these down as quickly as possible. (I recommend watching this powerful video about why sustained, widespread protests are a crucial component of halting or reversing a full democratic breakdown.) However, the capacity for the U.S. federal government to use levers of control and intimidation to effectively curb protests throughout the United States may be comparatively circumscribed.
First, the number of protestors and protests that would have to be effectively shut down, punished, and/or intimidated would require the participation of a multitude of enforcement agencies and local court systems, encompassing a wide range of diverse, geographically-dispersed jurisdictions. (For reference, there are ~18,000 local law enforcement agencies in this country.)
This suggests it would be tricky for the federal government to shut down protests nationwide, at least within short order. And, timing matters. Rather than act as a deterrent, the optics of the use of force to shut down a smaller number of protests is more likely to spark a wildfire that further enflames public anger and emboldens citizens to mobilize across the country. The history of our own country, as well as many others, is replete with examples illustrating how a brutal crackdown on protestors or even just a single activist can galvanize the public to take to the streets en masse.
Yes, there are some countries (read: China) that are much larger, which have been able to deter most forms of public resistance. However, this is where democratic stock comes back into play. American citizens have a long and rich history of political mobilization. The idea of living in a democracy and having certain inalienable rights, such as to protest, is engrained in the American psyche and is a core part of our national identity. And, much like social security, it becomes much harder to take such things away once people have a taste of it.
One caveat to note, however, is that a not-insignificant number of local law enforcement agencies have been captured by rightwing extremism. Sadly, I do not doubt that there are some number of officers within these ranks who would think little about pulling the trigger on “libtard” protestors; who may even be eagerly anticipating it. Although I do believe they are the minority, regardless, as more and more suffering hits these communities, as Trump and his policies increasingly stoke public backlash, as more and more members of these communities take to the streets across the country, this may begin to somewhat suppress local law enforcement’s appetite to wield violence against protestors.
Another advantage afforded by having long been a democracy (albeit, a deeply flawed one) is the number of organizations and networks that we have already built up. Borne out of Trump 1.0, for example, Indivisible has taken a leadership role in the mobilization efforts during Trump 2.0. More recently, newer organizations such as 50501 and #TeslaTakedown have quickly taken the mantle in coordinating and mobilizing protests throughout the nation and beyond. Beyond political organizations, whether it be community civic groups, religious organizations, professional associations, or even more informal groups formed around common interests–Americans have an already-extant network of dense and rich organization, which can be marshaled rather efficiently to come together for action. This is another powerful impediment to the federal government's ability to quickly and effectively quell protests nation-wide.
Finally, I know that many have questioned where the anger is… I have heard so many people ask why there are not more people taking to the streets. In part, this is because so many Democratic leaders have neglected to vocally condemn what is happening around us with the righteous outrage this moment demands. Opting instead to heed the advice of the outworn consultant class that has mostly failed their party for over a decade now–thereby gaslighting the public by acting as though this is politics as usual. I will return to this more in future posts; but, in the meantime, I am here to tell you that people are ANGRY. Just watch some of the recent town halls with the volume on. The anger is palpable. Even in deep red Trump-voting districts.
And, people are protesting, in numbers that eclipse what was happening at this point in the first Trump administration. As the graph here shows, protests have been alive and well. As are boycotts. People have also been showing up in record numbers to the Sanders and AOC rallies. And, there is no sign of any of this abating. You just aren’t hearing much about them from the billionaire-captured legacy media or on your social media feeds. I will return in future posts to the media's complicity in the current assault on our democracy, but just comparing the U.S. media’s paltry coverage of the April 5th protests to the prominent coverage the protests received from foreign news outlets is… illuminating.
So, do not be fooled… there are tons of demonstrations happening across the country, and that number is only growing. (Rachel Maddow usually has a segment during each show summarizing recent protests taking place across the country, which you can find on YouTube if you are looking for inspiration or even just need a reminder that you are not alone in your fear and rage.) And this matters a ton, more than you may think. As much as it may sound cliché, there is immense power in the people. One recent study, for example, suggests that if 3.5% of a population mobilizes, it can compel political change.
DOGE and the administration’s fast and frenzied dismantling of governmental institutions and services.
I reckon that, short of wartime measures, never has a government’s actions so immediately and tangibly decreased the quality of life for such a wide swath of American citizens. I am guessing that it is also unprecedented how quickly it has become evident that those behind the dismantling of our federal government are deeply incompetent and unfit for the task of governance. And, every day, these same individuals increasingly let their masks slip, putting less and less effort into maintaining even the pretense of being motivated to serve the public good… nor even just the good of their own voters.
What stands out about all of the administration’s/DOGE’s frenetic activities is just how nonstrategic or even anti-strategic it all appears to be. Yes, they are trying to shock and awe us, which is a strategy that can successfully distract, demoralize, and destabilize the public, with the intention of cowing or demobilizing would-be sources of resistance. Flooding the zone is also useful to ensure that the media can’t or won’t concentrate on a single scandal or egregious executive action long enough to compel a response by those in a position (for now) to do something about it.
But, even this “strategy” needs to be mindful not to alienate key sectors in that society, whose assistance or, at least, acquiescence is needed along the way. A campaign to destroy a democracy should also be careful to avoid waking up the masses while they still have any capacity left to mobilize for resistance. In both of these regards, the DOGE-led dismantling of our federal government is floundering.
In very short order (and mostly without links, because these news stories are easy to find), they have pissed off members of the military with their cuts to the VA and dishonoring the service and sacrifices of vets and even esteemed military leaders. They have angered federal workers with insulting emails, mass firings, and policy changes intended to make their working lives miserable. They are in the process of gutting the USPS. Slashing the services that protect and preserve our national parks, just in time for summer travel. Made us all a little more scared to get on an airplane after firing a bunch of FAA’s already under-staffed air traffic controllers. Shrinking FEMA in a time of mounting devastation from climate-change intensified natural disasters. Storming into government offices and enabling 20-something tech bros to illegally access reams of citizens’ private information, effectively destroying any capacity to ensure its protection and raising questions about its potential nefarious misuses. Gutting the IRS, already costing the country an estimated half a trillion in taxes. Slashing research budgets, halting scientific studies across a range of fields integral to human progress—including stalling clinical studies of potentially life-saving medications and denying access to patients mid-treatment—ceding America’s position as a leader in science and innovation. And, if the total lack of short-, mid-, and long-term strategy wasn’t already apparent… they are touching the third rail of social security.
Beyond DOGE, Trump has also embarked on a wide range of executive actions without any clear strategy, most of which will immediately and tangibly decrease the quality of life for most Americans. To name just a few, this includes tanking our economy for no good reason because “tariffs” (wait, no tariffs… never mind, tariffs back on… orrrrr maybe not… nope, definitely on… unless…), angering various business sectors, the farming industry, and even Wall Street—many of whom previously felt bullish about Trump’s second-term economy. Then there are the horrific ICE kidnappings of legal residents and visa holders without due process, some of whom have been sent to brutal prison camps abroad. Add to this the threats to universities and law firms, in their attempt to cow these elite institutions that might otherwise be sources of resistance. As well as the daily madness on display by his cabinet of kakistocracy, whose incompetence, evil, and lunacy promises to wreak havoc for so many Americans. The list goes on, and is sure to keep growing.
Not only do they not have the legal authority to unilaterally do much of the above, a disproportionate amount of the repercussions will directly affect communities that have been reliably pro-Trump/GOP-supporters—whose zealous fealty is a large source of Trump’s power to dominate and intimidate other elected officials. And, there is mounting evidence that a growing number of Trump supporters, from the average voter to business elites, are increasingly second-guessing their vote. Yes, there are many who still stubbornly (desperately) believe that this is part of some master plan, and this is all going to be replaced by a better system… but it will grow increasingly difficult to cling to this buoy as the wake of all of this destruction washes over people’s communities and daily lives.
The nonstrategic rolling out of Trump 2.0 has also increasingly motivated law firms and universities to preemptively band together in common defense–an action these otherwise risk-adverse institutions may not have undertaken had it not so quickly become evident that bending the knee (ah hem, Columbia University) would do little more than tell the bully you're an easy target to continue beating up on. And, whether it be an attempt to defy being held in contempt or to squash protests, at some point the administration may try to call upon our military and/or other enforcement agencies. Sure, ICE and the U.S. Marshals seem more than happy to carry out extralegal brutalities, but there is a decent chance that Trump's early actions, particularly gutting the V.A. and the multiple ways he has dishonored those who have serve(d) this country, may have dampened other military branches' and enforcement agencies' willingness to do his unconstitutional bidding.
The total lack of strategy beyond just razing everything to the ground may prove consequential, by alienating, angering, and mobilizing sectors of society whose assistance or, at least, acquiescence is needed by the Trump administration to fully realize the destruction of American democracy.
In closing, I know this was a long read and I appreciate you sticking with it. In Part 2 of distinguishing factors for our democracy's chance of survival, I'll put Musk and his motivations under the microscope, as well as discuss the role played by our increasingly illiberal tech oligarchy in pushing this country to the brink.