It’s fascinating to try and stop the nightmare of what’s going on in Washington, DC in this tragic moment.
“I wake up every day and feel really bad in my stomach and my heart feels heavy,” my friend Laura, who closely follows the news, recently texted me.
Understood. It’s horrifying to see Donald Trump and his fellow Elon Musk wreak havoc on the agency at the National Archives to USAID facility, permeating the data system and burning watchdogs inside. , stealing every aspect of your in-laws, taking away every aspect of your body, blackmailing, and intimidating, and the happiness of dedicated civil servants and persecuting the most vulnerable people in our society.
Common sense, basic morality, and humiliation to good government seem to come every hour. Some are miserable, and some are relatively small, like the anti-science RFK JR, whom he chose for his health and welfare secretary – the rage over the Gulf of Mexico renaming.
Put them all together, and it feels as if we’re watching the US burst right in front of our eyes. Not only did the country be deeply flawed, it also supported democratic norms like the rule of law.
And it’s all happening very quickly and very relentlessly.
The noble media debate about whether we are in a constitutional crisis does not capture the seriousness. The term does not begin to capture fundamentalism, “what unfolds in federal bureaucracy and Congressional decisions to not act could be liquidated in terms of constitutional meaning,” he said earlier this month. I said to.
Worse, there is little reason to think that things will improve quickly or at all.
In an important piece published this week in the Foreign Affairs Journal, renowned scholars Stephen Levitsky and Lucan write that democracy is always at greater risk in modern American history.
They predict that American democracy is likely to collapse during the Second Trump administration in the sense that it will stop meeting standard standards for liberal democracy: Full Adult Election “Rights, free and fair elections, broad protection of civil liberties.”
These political scientists see us transition to “comparative authoritarianism.” It’s not a full-scale dictatorship, it certainly goes that way.
They are giving advice to anyone who wants to slow this juggernaut down. This includes civil servants, journalists, lawyers, judges, and ordinary Americans.
“Hold the line,” they say.
“Trump will be vulnerable. The administration’s limited public support and inevitable mistakes create opportunities for democratic military forces in Congress, courts and ballot boxes.”
But here’s the warning: “The opposition can only win if they stay in the game.”
That’s not easy. Infinite harassment and threats — indeed blackmail — will discourage many Trump critics from standing up.
We’ve already seen a lot in a way that has eased the tone of voice towards Trump and reported facts, but hasn’t caused anger.
We believe that ABC News should have fought and perhaps should have won with the decision to settle Trump’s claim of honour and loss. Even before the election, we saw it in the sudden withdrawal of anti-Trump editors in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
Some of this retreat is invisible, a note from Levitsky and Lukan. The kind of talented young lawyer who may have run for public office in the past may decide that in this ugly environment it is a bad idea.
Without making a direct statement, many who oppose Trump’s move move to the bystanders and bow their heads.
“A hideout like this would be dangerous,” the author points out. “When fear, fatigue, or resignation crowds citizens’ commitment to democracy, urgent authoritarianism begins to take root.”
At some point, there is no turn back.
What can a normal American do? Perhaps most importantly, they can continue to provide information and engage.
They can track what’s going on. You can just raise your hands and think about sports, entertainment, and family life.
They can support news organizations (no matter how incomplete) and democratic institutions, including individual journalists. They can help ensure that votes occur fairly and freely in their communities, including volunteers as voting workers.
They can communicate with elected representatives, communicate what they are unacceptable and encourage them when they do something right. They can do the same thing with journalists and their bosses.
They can donate to organizations that advocate for the press and speech rights, such as the Press Committee for Freedom of the Press and Penn America. They can find a reliable voice, like my guardian colleague Robert Reich and many others.
Sadly, some of my most ideal friends decided to check out. After all, they did what they could to prevent Trump from winning a second term – they voted, donated, they wrote letters to future voters, and they worked on the campaign.
They say the compassion is over because they failed to see it.
I understand that attitude. If I’m not a journalist writing about politics or the media, I might be tempted to do the same thing.
I’m not sure that staying aware and engaged makes a difference.
What I know is that if we all tuned, there’s absolutely no hope.
