As I researched writings on anti-democratic politics, I discovered a striking pattern in their modernization. That is, these movements almost uniformly argue that the most aggressive anti-democratic policies are actually a defense of democracy.
For example, Donald Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election, but claimed he was not trying to steal the election, but rather to “stop the theft” that Joe Biden had already successfully done. insisted.
When Trump returned to power this year, I expected similar rhetorical maneuvers to be deployed to justify his inevitable power grab. And indeed, many of President Trump’s Day One executive orders did just that.
For example, consider President Trump’s reinstatement of Schedule F. In theory, President Trump could fire tens of thousands of nonpartisan public servants and replace them with MAGA cronies. Such a move would consolidate major powers of the state into the hands of the executive branch in a way that was crucial to the rise of elected authoritarians like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. , would pose a serious threat to democracy.
But in the text of the executive order, Trump touts the move as a vindication of democratic principles. Because the president and vice president are the only elected members of the executive branch who are “directly accountable to the people,” there is a need to be able to exercise greater control over civil servants “to restore accountability to career civil servants.” There is.
The same goes for other executive orders that could support President Trump’s efforts to consolidate his power.
The executive order “Restoring Free Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” does not provide specific protections against abusive surveillance or internet moderation practices. However, it has ordered the attorney general to launch an investigation into Biden administration policies that could provide an excuse to harass or fire federal employees who do not sympathize with President Trump’s politics.
Orders that purport to counter the “weaponization” of the federal government similarly do little to prevent President Trump from, for example, ordering his attorney general to investigate his political opponents or the Internal Revenue Service to audit them. do not have. In fact, it lays the groundwork for two separate investigations into Biden administration policies that could ultimately target both federal employees and civilians.
Another personnel order, billed as a way to hold the government “properly accountable” to “the American people,” would give greater political control to the upper echelon of the civil service, the Senior Executive Service (SES). It is imposed. Among other things, it fires all members of the Management Resources Board, which oversees recruitment to these positions, and reassigns the board to a “majority” of “non-career employees” (which presumably means Trump’s political appointees). is requesting that you do so.
Mr. Trump will almost certainly not do anything as blatant as abolishing elections in the future. Instead, every move will be given democratic protection and every power grab will be portrayed as a victory for the American people over the “deep state.”
The goal is to reduce the reality of the situation to a mere partisan debate, with Trump saying one thing and Democrats (and the media) saying another. The erosion of core democratic principles such as separation of powers and political non-interference in government functions may seem to many to be a perfectly normal part of democracy.
America’s veiled origins of authoritarianism
In this book, I argue that the practice of describing anti-democratic politics as true democracy is very American, and its history is almost as old as the republic itself. A prominent political figure in the early 19th century, John C. Calhoun did more than anyone else to advance politics.
Calhoun defined his politics in liberal terms, arguing that “government has no right to control individual liberties beyond what is necessary for the safety and welfare of society.” However, Calhoun’s belief that some people, especially black people, were inherently inferior meant that the state had to treat some people with “absolute and tyrannical policies to protect society from anarchy and destruction.” This meant that he believed that it was right to exercise “great power.”
Calhoun’s arguments, and those of his pro-slavery contemporaries, directly and self-consciously mirror European feudal debates about the natural inequalities of humanity. In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the antebellum American South (as opposed to the more genuinely democratic North) functioned very similarly to the continent’s aristocracy.
However, the Calhounians were unable to openly advocate the virtues of an authoritarian worldview in a country that saw itself as an outpost of republican freedom, so they shrouded authoritarian ideas in discussions of liberal democracy. Developed strategies to hide. Slavery was not a form of arbitrary, authoritarian control, but an ancient freedom that white people deserved to exercise. The banning of abolitionist newspapers was not a restriction on free speech, but rather an attempt to protect the unique freedoms of the South from northern cultural domination.
This practice outlasted slavery, and the Jim Crow South developed a new rhetorical façade designed to justify the creation of state-level authoritarian enclaves in democratic terms.
The global spread of American-style authoritarianism
Similar practices became popular around the world as democracy became ideologically dominant around the world.
Today, its most sophisticated practitioners are elected officials such as Orbán, Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi, who have worked to destroy democracy from within.
Orbán has described his political project as actually the construction of an authoritarian kleptocracy, an attempt to wrest control of Hungarian democracy from the Eurocrats in Brussels. Certain tactics, such as restricting LGBT speech on television, are sold as policy extensions. The will of the Hungarian people.
When Prime Minister Netanyahu sought to impose political control on Israel’s judiciary in 2023, lifting the only formally independent check on the majority’s power, Prime Minister Netanyahu sought to impose public control over the unelected branch. He claimed that he was just reconfirming the issue.
And it turns out that when Mr. Modi introduced campaign finance reforms in 2017 that he claimed would wipe out Indian elections, he was actually setting up a system to illegally funnel cash to his party.
As the Trump administration moves forward, it is essential to resist this tactic. That is, to argue that when Trump engages in objectively anti-democratic behavior, his claims to be on the side of democracy are completely unreliable.
This is not easy. This requires reshaping the way we think about American politics and public debate, and who we give credibility to and why. But it is essential if we want to understand the nature of the threats to our democracy going forward.
I read 1 article last month
Here at Vox, we’re unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you: democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the growing threat of polarization across our country.
Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that lets you stay informed and help shape your world. Becoming a Vox member directly strengthens our ability to provide in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.
We count on readers like you. Please join us.
Swati Sharma
vox editor in chief
