Electoral Autocracy or Needed Correction?
The critics are divided.
NPR (“Concerns over autocracy in the U.S. continue to grow“):
As the United States heads toward the midterm elections, there are growing concerns among some political scientists that the country has moved even further along the path to some form of autocracy.
Staffan I. Lindberg, the director of Sweden’s V-Dem Institute, which monitors democracy across the globe, says the U.S. has already crossed the threshold and become an “electoral autocracy.”
Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and co-author of How Democracies Die, agrees.
“I would argue that the United States in 2025-26 has slid into a mild form of competitive authoritarianism,” Levitsky said. “I think it’s reversible, but this is authoritarianism.”
Under competitive authoritarianism, countries still hold elections, but the ruling party uses various tactics — attacking the press, disenfranchising voters, weaponizing the justice system and threatening critics — to tilt the electoral playing field in its favor.
The examples they cite are comparatively tame:
Levitsky cited what he considers two strikingly autocratic moments that occurred in September. First, the Trump administration threatened ABC’s parent company, Disney, following Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on the killing of Charlie Kirk.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, warned.
A week later, President Trump proposed that U.S. generals use American cities as training grounds for their troops.
“We’re under invasion from within,” Trump said to a gathering of military brass in Quantico, Virginia. “No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.”
The blatant attempt to steal the 2020 election through mob violence, the pardoning of even the most violent participants in that attempt, and the prospect of masked state agents with firearms at the polls to intimidate nonwhite voters could also have been cited. Regardless,
Levitsky said this is the kind of language dictators in South America used in the 1970s — leaders like Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
Those who disagree have to bend over backwards to defend the state of American democracy:
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, says Trump is pressuring news organizations and universities to address problems with liberal bias.
“There are legitimate objections that have been raised by the Trump administration,” said Turley, the author of Rage and the Republic. “That does not justify some of the means, but there is a long-standing need for a debate within these institutions.”
Some might say that freedom of speech and the press are fundamental features of democracy, certainly the American model.
Others are somewhat more tenuous:
Other political scientists say the U.S. system of government is battered but still democratic. Kurt Weyland, who researches democracy and authoritarianism at the University of Texas at Austin, says he’s increasingly confident that the U.S. can withstand Trump’s sweeping attempt to expand executive power.
Weyland said that for the first months of his second term, Trump was like a “steamroller” and faced little containment or opposition. But Weyland, who wrote Democracy’s Resilience to Populism’s Threat: Countering Global Alarmism, says that has changed.
For instance, Kimmel was yanked off the air but soon returned and continues to routinely mock Trump. Weyland also said the president’s attempt to tilt the electoral playing field through mass redistricting hasn’t worked out as he might have hoped.
“If the guy had succeeded in seriously skewing [future] elections in the House, that would’ve gone to the core of democracy,” said Weyland, “but he didn’t. He got barely anything.”
There is some small comfort that attempts from the highest levels of our government to squelch free speech and rig elections have only been modestly successful, I suppose.
Weyland also said federal agents shooting two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis last month was disastrous for the president. Border czar Tom Homan said last week that the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota is ending. Weyland thinks the public blowback to the killings limits Trump’s ability to deploy such aggressive tactics going forward.
What’s two dead innocents, after all? And one imagines non-whites in Minneapolis and other American cities are reassured that they fully enjoy their rights as citizens and legal residents.
The next big test for American democracy could come in November’s midterms. The Trump administration is suing states to hand over voter data, which worries Kim Scheppele, a Princeton University sociologist who has studied the authoritarian tactics of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
In 2014, Orbán’s government messaged Hungarian voters living in the United Kingdom to go to one polling place and then switched to a different location on Election Day.
“They disenfranchised almost all the Hungarians in the U.K., most of whom were oppositional to Orbán,” says Scheppele.
This month, Steve Bannon, a close Trump ally, proposed that the administration deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to polling places to root out undocumented migrants trying to vote — which is statistically rare.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she’d never heard the president discuss such a plan — and federal law prohibits it.
But Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, worries that such a move would drive down participation by people of color and naturalized citizens who fear harassment by ICE. If ICE were deployed, Nyhan hopes it would spark even more people to vote.
“But even contemplating that kind of interference is, I think, a really substantial threat,” said Nyhan. “The way Election Day works in this country, there are no do-overs.”
We’ll have to wait and see, I guess.
Side note: the notion that Jonathan Turley deserves to be in the same set of experts as Lindberg, Levitsky, Weyland, Scheppele, and Nyhan is an utter joke.
This would be true, setting aside Turley’s work as a right-wing pundit.
He is neither an expert on democracy nor authoritarianism. He is a law prof who GWU bio describes him as having “written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law” and “He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). He has written more than three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals including those of Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, and Northwestern Universities, among others. He most recently completed a three-part study of the historical and constitutional evolution of the military system.”
Cool and all, but not someone who has an expert opinion on the state of American democracy.
BTW: I struggle with the appropriate classification of where we are as the target is moving.
Having said that, I think it is clear that Trump himself is governing as an authoritarian, and I fear that the next president, even if it is a Democrat, will do the same. This puts me in the camp with Levitsky et al. Much will depend on whether the post-Trump Congress seeks to institute democratic reforms or tries to fix some of the obvious flaws in the system. I am not holding my breath, BTW.
Here’s a happy thought to add to all of this: I was talking with a political science friend who is a serious scholar of democracy, and the question we were discussing was whether the better descriptor of the current situation in the US is whether “competitive authoritarianism” was the right term or if “illiberal democracy” was the better fit.
That tells you where we are.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I would put it a little more strongly. Trump is making a serious, concerted effort to dismantle the democracy and establish himself as the dictator-for-life. He’d cancel elections if he could, but he’ll be satisfied with Russia-style fake elections rigged up the wazoo.
This is not remotely hyperbole or hysteria, it is absolutely what’s happening, and anyone who doubts it isn’t paying attention.
The main cause for optimism is (a) the ineptitude of most of his efforts thus far (b) the fact that the public seems to have turned strongly against him.
That said, even in a best-case scenario that Dems succeed in returning to power in 2029, the country they preside over will be less democratic than the one they left behind in 2025.
@Steven L. Taylor: Concur. His reputation as a legal scholar has certainly taken a big hit in recent years, but he’s not by any means an expert on comparative politics, political theory, or even authoritarianism.
@Steven L. Taylor: While Trump is sui generis in his sheer contempt for norms, he follows a long line of presidents who have pushed the boundaries of executive power. And once boundaries have been expanded, they seldom revert to the status quo ante.
@Steven L. Taylor: What little attention I’ve paid to Turley puts him in the even-the-liberal class of talking heads. And I take exception to,
There was debate. Conservatives lost.
Most arguments I see against Trump being regarded as an authoritarian are along the lines of “wait and see, the midterm elections will be fair” or “we don’t have extermination camps” or “people aren’t jailed for criticizing Trump”. That these are not the Nazi’s of 1944 doesn’t mean they aren’t the Nazi’s of 1935.
Weyland seems to be saying that Trump is trying to be an authoritarian, but it isn’t quite working. So that means everything is fine, don’t get excited.
@James Joyner:
It’s realistic and reasonable to expect normal presidents to seek enhanced power, you expect all segments of government to advocate for themselves. That’s the premise of how our system was set up.
The current problem is a Congress eager to cede power to the President instead of asserting and protecting its own powers. That, coupled with a SCOTUS supporting Presidential power, for example the “unitary executive” notion and the recent presidential immunity decision.
Also, the current situation of Executive Branch egregiously engaging in blatantly illegal behaviour and not being held accountable.
That’s reassuring, ICE being super scrupulous about strict obeisance to legalities.
“The Rational League”
etc.,etc.
@Steven L. Taylor:
the problem with that, is that authoritarian leaders are seldom concerned with improving the lives of the overall population. Their main concern is amassing and wielding power (and guarding it against others who want to take it from them).
There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare, and come with not a small side of repression.
About the best case scenario is for a Democratic authoritarian (self contradiction duly noted) to build their base on the middle class and other working poor, and then delivering on some improvements to keep their support.
@gVOR10:
That’s been my impression as well. He’s got similarities to Dershowitz, if maybe a more generic version of that type. I don’t recall his name ever being mentioned in connection with Epstein (could be wrong about that), I don’t think he earned his fame getting rich murderers acquitted, and I don’t think he’s of a class of liberal Jewish Zionists (I don’t think he’s Jewish at all in fact) whose politics started to shift rightward following the Second Intifada.
All that aside, throughout the Trump era I have seen Turley’s name be the second most likely to crop up when it comes to an allegedly liberal legal scholar engaging in agitprop for the GOP.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I’ve been trying to categorize which of current Talked-Abouts would be more institutionalist, or more popularist authoritarian. As JJ noted, all Presidents have a tendency to push the envelope for Presidential ways, so its more of a spectrum than black and white. It should be noted that almost everyone on the authoritarian-style governance list would certainly be less authoritarian than anyone I can think of on the GOP side.
Authoritarian Populist
#1 with a bullet: Gavin Newsom. Little to no guiding ideology or principals, will do what he perceives makes him popular in the moment.
2. Harris
3. Shapiro, though I confess I only have an inkling of his governing style. Should probably just put him on the “Don’t know.”
4. Sanders (is he even being talked about? I don’t think so. Regardless.)
5. Wes Moore
Institutionalist:
1. AOC. I think the perception or the picture people will try to paint of her will be one of wild-eyed power-grabber, but her record speaks to someone interested in the hard work of democratic governance and building democratic institutions.
2. Buttigieg
3. Pritzker (this is an edge case, would be curious what other people think of him).
4. Beshear
5. Murphy
6. Whitmer
Can’t Decide Yet/Know Far Too Little
1. Gallego
2. Kelly
3. Booker – The dude has been running on the national stage for my entire adult life and with the exception of prison reform, in which he showed passionate leadership and got some really consequential legislation over the finish line, I can’t really tell what he stands for or his ideology. Not saying he’s a bad dude, I’m just impressed at how little of a total impression he’s left on me.
@Neil Hudelson:
Interesting cast of Democratic possibilities.
Right now, with so much time in front of us before the Endless Campaign for 2028 becomes more real. the ones who stand out a bit for me are Pritzger, Murphy, Beshear, and Moore of which three are governors.
I’m dismissing Newsom and Harris as they are both from California, my state, and CA is now a Republican punching bag, and both bring too much baggage to the table – Harris as a failed incumbent (unfair, I know) and Newsom as governor of a state that in many ways is still digging itself out of Culture War and post-Covid holes.
@al Ameda:
Because there’s still no state more powerful or successful than California.
Democrats need to stop making decisions based on “this upsets Republicans.” Hillary had a near 70% approval rating when she exited the State Department, before she ran for president. Obama was Mr. Post-Partisan and Biden Mr. Bipartisan. Before they ran for president.
Any policy or any person any state that Democrats support will end up being a Republican punching bag. One reason Republicans end up exciting their base and ways Democrats don’t is because Republicans don’t give a hoot whether or not they upset Democrats.
Democrats should not buy into bs right-wing propaganda that portrays California as anything other than a net positive for the party and the country. Especially with red states constantly sucking California’s taxpayers dry. Always talking trash, but I never see them turning down the money we send them. Democrats et al running on proportional distribution of federal tax dollars wouldn’t be the worst idea ever.
@Neil Hudelson:
Before I could assess your sorting, I think I would need a little more definition of your boxes. For example, I would expect almost every Democrat making it to the WH in 2029 to rescind every one of the Trump 2.0 EOs.
Expecting that and based on my understanding of the term competitive authoritarianism, then an Authoritarian Populist POTUS would turn around and make a comparable number of EOs with a leftist bent, right? How, then, would an Institutionalist proceed to govern? Party line vote only for legislation?
@DK: so much this. Thank you.
When and if Dems get back into power, they absolutely need to start prosecuting the Trump Admin for their crimes. We can’t just put this all behind us the way Biden, Obama, and frankly Gerald Ford did with their criminal predecessors. We can’t have another Merrick Garland operating at a snail’s pace in going after Trump. We need to take the examples of Brazil and South Korea in how they responded to presidents who attempted coups. People will say the Dems are practicing their own form of authoritarianism by going after political opponents just as Trump did. Let them. In fact, if we’re to reverse this authoritarian tide, it is absolutely essential that the people who have been committing the authoritarian acts face real consequences. If we don’t, then our country is truly doomed.
@Kylopod:
I recall having said as much five years ago, and being far from the only one who did…
I see three requirements:
1) A ruthless career prosecutor as AG, who will hunt down every criminal action by any in the Taco so-called administration, including El Taco, without fear and without delay.
2) A president who will have the AG’s back.
3) An EO stating the president is not above the law, and can be investigated and, if warranted, indicted and prosecuted while in office by the DOJ.
Anytime presidential geography starts coming up… Here’s Biden’s electoral votes by Census Bureau region. The West’s are almost exactly evenly split between California and the rest. The Northeast’s are almost exactly evenly split between NY/PA and the rest. The south end of the BosWash urban corridor is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the South.
West 109
Midwest 56
South 45
Northeast 96
By percentages, Harris’ decrease in electoral votes was smallest in the West. I am always afraid that the national Democrat Party will forget that they need the West to be excited about the ticket, too. 16 of the 45 US Senators registered as Democrats are from the West (only 2 from California; 8 are from the Interior West). 9 state legislative chambers in the US have 50% or more women members, all in the West. The biggest “urban” problem in the West is 30+ years of almost unmanageable growth. Anything close to the $16B given to the NY-NJ Gateway Project, plus some sane restructuring of federal laws about railroads, would buy a whole lot of mass transit in the West outside of California. There are no western states where Blacks are the largest minority group — the whole “the candidate must win the Blacks in SC” thing is a potential problem. The states in the Western Interconnect are moving to renewables for important reasons other than CO2. Fire. Water. Stewardship of public lands. Absent Trump and the courts totaling f*cking things over, >90% of votes cast in the western states this year will be on ballots distributed by mail. Vote by mail can’t be an afterthought on electoral reform.
@Michael Cain:
Keep in mind that the Census considers Maryland and Delaware part of the South.
@Kylopod:
Any serious, marginally – electable Dem candidate have this stomach and gut instinct? Harris has the stomach, instincts iffy. Newsom could be dragged into it, but he’d undermine it — he wants to be liked by everybody. Sanders, for all his supposed socialism, also loves to sanewash the reactionary MAGA base — not that he’s be viable at age 86 after his base pushed “Biden’s age” as hard as anyone.
Shapiro might. He has that “I’m gonna cut red tape and get things done, and I don’t care what anyone says left or right” vibe. Pritzker seems similar, but less so. Kelly, Gallego, Booker, Beshear, Whitmer, Polis, Moore…all seem like squishy split-the-diffrence Obama types, willing to competently delay American decline, but without Biden’s experience at getting progressive legislative results.
Elizabeth Warren would, but she doesn’t appear to be running. She has the clarity that comes from being a recovered Republican (like me), so she doesn’t suffer from liberals’ squishy bleeding heart “oh no this will be a Fox News punching bag!” disease.
Warren understands Dems cannot be more beholden to those who oppose them than their own base. She would’ve canceled student debt in fell swoop, called it a “People’s Stimulus,” and not given a rip about the subsequent howling from the right, the New York Slimes, the Washington Compost, and Substack bro fanboys. The same way Trump pardoned his Jan 6 terrorists without hesitation (or political consequence).
But Warren doesn’t appear to be running or very viable.
Too bad the left blew it so badly not backing Hillary 2016 vigorously enough. She would’ve spent every day of her presidency dreaming up new ways to grind Putin and the vast right wing conspiracy into the dust while passing Hillarycare and codifying feminism into law, attended to by a cadre of adoring gays and lesbians. Would’ve been glorious.