Curious about how Donald Trump's rise to power mirrors the ascension of other historic leaders like Mussolini and Hitler? Want to understand how figures such as Fujimori and Chávez subverted democratic norms to consolidate power? Ever wondered why the U.S. political system, once guided by unwritten norms and mutual tolerance, has become increasingly polarized? Explore how the erosion of democratic norms could potentially lead to the downfall of American democracy and what needs to be done to prevent it.

How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future

A tale from Aesop's Fables warns of fateful alliances, where a Horse, seeking revenge against the Stag, becomes ensnared by the Hunter's conditions, losing its freedom in the process. This parable echoes the historical rise of dictators like Mussolini and Hitler, who ascended to power not through revolutions but via alliances and political maneuvers, exploiting the fears and divisions among political elites to seize control.

Mussolini's "March on Rome" was less a revolution and more a spectacle, as he leveraged his party's parliamentary votes and a looming threat of violence to gain favor with Italy's King Victor Emmanuel III. Similarly, Hitler's ascent in Germany was facilitated by conservative politicians who underestimated his ambitions, believing they could control him. This grave miscalculation handed him the chancellorship and paved the way for his authoritarian regime.

This pattern of insiders aiding outsiders repeats in various corners of the world with figures like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, who rose from a failed coup leader to president, thanks to the support of established politicians like Rafael Caldera. These alliances, forged in desperate times, often backfire, leading nations toward authoritarianism.

Yet, history teaches us that democracies can survive these challenges. Countries like Belgium and Finland have successfully navigated similar threats by uniting mainstream parties against extremists, prioritizing democracy over partisan gains. Austria's recent election exemplified successful gatekeeping when conservative leaders endorsed a rival to prevent the rise of an extremist candidate.

The key to preserving democracy lies in vigilant political gatekeeping, where parties act as filters, isolating and defeating demagogues. It requires courage and unity among political leaders, who must recognize the dangers and act decisively to protect democratic institutions from those who seek to undermine them.

Could Political Gatekeeping Be the Key to Preventing Another Mussolini or Hitler?

Philip Roth's novel "The Plot Against America" imagines a chilling scenario where Charles Lindbergh, a famous aviator and Nazi sympathizer, becomes a U.S. president, unleashing a wave of fascism and anti-Semitism. Many see parallels in the 2016 election, questioning why such a demagogue hadn't risen sooner in American history. The answer lies not in a lack of extremist candidates or support but in the gatekeeping role of political parties, which historically filtered out unfit figures.

In the 1930s, figures like Father Charles Coughlin and Huey Long gained immense popularity with their extremist views, yet never reached the presidency. Father Coughlin, a radio sensation, espoused anti-Semitism and nationalism to millions, while Long, a charismatic Louisiana governor, flirted with totalitarianism. They were kept at bay by party gatekeepers who prioritized stability over extremism.

This gatekeeping was evident in the Republican Party's 1920 convention, where Warren G. Harding, a distant fourth in delegate count, was chosen over more popular candidates in a smoke-filled backroom. Party insiders, motivated by risk aversion, ensured that only safe candidates made it to the ballot.

The original gatekeeping mechanism, the Electoral College, was designed by the founders to filter out demagogues, reflecting Alexander Hamilton's fear that popular elections could lead to tyranny. However, the rise of political parties transformed this system, making parties the gatekeepers of democracy.

For much of U.S. history, parties prioritized gatekeeping, often choosing candidates through insider decisions rather than public primaries. This system kept dangerous figures like Henry Ford, a popular yet extremist demagogue, from reaching the presidency.

The pivotal change came in 1968 with the Democratic Party's reform of its nomination process, spurred by public outcry over the Vietnam War and internal conflicts. The McGovern-Fraser Commission introduced binding presidential primaries, shifting power from party insiders to voters.

While more democratic, this shift raised concerns about the potential rise of extremist candidates. Initially, these fears seemed unfounded, as outsiders like Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan failed to secure nominations. But Arthur Hadley's concept of the "invisible primary" highlighted the crucial role of party insiders in securing nominations through money, media, and ground support.

For decades, the balance between democracy and gatekeeping held strong, preventing demagogues from reaching the White House. However, as Roth's fictional Lindbergh warns, the system's fragility remains a constant tension in American politics.

Gatekeepers of Democracy: The Political Power Struggle Behind Lindbergh's Fictional Rise

In the summer of 2015, Donald Trump, known for his real estate empire and reality TV stardom, announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency. Initially seen as an outsider, his campaign was fueled by the primary system's openness, which had previously allowed figures like Barack Obama to rise. 

Trump, however, represented a new breed of outsider: celebrities with fame or wealth bypassing traditional political routes. Although similar figures like Pat Robertson and Steve Forbes had tried before, Trump's campaign seemed unlikely to succeed against seasoned politicians like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.

But the political landscape had shifted. The Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling had unleashed torrents of outside money, and the new media environment, dominated by cable news and social media, made it easier for celebrities like Trump to gain instant recognition. Despite initial skepticism, Trump's poll numbers soared, much to the disbelief of analysts like Nate Silver. Traditional gatekeepers, weakened by these changes, couldn't stop Trump's momentum.

As Trump dominated primaries, the Republican establishment struggled to counter his rise. High-profile figures like Mitt Romney and John McCain denounced him, but their efforts faltered, partly due to the media environment that favored Trump's controversial antics. By Super Tuesday, Trump had defied expectations, leading to panic within the party.

In the general election, Trump, unbound by political norms, raised alarms with his rhetoric, questioning election legitimacy and vilifying opponents. Despite meeting criteria for authoritarian behavior, prominent Republicans hesitated to endorse Hillary Clinton, fearing backlash from their base. Few Republicans publicly backed Clinton, leaving the party largely unified behind Trump, normalizing the race.

The election, marked by deep partisan divides and contingent events, became a toss-up. Republican leaders' reluctance to break ranks with Trump proved consequential, tipping the scales in his favor. In a deeply polarized and unpredictable political climate, Trump's victory highlighted the fragile state of democratic gatekeeping.

How Did Donald Trump Defy Political Norms to Secure an Unprecedented Presidential Victory?

Alberto Fujimori's rise to power in Peru was a surprising journey from a little-known university rector to an unexpected presidency. Initially aiming for a senate seat in 1990, Fujimori found himself running for president amidst Peru's economic collapse and the violent insurgency of the Shining Path. The political elite backed the renowned novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, but Fujimori's populist message resonated with ordinary Peruvians, leading to his victory.

Once in office, Fujimori faced a Congress that resisted his drastic reforms. His impatience with democratic processes led him to bypass Congress through executive decrees, straining his relationship with the political establishment. Tensions escalated, culminating in Fujimori's 1992 announcement dissolving Congress, marking his descent into authoritarianism. His story illustrates how democratic breakdown can emerge from escalating conflicts between populist leaders and established institutions.

Similar patterns of democratic erosion have occurred globally, where leaders like Hugo Chávez and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have attacked their critics, manipulated media narratives, and exploited crises to justify power grabs. These leaders often subvert democratic norms under the guise of legality, slowly eroding institutions and silencing dissent.

Fujimori's story serves as a cautionary tale of how democracies can be undermined by populist leaders who exploit crises to consolidate power. It highlights the importance of vigilance and the need for robust institutions to withstand the challenges posed by authoritarian tendencies.

From Rector to Ruler: Fujimori's Populist Path to Power

For generations, Americans have held great faith in their Constitution, viewing it as the cornerstone of their democracy. Designed with checks and balances, it has historically prevented the concentration of power, as seen when President Lincoln's wartime power grab was reversed post-Civil War, and Nixon's resignation followed Watergate. 

However, solely relying on constitutional safeguards isn't enough, as history shows in Germany and Latin America. Democracies need more—like strong democratic norms and mutual toleration. 

Mutual toleration means accepting rivals as legitimate, even when disagreeing with them, a concept not inherent in all democracies. Spain’s failed democracy in the 1930s exemplifies this, with polarized factions viewing each other as mortal enemies, leading to civil war. In contrast, America learned to tolerate opposition, fostering democracy.

Another crucial norm is institutional forbearance—restraining from exploiting legal rights to the fullest, respecting the spirit of the law. This is akin to playing a pickup basketball game with unwritten rules, ensuring fair play. American presidents adhered to two-term limits before it became law, and Britain's monarchy respected parliamentary norms voluntarily.

However, constitutional hardball—exploiting legal prerogatives without restraint—can endanger democracy. Examples include Argentine presidents and Venezuela’s judiciary manipulating laws, and in the U.S., Southern legislatures legally disenfranchised African Americans, countering constitutional spirit.

Mutual toleration and forbearance are interconnected; weakening one can erode the other. When political rivals see each other as existential threats, hardball tactics prevail, risking democracy’s collapse. Chile’s tragic breakdown in 1973 illustrates this, where eroded norms and polarized politics led to dictatorship. 

To safeguard democracy, written constitutions must be reinforced by unwritten norms, acting as guardrails against authoritarianism. These norms, like mutual toleration and forbearance, ensure the democratic game continues without descending into chaos.

Can America Preserve Democracy by Reviving Lincoln's and Nixon's Lessons on Balancing Power?

On a cold March day in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt's voice boomed through radios across America, invoking the war powers of the Constitution to combat the Great Depression. His call for sweeping executive authority set the stage for a presidency defined by bold action but faced formidable opposition from a conservative Supreme Court. 

Roosevelt's attempt to expand the court was a controversial maneuver that, despite its logical roots in constitutional gaps, was fiercely opposed and ultimately thwarted by a Congress dominated by his own party. This episode highlighted the resilience of America's unwritten norms, which have long served as guardrails in the nation's political landscape.

American politics was not always governed by such norms. In the nation's infancy, partisan hostility ran rampant, with Federalists and Republicans accusing each other of treason. The Sedition Act of 1798 exemplified this era, criminalizing criticism against the government. The bitter rivalry continued into the 1800 election, marked by attempts to permanently vanquish the opposition. Yet, over time, a new generation of politicians like Martin Van Buren embraced mutual toleration, transforming the landscape from total opposition to amiable rivalry.

The issue of slavery, however, shattered these fragile norms in the 1850s, polarizing the nation to the brink of Civil War. The aftermath forced a reevaluation of democratic principles, leading to an emphasis on unwritten rules to guide political conduct. Yet, racial exclusion post-Reconstruction created a paradoxical foundation for the democratic norms that emerged. The Compromise of 1877 and subsequent disenfranchisement of African Americans cemented mutual toleration between the parties, albeit at a tragic cost.

Throughout the twentieth century, America's democratic norms were tested but held firm. Roosevelt's executive ambition during the Great Depression, McCarthyism's assault on mutual toleration, and Nixon's authoritarian tendencies each challenged the integrity of these guardrails. Yet bipartisan cooperation and societal resistance ensured democracy's survival. These norms, however, were rooted in racial exclusion, highlighting the complex interplay between stability and injustice.

As America moved towards racial inclusion, polarization increased, posing a significant challenge to established norms. The Civil Rights Movement and subsequent legislation aimed to fully democratize the nation, but also reignited existential threats perceived by opposing sides. The evolution of American democratic norms reflects a journey fraught with conflict, compromise, and a relentless pursuit of a more perfect union.

Roosevelt's Bold Maneuver: Wrestling with the Supreme Court and America's Democratic Norms

On a quiet February day in 2016, news broke of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, setting off a political firestorm. The Senate, led by Mitch McConnell, refused to consider President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, marking a dramatic break from historical precedent. This act signaled the erosion of norms and forbearance that had once guided American politics, a trend with roots stretching back decades.

In 1978, a young Newt Gingrich entered Congress, bringing with him a vision of politics as warfare. Gingrich's combative approach transformed the GOP, encouraging polarization and a rejection of bipartisan cooperation. His tactics included aggressive rhetoric and strategic use of media, which reshaped political discourse and laid the groundwork for a hyper-partisan environment.

As the political landscape shifted, the Tea Party emerged in response to Barack Obama's presidency, questioning his legitimacy and casting him as an existential threat. This movement intensified partisan animosity, with rhetoric that painted Democrats as un-American and dangerous. The birther movement, championed by Donald Trump, further fueled discord, challenging Obama's citizenship and stoking division.

The Republican Party, influenced by right-wing media and cultural homogeneity, adopted increasingly extreme stances, driven by a sense of status anxiety. This led to the abandonment of mutual toleration and forbearance, essential norms that had previously safeguarded democratic stability.

By the time Trump took office, these norms were severely weakened, creating a political climate marked by hostility and fear. The narrative of "real Americans" versus outsiders threatened the fabric of democracy, highlighting the dangers of treating political rivals as enemies. As the soft guardrails of democracy unraveled, the stage was set for a tumultuous era in American politics, challenging the nation's democratic ideals and institutions.

Did McConnell's Senate Gamble on Merrick Garland Ignite a Partisan Firestorm?

In Donald Trump's first year as president, he followed a script familiar to observers of demagogues like Fujimori, Chávez, and Erdoğan. Trump launched fierce rhetorical attacks on opponents, labeling the media as enemies and questioning judicial legitimacy. His administration faced relentless negative press coverage, with 80% of reports casting him in a bad light. 

Amid rumors of Russian collusion, a special counsel was appointed, fueling impeachment talks. Yet, Trump maintained strong support from his base, claiming unprecedented unfair treatment and doubling down on his outsider status.

Trump exhibited authoritarian traits by attempting to consolidate power through strategies like capturing referees, sidelining key players, and rewriting rules. He sought loyalty from intelligence agencies and dismissed FBI Director James Comey when he wouldn't comply. Trump even attacked judges who ruled against him, pardoning allies like Joe Arpaio without consulting the Justice Department.

Despite these efforts, Trump's administration couldn't fully capture referees due to resistance from Senate Republicans. His attacks on the media, labeling them as "fake news," resembled tactics seen in authoritarian regimes. Yet, no journalists were arrested, and media outlets continued critical coverage.

Trump's attempts to tilt the playing field manifested in calls to change Senate rules and establish a commission on election integrity, led by Kris Kobach, known for voter suppression. While the commission's impact remains uncertain, its potential to damage the electoral process is concerning.

Republican leaders responded with a mix of loyalty and containment, with key senators opposing Trump's most dangerous moves. Public opinion plays a crucial role, as high approval ratings bolster authoritarian leaders, while low ratings embolden opposition.

A major security crisis could dramatically increase Trump's power, presenting a significant threat to democracy. Historical examples show how crises allow leaders to bypass constraints and consolidate authority.

Trump's norm-breaking behavior, unlike his predecessors, challenges essential democratic norms. He appointed family members to advisory roles, retained business interests, and questioned election legitimacy. His attacks on political civility, lying, and media disrespect erode democratic foundations.

Overall, while Trump scraped against democracy's guardrails, he didn't break through them. Yet, his actions increase the likelihood of future leaders doing so, showcasing the gradual erosion of democratic norms.

Trump's Demagogue Playbook: Echoes of Fujimori, Chávez, and Erdoğan

American democracy, often viewed as exceptional, is not immune to collapse. History shows it has faced catastrophes like the Civil War, where division led to conflict and eventual reconstruction. Stability came, but at the cost of racial exclusion and authoritarian rule in the South. Fully democratized only after 1965, the U.S. now faces deep polarization, challenging its democratic norms.

Globally, democracy seems in retreat, with countries like Venezuela and Hungary sliding backward. Yet, many democracies remain strong, defying the notion of a widespread democratic recession. However, the rise of leaders like Donald Trump poses new challenges, as his administration veers from the pro-democratic stance the U.S. held since the Cold War. His presidency, marked by attacks on democratic norms, could embolden autocrats worldwide.

America's post-Trump future holds three possibilities: swift democratic recovery, a darker continuation of white nationalist policies, or ongoing polarization and institutional warfare. A swift recovery seems unlikely, as polarization predates Trump. A darker future, where the GOP entrenches power through antidemocratic measures, could lead to violent conflict and repression. The most probable scenario is persistent polarization, undermining democratic guardrails.

In this turbulent landscape, mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance are crucial. These unwritten norms, not enshrined in the Constitution, are vital for democracy’s function. As political divisions deepen, the call for Democrats to "fight like Republicans" risks exacerbating authoritarian tendencies. History teaches that opposition should leverage existing institutions to preserve democracy, rather than resorting to extralegal tactics.

Coalition building across diverse groups can counter polarization. Progressives must work with business leaders, evangelicals, and Republicans to defend democracy. This requires setting aside divisive issues temporarily to find common ground. Such alliances could foster mutual toleration, bridging the partisan divide.

To address underlying polarization, America must tackle racial and religious realignment and economic inequality. The GOP needs reform, marginalizing extremists and broadening its base beyond white Christians. Drawing lessons from Germany’s post-World War II CDU, the Republican Party could reinvent itself as a diverse, democratic force.

Meanwhile, Democrats should focus on universal policies addressing inequality, fostering crosscutting alliances to reduce resentment and polarization. Comprehensive social policies, like universal healthcare and family support, could bridge divides, creating a broad, durable coalition.

Ultimately, American democracy relies on its citizens. No singular leader can save or destroy it. Democracy is a shared enterprise, built on basic norms of civility and egalitarianism. Restoring these norms in a diverse society is vital. America faces the challenge and opportunity to be a truly multiracial, democratic nation. If achieved, it will be exceptional.

Is America on the Brink of Reconstructing Its Democracy Post-Trump Era?

In Aesop's fable, a Horse forms a fateful alliance with a Hunter, seeking revenge against a Stag but losing its freedom in the process. This parable mirrors historical events where figures like Mussolini and Hitler rose to power not through revolutions but by exploiting alliances and political fears. 

Mussolini's "March on Rome" was a spectacle that leveraged parliamentary votes and the threat of violence to gain favor with Italy's king. Similarly, Hitler was underestimated by conservative politicians, allowing his authoritarian regime to take root.

This pattern of insiders aiding outsiders has repeated globally, with figures like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela rising from failed coup leader to president through political support. However, history shows democracies can withstand such threats. Countries like Belgium and Finland have successfully united mainstream parties against extremists, prioritizing democracy over partisan gains.

Preserving democracy requires vigilant political gatekeeping, where parties act as filters to isolate demagogues. Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America" imagines a scenario where Charles Lindbergh, a Nazi sympathizer, becomes U.S. president, unleashing fascism. The 2016 election raised questions about the rise of demagogues, but historically, political parties played a crucial gatekeeping role, filtering out unfit figures.

In the 1930s, Father Charles Coughlin and Huey Long gained popularity with extremist views but never reached the presidency due to party gatekeepers prioritizing stability. The original gatekeeping mechanism, the Electoral College, was designed to filter out demagogues. However, political parties transformed this system, becoming democracy's gatekeepers.

For much of U.S. history, parties prioritized gatekeeping, choosing candidates through insider decisions rather than public primaries. This system kept dangerous figures like Henry Ford from reaching the presidency. The pivotal change came in 1968 with the Democratic Party's reform, shifting power from insiders to voters, raising concerns about extremist candidates.

In 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy, fueled by the primary system's openness. Trump's campaign, initially seen as unlikely to succeed, defied expectations. The political landscape had shifted, with outside money and media dominance favoring celebrities like Trump. Despite skepticism, Trump's momentum couldn't be stopped by traditional gatekeepers.

American democracy relies on more than constitutional safeguards. Strong democratic norms like mutual toleration and institutional forbearance are crucial. Mutual toleration means accepting rivals as legitimate, while forbearance involves restraining from exploiting legal rights fully. These unwritten norms act as guardrails against authoritarianism.

Throughout history, American politics has seen challenges to these norms. Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive ambition during the Great Depression, McCarthyism, and Nixon's authoritarian tendencies tested democratic integrity. Despite these challenges, bipartisan cooperation ensured democracy's survival.

Polarization, however, poses a significant threat to established norms. The Civil Rights Movement and subsequent legislation reignited existential threats perceived by opposing sides, challenging democratic stability.

Globally, democracy faces retreat, with countries sliding backward. Yet, many democracies remain strong, defying a widespread recession. Leaders like Trump pose new challenges, veering from pro-democratic stances, emboldening autocrats worldwide.

America's post-Trump future holds possibilities of recovery, darker continuation of policies, or ongoing polarization. A swift recovery seems unlikely given pre-existing polarization. Persistent polarization undermines democratic guardrails.

Coalition building across diverse groups can counter polarization. Progressives must work with business leaders, evangelicals, and Republicans to defend democracy, setting aside divisive issues temporarily. Addressing polarization involves tackling racial and religious realignment and economic inequality.

Ultimately, American democracy relies on its citizens. Democracy is a shared enterprise, built on norms of civility and egalitarianism. Restoring these norms in a diverse society is vital. America faces the challenge and opportunity to become a truly multiracial, democratic nation. If achieved, it will be exceptional.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

Key Ideas

#1