It's going to be ok, I think
Thoughts on Trump's 100 Days
After a hundred days, that feel like more like a hundred years, I have reasons to hope.
Donald Trump has moved faster than almost anyone expected, defenestrating agencies and bending institutions to his will. His administration has side-lined Congress (which for the most part acquiesced) and is pushing hard against judicial authority—although Trump has stated that he will obey Supreme Court rulings. Federal law enforcement is acting with increasing impunity.
Trump has the desire to be a dictator. (Really, he wants to be king. Watching Wolf Hall about Henry VIII hits different in the age of Trump.)
Nonetheless, I am optimistic.
There is perhaps a 1% chance we slip into complete totalitarianism: think Cuba or North Korea. So very unlikely, but higher a higher probability than perhaps any time in U.S. history.
There is a further 3-4% chance we become a fully authoritarian regime along the lines of Mubarak’s Egypt or some of the milder military dictatorships around the world.
Far more likely, about a 25% chance, is becoming a competitive authoritarian state, or an illiberal democracy. Not a full-on dictatorship, but more akin to Orban’s Hungary or Erdogan’s Turkey. Most people still have reasonable personal freedom, political opposition continues but is hamstrung, and for the most part freedom of the press remains. Some vulnerable groups will be persecuted (we’re already seeing this.) But for most, life will go on. Tom Pepinsky, another terrific political scientist, wrote an article about day to day life under a soft dictatorship titled: Everyday Authoritarianism is Boring and Tolerable.
Still, that means, overall we are 70% likely to be ok, that is continue as the flawed, imperfect democracy we’ve always been.
I don’t want to get too caught up in definitions, these things exist on a spectrum. Was Saddam Hussein or the Assad clan authoritarian or totalitarian? If Stalin was clearly totalitarian, is Putin—or is he more an authoritarian. For the century after the Civil War, U.S. democracy was clearly flawed and incomplete in the one-party south. The U.S. may have been far closer to authoritarianism than most of us are comfortable accepting. Critically, under competitive authoritarianism there is still at least a chance for democracy to reassert itself, but it can also slide into full authoritarianism.
My core argument is that there is a one in twenty chance things get really bad, a one of four chance things get generally sucky, but also a greater than two in three chance that we’ll be ok.
Why will American democracy survive?
I was inspired to write this after reading a fantastic essay by Henry Farrell (really a redundant statement—his political science reads like poetry and I’d bet even his grocery lists avoid banality.) He explains that a core problem of politics is coordination. You can’t govern a country—democratically or otherwise—without getting a lot of people to do what you want. Stalin couldn’t carry out purges and industrialize the nation without extensive cooperation from vast numbers of people. Stalin could use fear to keep the people in line but fear only worked because he had a lot of people willing to kill on his behalf.
All governments rest on complex coalitions—even dictatorships. Rulers must reward the social elements that support them, and they must do so consistently, otherwise elements of the coalition will fall away. Dictators need to raise the costs for opposition to coordinate. (That is the other half of Farrell’s essay, the challenges of opposition coordination, but I’m going to focus on the challenge to Trump pursuing authoritarian ends.)
Trump, put simply, is his own worst enemy. He organizes his own opposition. Farrell points to the case of the Trump’s efforts to break big law to his will. He made an agreement with law firm Paul, Weiss but began to insist on more. When other law firms saw that Trump would not keep his word and that any deal would result in further demands they began organizing, banding together to resist his pressure. Universities have done the same, after seeing the administration bully Columbia.
This extends to matters large and small. In the case of tariffs, his inconsistent policies are frightening business leaders and the markets. A careful well-thought-out policy of extensive tariffs, rolled out in an orderly way with clear explanations is something the business community could tolerate. It could even bring favored industries into his coalition. But the uncertainty causes them large problems. While many corporate leaders are making appeals for tariff relief on behalf of their businesses, they know it is all defined by Trump’s whim.
In a much smaller matter, George Bogden, a Trump loyalist and an expert on international trade was removed as executive director of the Office of Trade Relations at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) because he was friends with Miles Taylor. Trump remains angry about Taylor’s anonymous 2018 op-ed in The New York Times, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” At CBP Bogden would have been central to managing Trump’s tariffs and coordinating with industry. The absence of someone who both combined both belief in Trump’s agenda and policy expertise will undermine policy implementation. It sends a message to those who might become supporters that even innocuous past deeds can be used against even the most loyal—another disincentive to joining Team Trump.
Leaving aside that many of Trump’s policies will be disasters in and of themselves, the tariffs are likely to fuel inflation and drive the economy towards recession, allying with Trump is costly and opposing him is becoming cheaper.
Institutional Barriers
I thought that Trump’s efforts would run aground against the sheer scale of the federal bureaucracy. I was surprised at how quickly DOGE broke the federal government. Elon Musk may be the tip of the spear, but OMB chief Russ Vought has spent the past four years plotting what he would do to break the federal government. This will have political costs. Musk is polling very poorly. The weakened agencies unable to provide services people depend on may fail. Regular problems that could have been managed by capable agencies could metastasize into crises. All of this gives people further incentives to turn against Trump.
But there are other institutions that may prove more resilient against Trump, and either stymie his efforts or be able to coordinate and organize opposition.
Federalism
The U.S. Constitution grants the states extensive powers, which they have used and will continue to use to protect their citizens. California, the nation’s largest state has taken the lead, with many other states joining their legal actions against the federal government. State legislatures can take actions that preempt federal actions. Given thin Congressional majorities, the federal government is unlikely to pass expansive legislation to override state laws in the near future. Most Americans live in either staunchly Democratic or swing states (where Democrats have reasonable chances of winning statewide office). But even red states may act if particular federal policies are unpopular and affect their citizens.
Military
Back in 2016, before Trump was the nominee I wrote my absolute opposition to him because:
My fear with Trump is that if frustrated with Congress, he will summon a mob. I don’t think he can upend our system, but I don’t want to watch this process. It will be ugly.
…Trump will inject more bad feeling and anger into our system.
To my regret, I was absolutely right, he did call a mob. Now, I’ll predict that at some point in the next several years, Trump will call on the military to fire on protestors. During the protests of 2020, Trump mused about exactly this.
It won’t happen.
The U.S. military is highly professional and will not en masse carry out an unlawful order. It may happen in isolated incidents, but the military will recoil and police itself afterwards.
Dictators increase the costs of opposition coordination with the threat to exercise massive force in the face of protests and uprisings. That’s what happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989 or on several occasions in Iran. But dictators fear the color revolutions and their ilk because there is always a risk that their military won’t turn on the people and that is when these regimes fall.
The U.S. military will not turn on the American people.
Federal Law Enforcement
A wise friend observed that even if the military refuses to obey Trump’s orders, we are seeing federal law enforcement operating in ways reminiscent of police states.
When the Berlin Wall fell, Stasi, East Germany’s notorious secret police, had about 90,000 employees. Roughly one out of every two hundred people in East Germany was an employee of Stasi. That’s not informers, that’s employees. The equivalent number for the United States would be more than 1.5 million people. Adding up the major federal law enforcement agencies (CBP, ICE, FBI) is maybe one-tenth of that number. You could potentially add the NSA, which conducts eavesdropping worldwide to the mix. Technology might reduce the need for the huge numbers of personnel, although regime opponents can also use technology to organize and evade scrutiny. Still, Russia has internal and border security forces of several hundred thousand, for a population little more than a third of the U.S.
Police states require massive internal security forces, and federal law enforcement agencies are not even close to operating on that scale. These agencies have other responsibilities (fighting crime, countering drug trafficking, collecting tariff revenue, etc.) that will remain.
State and local police, along with the National Guard, might be counted as internal security forces, but they also have other responsibilities and are not under the control of the President.
Finally, law enforcement agencies also have professional standards. These standards may not be as extensive or followed closely, but they do exist. While there are elements within law enforcement (particularly in the Border Patrol) that are loyal to Trump and his worldview, this is probably not a majority. As a pragmatic matter, law enforcement agents and officials who exceed the statutory limits of their authority may find themselves in legal jeopardy if the political situation changes. Finally, many people who join federal law enforcement agencies want to see themselves as “good guys” not villains. Being on the wrong side of the rule of law and of public opinion, which they will become the case as more stories like this occur, will be an important disincentive to law enforcement fully embracing Trumpist authoritarianism.1
This isn’t to lionize our police forces. Rather it is to note their limitations as an instrument of democracy backsliding. First federal law enforecement lacks the numbers to police the American people at the level an authoritarian dictator would require. Second that a substantial proportion of federal law enforcement personnel would resist engaging in illegal or unConstitutional activity.
The American Creed
Finally, I don’t think Trump will succeed because the United States is and remains exceptional. We are founded on a Creed, best stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The American Revolution may now seem a stuffy affair—a bunch of wealthy white guys in powdered wigs speaking in wise aphorisms. It was radical. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people was a bold new experiment. The United States, like every nation, has done terrible things. But we have also achieved extraordinary things and our achievements are not rooted in ethnic identity or an attachment to real estate—but in our Creed.
We survived a Civil War, which broke the back of one of our founding sins. We have brought people together from all over the world with our promise of freedom. We have, over time and with great effort, addressed many of our failings. There is still much to do—it is a task that will be forever incomplete.
We are not going to toss away this magnificent legacy for a two-bit reality TV host.
Conclusion
I have to caveat that this is written from an upper-middle class white perspective. For all too many Americans authoritarianism does not feel like a new development. My fondest hope is to return to the imperfect democracy that seeks to right these wrongs and become a “more perfect union.”
Trump’s many weaknesses does not mean his fall is a done deal. He should never have become president and his re-emergence after his 2020 defeat and J6 is astonishing. Give the devil his due. But a smart campaign against him will use his weaknesses.
Where Trump drives potential allies away, welcome them—no litmus tests, no “I told you so” to disaffected Trump supporters. Acknowledge and work to address the failings in our system that drove this huckster to power.
Where Trump is disorganized, be organized.
Where Trump is fickle, be constant.
Where Trump promises darkness, speak of light.
Where Trump is deceitful, be worthy of trust. Because ultimately, the coordination to thwart his project relies on trust.
As always, this post represents my opinion only and does not reflect the views of any organization with which I am or ever have been affiliated.
This has happened before. Congressional investigations in the 1970s revealed illegal and inappropriate activities by the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Reforms were implemented and these agencies were far more careful about crossing the line. The NSA in particular hated being associated with un-Constitutional activity and was extremely cautious in what it submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court when seeking authority for domestic wiretapping. After 9/11 of course these barriers fell away rapidly.