Is It Possible to Reverse Democracy Backsliding?

A massive rally held in Warsaw on October 3, 2023, in opposition to Poland’s authoritarian ruling party PiS two weeks ahead of a general election. Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via AP

In 2010, Viktor Orbán became prime minister of Hungary for the second time. In the succeeding years, he undermined judicial independence, weakened democracy, and curtailed press freedom. He implemented what he called “illiberal Christian democracy”—which was more illiberal than democratic. In 2022, the European Parliament declared Hungary “can no longer be considered a full democracy” and dubbed it an “electoral autocracy.” Transparency International in 2023 cited Hungary as the most corrupt regime in the European Union. Last month, in a sign of the nation’s democratic decline, the Hungarian parliament passed a law criminalizing Pride parades and other public assemblies in support of LGBTQ rights.

In 2015 in Poland, the authoritarian-nationalist Law and Justice Party (PiS) won control of parliament. For the next eight years, Poland was regarded as a country backsliding in democracy. The party assaulted the rule of law and the separation of powers, while eviscerating reproductive rights. It turned the state broadcasting operation into unrestrained party propaganda. In 2023, months ahead of a national election, PiS moved to create a commission that could block certain politicians from holding office for a decade. That prompted widespread protests that included the “Great March for Democracy” in Warsaw that drew half a million people. In the subsequent election, centrist and leftist parties won a majority of seats in the parliament, formed a coalition, and ejected the PiS from power.

Two countries where elected authoritarians threatened democracy, two different outcomes (so far). Hungary remains mired in Orbánism; Poland turned around on the road to right-wing autocracy.

The question of whether a decline in democracy can be arrested is obviously on many minds these days. Shortly before the 2020 election, it was on my mind, and I spent a few days talking to academic experts on democracy and reading scholarly articles on the subject. As I noted at the time:

History is indeed replete with vivid examples of the decline of democracies—and with the transition of repressive states into democracies. At one end of the spectrum, there is the Weimar Republic descending into Nazi Germany; at the other, South Africa shedding apartheid. But there is one slice of the democracy-authoritarianism dynamic that has not been examined as extensively as the clear instances of full transformation, and that subset could be particularly relevant for the United States at the present moment: democracies that slipped toward authoritarianism but recovered before it was too late.

There were several instances of countries that came close to the abyss of autocracy but did not fall in. Among others, these included Finland in the 1930s, Colombia in the 2000s, Sri Lanka in the mid-2010s, and South Korea in the 2010s. You can read the details here. More recently South Korea became an example of a nation where an authoritarian leader who was democratically elected tried to impose martial law—and was sent packing. (He was impeached in December, and a court upheld the decision this month, removing him from office.)

With all these cases, there was no one formula for saving democracy that we can apply to the crisis now at hand. Sometimes elites stood up against the wannabe-autocrats. Sometimes popular uprisings undid the tyrant-to-be. And sometimes it was a combo, which is probably what will be required in the United States, as the threat posed by Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their minions continues to sharpen. It’s what we have begun to see in the past few weeks.

The Hands Off protests across the country earlier this month were an indicator of widespread unrest and outrage. They were a good start. This weekend, there is supposed to be a new round of anti-Trump demonstrations. I doubt they will be as big as what occurred a fortnight ago. But that’s okay. What counts most is the consistent assertion of opposition. And even smaller displays, such as the protests at Telsa dealerships, send the message that popular anger at the Trump-Musk war on America remains real and intense—as do the intermittent eruptions at the town hall meetings of the Republican senators and House members who dare to hold such events. And Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York continue to draw immense crowds in red states for their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour.

Ultimately, success will require tens of millions of Americans to side with the protesters—at least with their votes, if not with their bodies. It’s a big country, and that may take a while, as the disturbing consequences of the Trump blitzkrieg become more apparent to those Americans who pay little attention to politics or social media.

Meanwhile, bursts of elite resistance are underway, particularly in the courts. Federal district court judges have ruled against Trump’s outrageous shakedowns of white-shoe law firms, and that may bode well for future cases related to his attacks on universities. Harvard University—it doesn’t get more elite than that!—told Trump to take a hike and refused to yield to his mob-like extortion attempt. Trump wanted to have the power to police “viewpoint diversity” at the Ivy League school—an outlandish and unconstitutional request. And now that Trump has upped the ante by threatening to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status—indubitably, an illegal move—and demanding information on its foreign students, the school is standing firm, as have other top universities Trump has targeted, including Brown and Princeton.

The sharpest pokes at Trump as of now have come from judges. The best one (as of this writing) was delivered by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, with an opinion on Thursday for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident erroneously deported to El Salvador’s notorious megaprison, whom Trump refuses to bring back to the United States, despite directives to do so from a federal district court judge and the Supreme Court.

It’s worth reading the full seven-page opinion. But here’s a delicious taste:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear…

We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital...This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

While there is still time. A chilling but accurate sentiment.

Much legal wrangling still needs to occur before this case and similar ones are resolved. And much could rest on what the Supreme Court ultimately decides. Another unknown is what will happen if (or is it when?) Trump finally tells the courts to eff-off. Should he or other administration officials be held in contempt, how would any punishment be enforced? If an administration lawyer or official is held in contempt, could Trump simply wave his magic pardon wand? Remember Justice John Roberts and his right-wing colleagues did rule that Trump (or any president) enjoyed a measure of criminal immunity and could break the law in pursuit of official aims. While recent court decisions have been encouraging, the judiciary may not be the ultimate bulwark. After all, some judges have affirmed aspects of the DOGE attack on the civil service.

In conservative quarters, there have been anti-Trump rumblings. No surprise, the Wall Street Journal editorial board has been pulling out its hair over Trump’s wackadoodle tariffs. But it also slammed Trump for his assault on Harvard:

The Administration runs off the legal rails by ordering Harvard to reduce “governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization.” It also orders the school to review “all existing and prospective faculty.... for plagiarism” and ensure “viewpoint diversity” in “each department, field, or teaching unit.” These reforms may be worth pursuing, but the government has no business requiring them. Its biggest overreach is requiring “viewpoint diversity,” which it doesn’t define. Does this mean the English department must hire more Republican faculty or Shakespeare scholars? An external monitor will decide such questions…

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may not use federal benefits or funds to coerce parties to surrender their constitutional rights. This is what the Administration is doing by demanding Harvard accede to “viewpoint diversity.”

And David Brooks, that conservative-turned-centrist Trump critic who once huffed that the “anti-Trump movement [has] come to resemble the pro-Trump movement,” has joined the resistance. He has rightly called for the elites to partner up with the anti-Trump masses:

It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.

No surprise, but many of the elites of the elite, especially in the corporate world, are not taking Brooks’ advice and jumping on the bandwagon. Media barons and Big Tech bros have bent the knee. Law firms have caved. Most corporate bigwigs have been mum regarding Trump’s assault on democracy. This past week, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, told an interviewer that the United States remains a solid investment, in part, because of the “rule of law” here. Maybe he ought to have a chat with Judge Wilkinson. And Republicans remain either frozen in fear or enthralled as MAGA cult members, with many of them scheming with Trump to undercut democracy in future elections and further solidify their hold on power.

I’m not peddling optimism here. My hunch is that we’re in for much worse before a turnaround transpires. There are many people and entities on Trump’s enemies list who he has not yet gunned for. But I do believe there’s nothing inevitable about a national descent into repression and tyranny. Other nations have had close calls. We the people—from the highest to lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder—still have a chance to thwart Trumpocracy.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

The judges made an error. A nomination for this contest a couple of weeks ago never reached the copy desk. It got stuck in the pneumatic tube system at Our Land World Headquarters. To remedy this error, we have removed the deadline for this entry. So...evangelist Paula White, a supporter of and adviser to Trump, recently told her flock that God really, really likes being honored on Passover. And those of the faithful who did so would receive seven—count ’em, seven!—“supernatural blessings.” These blessings include God assigning you your very own angel, being an enemy to your enemy, awarding you prosperity, removing sickness from your life; increasing your inheritance; guaranteeing you a long life; and providing you a “special year of blessing.” Now how can you honor God to get all these goodies? It’s obvious: Send White $1,000.

The fact that she gets away with this guff is one explanation for why Trump is president.

If there were a Dumbass Gesture of the Week, the winner would be Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy. Look at how he greeted Russian war criminal Vladimir Putin: with his hand on his heart.

That’s not how the Trump crew says hello to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Elon Musk was in contention this busy week, with his overall plan for the US workforce:

Yes, let’s take food inspectors and NIH pediatric cancer researchers and send them to the coal mines. After all, that’s what Mao would have done.

During a White House press briefing, New York Times reporter Jonathan Swan asked Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a sharp question: “The president has long said that it would be an abuse of power for a president to direct investigators to investigate [Trump]. Last week, President Trump explicitly directed the Justice Department to scrutinize Chris Krebs to see if they can find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. How is that not an abuse of power to direct the Justice Department to look into a named individual?” Swan was referring to the fellow who served as cybersecurity chief in Trump’s first administration and who enraged Trump by declaring the 2020 election was free of fraud.

Leavitt replied: “Look, the president signed that executive order. It’s the position of the President and this White House that it is well within his authority to do it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have signed it. And he signed it. And that’s his policy.”

This was the equivalent of Leavitt covering her ears and shouting, “I can’t hear you.”

This week’s winner is a veteran purveyor of authoritarian extremism: Sebastian Gorka, the longtime Trump champion who once celebrated a Hungarian paramilitary group that had been criticized for being antisemitic. He served in the first months of Trump’s initial administration but left—or was fired—under unclear circumstances. He’s now back in the White House as Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser. During an appearance on Newsmax, Gorka addressed the popular opposition to Trump’s court-defying mass deportation crusade and bellowed:

The other side of the aisle is on the side of terrorists…. It’s not left and right. It’s not even Republican or Democrat. There’s one line that divides us: Do you love America, or do you hate America? It's really quite that simple. We have people who love America, like the president, like his cabinet, like the directors of his agencies, who want to protect Americans. And then there is the other side, that is on the side of the cartel members, on the side of the illegal aliens, on the side of the terrorists. And you have to ask yourself, are they technically aiding and abetting them?” Because aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists is a crime in federal statute.

This is dangerous rhetoric. Gorka was denouncing Americans who favor due process and the rule of law as traitors and suggesting they are criminals subject to arrest. He obviously is a victim of the authoritarian mind virus.

Watch this:

In response to the recent issue on Trump’s revenge-a-thon against law firms, universities, and other targets, Linda Jack sent in a piece advice from a hero of conservatives:

"There is no security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil.” — Ronald Reagan. It's political blackmail, and once paid, the extortionist will only escalate their demands. 

Peter Gee needed to vent:

It's not so much the rampant hypocrisy, the blatant corruption, the sheer imbecility of Trump and nearly, if not all, Republicans. It's the immense frustration of a system in which half the electorate is reduced to innocent bystanders, while this vicious clown show wrecks your democracy and your future. It's not a lack of heroes; it's the sidelining of the good and the just, the decent and the principled. Mass demonstrations may no longer cut it. History, almost without exception, tells us many must die before a dictatorship can be overthrown. I wish I could help.

That got very dark. Peter, I am still hoping that America can be saved without carnage. And I am sure you can find ways to assist the opposition.

Larry Roth responded to the issue that covered Senate Democrats not embracing the bold example put forward by Sen. Cory Booker:

With regard to your recent newsletter on the feckless behavior of most Senate Democrats, it makes the case for Senate reform all the stronger, but short of rewriting the Constitution, I can’t see how. Imagine what things would look like if major cities had their own senators, say every city above a certain population level. Los Angeles alone has more people in it than some states. The Senate was always meant to be antidemocratic, a bulwark against “mob rule.” It’s working. It sure looks for the most part like a rich kids’ club.

Democrats don’t seem to understand the importance of taking action in a way that’s visible to the public. They remain oblivious to the way Republicans have used performative politics to advance their agenda—sham hearings, outrageous bills, calculated hissy fits, and constant repetition of talking points. Meanwhile Trump’s reality horror show sucks all the air out of the room 24/7. Flooding the zone with shit works, especially when Democrats do nothing but keep their powder dry. The show never stops, and the media eats it up.

Debby Dobson shared this:

Because Trump is clearly addicted to power (among other things), what his decision to impose tariffs did at first was crash the markets in the US and internationally. Panic ensued, anger flared, and investments and the value of stocks plummeted. A perfect time to buy low, right? When stock prices drop, a smart investor will swoop in and scoop up high end stocks and hang onto them, because eventually the market will recalibrate. Trump’s decision to put tariffs on hold boosted the market almost immediately.

I wonder: Is this just a ploy to make money? Could Trump deliberately have shifted the international markets to reap financial gains himself and for his cronies? As making money is another of his addictions, no matter the cost to others.

With Trump, of course, anything is possible. The most worrisome thing is that he and his cronies know that if they do anything of this sort, they will never be investigated by Trump's Justice Department or his SEC. In this environment, a federal agent would have to be crazy to launch a probe of Trump or any of his relatives or associates.

JP Connolly sent this note:

I depend heavily on Social Security, and it seems to be considered as not being under threat. But Musk's DOGE has made cuts to personnel that make it totter. The Republicans have wanted to privatize this program for decades and making it unable to function properly leads to shouts to privatize, which the present administration would love to do.

This is a standard play for right-wingers. Claim a government program doesn't work, attack it or defund it to make sure it doesn't work, then claim, once again, it doesn't work and call for eliminating or privatizing the program. Doing this with Social Security is a big political risk for Trump and the GOP.

Wendy D emailed:

I just love Moxie girl! She makes my day and makes slogging through all the depressing merde in your great newsletter worthwhile!

I’ll take that as compliment. Speaking of Moxie...

“Is there anything better than spending a beautiful spring day in the park with your best friend?”
“That’s so nice of you to say, Moxie.”
“There might be a few things: Playing with a ball, eating scrambled eggs, ripping apart a toy, rolling on a dead animal.”
“Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question.”