In 2018 two Harvard University professors of government, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, co-wrote the best-selling book “How Democracies Die.” As we approach the 2020 election, now only two months away, it seems timely to consider the book in light of the upcoming election. If Americans don’t take action our democracy may die very soon. I’ll explain.
At the start of their book the authors state:
“American politicians now treat their rivals as enemies, intimidate the free press, and threaten to reject the results of elections. They try to weaken the institutional buffers of our democracy, including the courts, intelligence services, and ethics offices. American states … are in danger of becoming laboratories of authoritarianism as those in power rewrite electoral rules, redraw constituencies, and even rescinded voting rights to ensure that they do not lose. And in 2016, for the first time in U.S. history, a man with no experience in public office, little observable commitment to constitutional rights, and clear authoritarian tendencies was elected president.”
The authors go on to list four indicators of authoritarian tendencies. The first indicator is rejection of the rules of the game, such as rejecting or undermining the results of elections. During the last election and again recently, President Donald Trump has hinted at not accepting election results. He recently spoke of postponing the election. Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and a senior advisor to the president, has spoken of a postponed election.
At a congressional hearing a few weeks ago, Attorney General William Barr initially struggled to answer whether a president may accept foreign assistance during an election, despite it being illegal to do so. Trump has repeatedly spoken of absentee ballots and mail-in ballots as rife with fraud despite no significant evidence of this to date.
The second indicator of authoritarian tendencies is to deny the legitimacy of political opponents, Calling for “locking up” Hillary Clinton is an example of this. Trump’s claim that Obama was an illegitimate president due to being born outside the U.S., an untrue statement, is another example.
The third indicator, encouragement of violence, has been a staple of Trump’s political rallies where reporters and protestors are routinely threatened, intimidated, harassed with the tacit approval or active encouragement by the president.
The last indicator is a readiness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media. Mr. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated this by calling for expanded libel laws he can use against critics, clearing Lafayette Square of peaceful protestors for a photo op, and by targeting media who may be critical of his policies.
Two upcoming possibilities concern me most as we head into the election. The first possibility is an “October surprise.” This is a news event that may occur spontaneously but is often intentionally created to influence the outcome of an election, such as the U.S. presidential election.
There have been numerous events involving multiple elections that fit the description of an October surprise. Several of them involved other nations seeking to influence the outcome of our elections. It is very easy to imagine Russia’s Putin (or another country) creating just such an event again soon, as was done during the 2016 election.
My second concern is that an October surprise might also include an act of domestic terrorism, an international incident, or worsening of the COVID crisis, that would allow Trump to declare a national emergency and thereby assume near dictatorial powers. This possibility is fully described in an Atlantic Magazine (January-February 2019) piece by Elizabeth Goitein titled, “The Alarming Scope of the President’s Emergency Powers.” After describing the types of emergency powers a president has, the author concludes her piece with a possible scenario in which President Trump would invoke emergency powers to swing the election in his favor.
With apologies to Ms. Goitein, to whom I give credit for her work and for the scenario that follows, here’s my slightly different scenario, very similar to hers.
It’s two months months before the election. COVID-19 has killed over 181,000 Americans and the economy has collapsed. Polls show Joe Biden beating Trump. The president claims that foreign actors are planning to interfere with the 2020 election through the use of fraudulent absentee ballots and the spreading of disinformation about voting.
Goitein writes, “A section in the Communications Act allows Trump to assume government control over internet traffic” to prevent the spread of disinformation about voting. He also declares a national emergency, and the government shuts down several domestic civil-society organizations and their websites. These include websites and organizations that are focused on getting out the vote.
Lawsuits follow. The Supreme Court rules that because the president’s powers are at their greatest when he is using authority granted by Congress, Trump’s actions are legal.
Protests erupt. On Twitter, Trump calls the protesters traitors and suggests (in capital letters) that they could use a good beating. When counter-protesters oblige, Trump blames the original protesters for sparking the violent confrontations and deploys the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard in several states. Using the Presidential Alert system first tested in October 2018, the president sends a text message to every American’s cellphone, warning that there is “a risk of violence at polling stations” and that “troops will be deployed as necessary” to keep order. Some members of opposition groups are frightened into staying home on Election Day; other people simply can’t find accurate information online about voting. With turnout at a historical low, a president who was facing impeachment just months earlier handily wins reelection — and marks his victory by renewing the state of emergency.”
Goiten says, “This scenario might sound extreme. But the misuse of emergency powers is a standard gambit among leaders attempting to consolidate power.”
Two months prior to the election, we might look instead to Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder’s short book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.” His 20 lessons include, among others, being courageous, being a patriot, not obeying tyranny in advance, and practicing corporeal politics defined this way:
“Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them.”
We can take heart in, and participate in movement organizing, such as occurred for many decades prior to the Civil Rights era of the 1960s and which continues with Black Lives Matter. Other examples include the movement for women’s suffrage, disability rights, LGBTQ rights, and many other just causes. All required and continue to require organizing to make progress. They required active protests, bodies on the streets, civil disobedience/nonviolent action, and other methods of resistance. And they require voting, contributing time and/or money to organizing if one can, and getting others to do those things too.
In what we have seen the past four years and in the dangers Goitein describes, we see how our democracy may die. It is up to each of us to do our best to prevent that from happening.
Richard Brunswick is a retired family physician and social worker who lives in Northampton.