President Trump and Markers of Authoritarianism

I have previously mentioned the importance of the book How Democracies Die by Daniel Ziblatt and Stephen Levitsky.  The authors are professors of European history and South American history, respectively.  They point out that in the last seventy years, authoritarian governments have mostly come to power not through sudden violent coups but by legal means that gradually restrict democracy.  Much of the following is taken from that book.

Markers of authoritarianism

In the course of their research, the authors have noted four markers of a prospective authoritarian leader, whether as a candidate or as elected head of state. 

• The leaders have a weak commitment to democracy and the Constitution.
• Prospective authoritarians describe political opponents as illegitimate or harmful to the country, if not treasonous.
• They tolerate and even encourage violence among their supporters.
• They have a readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including the media, whom they characterize as “the enemy.”

Only one president in the 20th or 21st century, Richard Nixon, has violated even one of these norms (willingness to curtail the press).  President Trump clearly violated all four during his campaign and has continued as president.  We could call him a “serial norm-breaker.”  We should have seen him coming.

Does President Trump reject the Constitution or express a willingness to violate it? 

• President Trump has many times cast doubt on the electoral process: as a candidate, he cautioned his supporters that the elections have been “rigged” and refused to commit to accepting the results of the election.  As president, he has maintained the lie that “over three million” undocumented aliens voted in the 2016 election.
• The president has referred to the federal judges who blocked his travel ban as “so-called judges.”  In the last few weeks, without taking the usual course of appealing the decision, he has simply refused to obey an explicit court order to release certain documents.
• The president has said he will refuse to turn over any documents requested by House investigative committees.  Constitutionally, a president can refuse to turn over only very specific documents of a certain kind and cannot make blanket refusal.

Does the President deny the legitimacy of political opponents?

• Before his candidacy, Trump was the major supporter of the “birther movement,” maintaining that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya and was therefore not a legitimate presidential candidate.
• The president has accused the Democrats of treason.  
• Even after he was elected, Trump has led his supporters in the chant, “lock her [Hillary Clinton] up.”

Has the President tolerated or encouraged violence among his supporters (The following have all been confirmed by the reliable Internet fact-checker Snopes.)

• He has incited his supporters at rallies to violence toward protesters.
• He himself has said of a protester at his rally, “I’d like to punch him in the face.”
• During an alt-right march, a right-wing demonstrator intentionally drove an automobile into a group of counter-protesters, killing one.  President Trump suggested that “there were good people on both sides.”
• At an Iowa rally, Trump said, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them would ya?  Seriously.  Just knock the hell out of them.”
• “I love the old days.  You know what they use to do to guys like that [a protester] when they were in a place like this?  They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.  It’s true.…  I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”

Has the President shown a willingness to abridge civil liberties, especially of the press?

• The President has threatened to change the libel laws so that the government could sue media for “fake news.”  (He has no authority to change those laws.)
• After a line of questioning he objected to, the President, in an unprecedented action, suspended the press credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta, denying him access to the White House.
• Trump’s threatened violence against protesters has been a direct denial of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.

It’s true that in none of the above has the president has done anything illegal – although he may have encouraged others to illegality.  What the president has done is to break the norms of acceptable political behavior over and over again.  It’s also important to recognize that many of the above have been called “just talk” and are not actions.  As Levitsky and Ziblatt point out, however, that is less important than it looks.  The autocrats they studied also began with “just talk.”

At this point in our democracy, norm-breaking is more dangerous than outright illegality.  Illegal obstruction of justice, for instance, is a crime and will, at least, be called out, if not eventually punished.  Because of the probable consequences, it’s unlikely, however, to lead to similar illegal action by future presidents. But norm-breaking has no legal consequences.  Rather, it lowers the bar on what is acceptable and normalizes the behavior, encouraging more in the future.

Since President Trump destroys norms almost daily, we lose track of what we’re losing, and the damage is done before we even know it. 

Can we not already, however, at least mourn the loss to our democracy?