Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

During the trial, the mob will be gone but the threat to democracy has only begun

Donald Trump's second impeachment trial

The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump began Tuesday.

congress.gov via Getty Images

Jacobson is a consultant who advises elected officials on foreign and economic policy. He is a member of theTruman National Security Project, a progressive defense and foreign policy think tank.


Jan. 6. was not the end of the threat to our democracy. It was the moment the undeniable threat could no longer be denied.

The knowledge that ours is the world's rarest form of government, an understanding of the forces now fully unleashed in our country, and the choices Republican leaders have made in the last month — all should leave us with the sober realization that the battle for democracy has only just begun. The Senate impeachment trial won't change a thing.

In the immediate aftermath of the Capitol insurrection, it was tempting to believe American democracy would be just fine. Widespread condemnation of Donald Trump's actions, and the swift transfer of power, has created a potentially false sense of security. But if we set aside partisan considerations, and focus only on preserving a democratic form of government, history shows we shouldn't be so naive.

Examining successful autocratic breakthroughs in the last century, and democratic resilience to such anti-democratic insurgencies, reveals the current direction of the Republican Party. Rather than ending the threat to our democracy, it is actually keeping the threat alive.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In moments when democracy has prevailed over right-wing insurgencies — movements that blend fascist, ethnic nationalist and anti-democratic energy — the center-right has isolated and pushed out extremist forces. Or, it has formed a coalition with the left to prevent the insurgents from gaining control. The GOP has done neither of these so far.

More than half of Republicans in Congress (147 of 261) voted to overturn the election hours after the storming of the Capitol. Rather than distance himself from the disgraced former president, who spent months attacking the bedrock of our republic, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went to Trump's home in Florida two weeks ago to smooth things over. The day before, 45 of the 50 Republican senators voted against even having an impeachment trial, arguing it's unconstitutional to try a president after he leaves office — an incredibly dangerous precedent for the rule of law.

Rather than denouncing radical elements in the party, those in the GOP who voted to impeach Trump now face political peril while those pushing wild anti-semitic conspiracy theories have been protected. Republicans at the state level, citing concerns around election integrity built on lies about voter fraud, have introduced more than 100 bills to make it harder to vote — including efforts to severely limit voting by mail.

These are naked attempts to shrink the opposition's electorate.

What has not happened to restore trust in our elections, though, is the party's leaders standing up to tell their voters the truth. Consequently, the vast majority of Republicans still believe the election was stolen, providing future fuel to the fire that led to the insurrection. Autocratic breakthroughs are enabled by the flawed view that such movements can be contained.

Eventually, dissenting voices get removed and the extreme elements take over the power structure. This gives insurgents the opportunity to capture the government and pursue anti-democratic aims they justified as necessary to right a previous injustice. Add in an intentional disinformation campaign — amplified by expansive communication networks and an ethnic nationalist call for a return to glory, which defines opposing voices as a threat to the real nation itself — and you have a recipe for disaster. In other words, what the GOP and its support apparatus are doing now is exactly the wrong thing for democracy.

Two paths stand before the rest of us. One allows us the chance to strengthen our republic. The other risks the destruction of the American experiment and a future that looks more like Hungary, Turkey, Russia or Venezuela. These illiberal regimes maintain a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy while the rules of the game are fixed in their favor and the levers of power are weaponized to weaken all opposition, thus curtailing civil rights.

The right path demands sustained civic engagement for many years from the vast majority of our people. The wrong path offers the seductive lure of a return to normalcy.

The right path demands accountability and substantial systemic reforms to our political system. The wrong path calls upon us to sweep this under the rug in pursuit of a shallow unity.

The right path requires us to restore a foundation of shared facts in a choose-your-own-truth world. The wrong path asks people to compromise with delusion to restore harmony.

The right path requires us to fully confront white supremacy and systemic racism. The wrong path allows us to dismiss sedition as the actions of a rogue, unrepresentative mob.

The right path requires us to acknowledge that we only have one political party committed to democracy, governing and the rule of law. The wrong path allows us to treat Trump as an aberration, rather than a reflection of what the modern GOP has become.

The long-term fate of our republic may just lie in whether or not Republicans do what is necessary to purge themselves of a cancer much deeper than Donald Trump. If not, to ensure we go down the right path, every American committed to the preservation of our democratic republic must form a broad pro-democracy coalition that rejects the current GOP path. History shows that average voters struggle to win these fights, though.

We should never forget that a failed attempt to overthrow the government often precedes a successful attempt down the road. The Nazis had a failed coup a decade before they came to power in Germany in the 1930s, for example, and Hugo Chavez failed in 1992 in his first attempt to capture control of Venezuela.

A day after his supporters stormed the Capitol, this is how Trump concluded his video address acknowledging his presidency was ending: "To all of my wonderful supporters, I know you are disappointed, but I also want you to know that our incredible journey is only just beginning."

We should take Trump's words seriously and literally. If this is just the beginning, they may come for the republic again.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less