Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

History is filled with authoritarian takeovers: America’s Founders hoped to prevent them

Madison defined tyranny as the executive, legislative, and judicial powers all being in the hands of one person or group.

History is filled with authoritarian takeovers: America’s Founders hoped to prevent them
Getty Images

Jamison is a retired attorney who writes on military affairs and other issues.

Following Joseph Stalin’s March 1953 death, Marshal Giorgi Zhukov, the brilliant leading Soviet general in the defeat of Germany in World War II, waited nervously in secret with other Soviet senior officers in the room next to where the meeting of the Presidium was in progress at the Kremlin in June 1953. Zhukov and the others knew that if Lavrentiy Beria ’s Kremlin guards discovered them, they would be killed.


The marshal was in league with Nikita Khrushchev, then a high-ranking party official. The future Soviet premier enlisted the regular army’s support for his conspiracy with other leaders to prevent Beria, the longtime head of an army of secret police, state security troops, and the Kremlin Guard, from taking power.

Beria had tortured Soviet officers in the 1930s to make false accusations against other officers. This in turn led Stalin to purge and kill senior Soviet officers, the shortage of which nearly lost the War in 1941. Crueler than Stalin, Beria cruised the streets of Moscow with his guards to abduct, rape and sometimes murder girls.

Beria expected the Presidium meeting to cement his succession. To ensure this, he moved some of his security forces into Moscow. Great stealth would be essential to overcome the forces that Beria controlled.

Zhukov and his colleagues were secretly whisked into the Kremlin under the noses of Beria’s troops. The conspirators then kept the officers concealed in the adjoining room, where they awaited a secret signal to enter the Presidium meeting room.

At the right moment in the Presidium meeting, the signal brought Zhukov into the room to arrest a stunned Beria. Without stirring his guards, Beria was immediately removed from the Kremlin, his buttons cut from his pants so that he had to hold them up with his hands, hindering any attempt to run. Beria was later tried by a special court, found guilty of treason, terrorism and counter-revolutionary activities and sentenced to death. Zhukov’s forces corralled the spy chief’s troops; Khrushchev was now in position to become party leader.

This is how power transitioned in the Soviet Union. Unless the Russian people and sufficient forces in the military break from the country’s long history of autocracy and successfully establish a Western-style democracy, it will also likely be how power transitions when Putin is either removed or dies.

Putin has a personal Kremlin Guard, controls the Presidential Security Service, and maintains a hold on the FSB, which is akin to the security forces that Beria controlled.

The Russian Army (lacking a general of the caliber of Zhukov) is another power center. Then there are the 50,000 some-odd troops of the Wagner Group, which recently made worldwide headlines for its abortive mutiny. Conspiracy, violence and murder can likely be expected as the leaders of these forces vie for succession.

Nearly 250 years ago, America’s founders were intimately familiar with the murderous history of dictatorships up to their time. Their studies of Rome’s greatest politician, Cicero, and of the collapse of the Republic in the first century B.C., heavily influenced the Constitution’s design.

Cicero waged a long futile effort to preserve and improve the constitution of the Roman Republic. He sought to reform the excessive number of checks and balances in that constitution that hindered effective government. The deadlocks and confusion under that constitution were instrumental in the Roman Republic’s descent into chaos, violence, Cicero’s murder and dictatorship.

The American Constitution was designed to minimize the risk of the kinds of violent power transfers that would later become the norm in the Soviet Union. James Madison defined tyranny as the executive, legislative, and judicial powers all being in the hands of one person or group. In creating three branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — to curb one another’s power, the U.S. Constitution lays out the optimal combination of checks and balances that are supposed to prevent tyranny but not throttle effective government. They also limited the terms of the president and members of Congress and required them regularly to face the voters. Fundamentally, the armed forces was placed under the control of a civilian president, but the military’s oath is to the American Constitution, not to one person. George Washington cemented the tradition of peaceful transitions of power when he declined a third term and graciously greeted John Adams on inauguration day.

America’s founders knew that this was an experiment. It depended on and still depends on compromise and unity, which if lost can lead to deadlock, chaos and collapse.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington cautioned: “Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, …The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.”

Americans who would accept dictatorship do not know history and their own government. The scourge of dictatorship must never stain America.

The oath of the American military to the Constitution, not to a person, is essential to help prevent the rise of a dictator “on the ruins of public liberty.”

This writing was originally published in on July 12, 2023 in the Military History Now.


Read More

A TSA employee standing in the airport, with two travelers in the foreground.

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. TSA employees are currently working under the threat of not receiving their next paychecks, scheduled for January 11, because of the partial government shutdown now in its third week.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down.

House Republicans reject clean bill to open shut-down DHS agencies (March 28 update)

House Republicans (and three Democrats) rejected the Senate's clean bill to end the shutdown late Friday night. Instead, the House passed a different bill that fully funds every agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but for only 60 days with the knowledge that this short-term continuing resolution will not pass in the Senate.

Both chambers are out until April 13 so the shutdown is expected to last until then at least. Hope that no major weather disasters occur before then because FEMA is one of the DHS agencies out of commission (though some of its employees may be working without pay). It's possible that air travel security lines won't get worse since the President signed an Executive Order authorizing DHS to pay TSA workers. New DHS Secretary Mullin says paychecks will start to go out as early as Monday. How long can this approach continue? Unknown. Leaving aside the questionable legality of repurposing funds in this way, DHS may not be willing to keep paying TSA from these other funds long-term.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sketch collage image of businessman it specialist coding programming app protection security website web isolated on drawing background.

Amazon’s court loss over Just Walk Out highlights a deeper issue: employers are increasingly collecting workers’ biometric data without meaningful consent. Explore the growing conflict between workplace surveillance, privacy rights, and outdated U.S. laws.

Getty Images, Deagreez

The Quiet Rise of Employee Surveillance

Amazon’s loss in court over its attempt to shield the source code behind its Just Walk Out technology is a small win for shoppers, but the bigger story is how employers are quietly collecting biometric data from their own workers.

From factories to Fortune 500 companies, employers are demanding fingerprints, palmprints, retinal scans, facial scans, or even voice prints. These biometric technologies are eroding the boundary between workplace oversight and employee autonomy, often without consent or meaningful regulation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far
a person is casting a vote into a box

Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far

Primary elections are already underway across the United States, and this year’s contests are giving early clues about what voters may prioritize in the general election.

Several states have recently held high-profile primary races that could influence the balance of power in Congress over the next two years, in both state-wide and local elections. Many of these races involve open seats or competitive districts, making the outcomes especially significant as parties prepare for November.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs, including one that says "let the people vote."
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl

The Senate Was Meant to Slow Us Down—Not Stop Us Cold

The Senate is once again locked in a familiar pattern: a bill with clear support on one side, firm opposition on the other—and no obvious path forward.

This time it’s the SAVE Act, framed by its supporters as a safeguard for election integrity and by its opponents as a barrier to voting access. The arguments are well-rehearsed. The positions are firm. And yet, beneath the policy debate sits a more revealing truth: in today’s Senate, the outcome of legislation is often shaped long before a final vote is ever cast.

Keep ReadingShow less