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

Welcome to Trump’s lame duck presidency

President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2026.

(Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Welcome to Trump’s lame duck presidency

It's been a while since we saw a lame duck presidency — long enough in politics to maybe forget what one looks like.

In October 2014, President Barack Obama hit his lowest approval rating yet at 40%. The midterm elections were an absolute bloodbath for Democrats — Republicans expanded their majority in the House by 13 seats and took control of the Senate with a gain of nine seats.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Reporters and members of the media raise their hand to ask a question to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Reporters and members of the media raise their hand to ask a question to U.S. President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House on April 25, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Al Drago / Getty Images

Trump’s 15 Attacks on Press Freedom Mark an Unprecedented Crisis

“Freedom of conscience, of education, of speech, of assembly are among the very fundamentals of democracy, and all of them would be nullified should freedom of the press ever be successfully challenged.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd U.S. President

Throughout America’s 250 years, the tension between the White House and the press is as old as the republic itself. Several presidents haven’t necessarily tried to repeal the First Amendment (which protects the press), per se, or the Fifth Amendment (which protects journalists’ confidential sources). Instead, some have tried to control the narrative and limit press access.

Keep ReadingShow less
Academic Tracking in K-12 Schools: Improving Achievement or Widening Gaps?
red apple fruit on four pyle books

Academic Tracking in K-12 Schools: Improving Achievement or Widening Gaps?

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Tracking is widespread and begins early. Currently, 75 percent of eighth graders nationwide are affected by tracking and the process begins in first and second grade.
  • Successful detracking requires adequate support. Districts that detrack with enough support and resources for both teachers and students can narrow achievement gaps without lowering performance.Successful examples often come from communities with extensive resources.
  • Research on the impact of tracking on achievement is mixed. Some studies show tracking benefits advanced students at no cost to others, but other studies have shown the opposite; minimum educational gains with significant costs in equity.

What is Academic Tracking?

Academic tracking is the practice of assigning students to different classrooms based on earlier academic achievement or perceived ability. It affects approximately 75 percent of eighth graders nationwide and begins as early as first and second grade. Unlike temporary ability grouping, where a teacher might divide students into small groups for a single lesson on fractions, tracking sorts students into specific pathways such as remedial math, regular Algebra I, or honors Algebra I, with math being the most heavily tracked subject in American schools.

Keep ReadingShow less