Is American democracy doomed?

How to understand the concept of "competitive authoritarianism" and why it's crucial to push back now to avoid it.

Thank you for reading The Garden of Forking Paths. Some of this edition is free and some is for paid subscribers only, so to unlock all of it, get full access to 185+ essays, and support my work so I can keep writing for you, consider upgrading to a paid subscription for the low, low price of just $4/month. I rely exclusively on reader support. You can also support my writing by buying my award-winning book: FLUKE.

---

I: Are the reports of democracy’s death greatly exaggerated?

A few weeks ago, as Donald Trump and Elon Musk ran roughshod over laws and the Constitution in their quest to take a literal chainsaw to the US government, a major political science democracy index was quietly updated.

The “Polity IV” index—which measures levels of democracy and authoritarianism in every country—decided to re-classify the United States as a non-democracy. The official notice read as follows: “The USA is no longer considered a democracy and lies at the cusp of autocracy.”

Around the same time, Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, leading scholars of democratic breakdown, wrote a chilling warning in Foreign Affairs, arguing that “democracy is in greater peril today than at any time in modern US history”; that “the country’s vaunted constitutional checks are failing”; and that “US democracy will likely break down during the second Trump administration.”¹

Such discussions are no shock to those who have been paying attention to reality. American politics has, for the past decade, been dominated by a man who attacks the press, incites political violence, hires family members, cronies, and loyalists, scapegoats minorities, threatens to jail his political opponents, lies constantly, engages in blatant corruption, solicits bribery, and openly praises dictators and autocrats.

After he lost the 2020 election, Trump engaged in a systematically authoritarian campaign to stay in power. First, he tried to discredit the election. When Chris Krebs, the top election cybersecurity official pushed back, saying that contest was “the most secure in American history,” Trump fired Krebs; Trump’s lawyer then called for Krebs to be killed.

Second, he tried to order Georgia’s Secretary of State to “find” 11,800 additional votes so he could win the state.

Third, Trump tried to pressure state legislatures to overturn the results, or to appoint “fake electors.” And at one point, the White House circulated a draft executive order that would have directed the Secretary of Defense to “seize” America’s voting machines.

When all those machinations failed, Trump incited a violent mob that stormed Congress, which included deranged zealots who sought to take members of Congress hostage until they illegally returned Trump to power.

Trump himself has faced precisely zero lasting consequences for these actions—and many rewards. Since January 6th, 2021, he has gotten substantially richer on a series of grifting schemes, was re-elected president, and, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, made several criminal investigations against himself disappear. (Trump also pardoned 1,500 convicted criminals who stormed the Capitol, including those who violently attacked law enforcement officers, thereby sending a clear signal that perpetrators who conduct political violence on his behalf will be protected from prosecution).

This is just the tip of the authoritarian iceberg. The first six weeks of Trump’s second term have taken a wrecking ball to core principles of democracy, including the notion that presidents can’t just do whatever they want, facilitated by the whims of the world’s richest man and his borderline adolescent tech world cronies. And yet, despite all that, America’s democratic institutions have not completely disappeared, even as they are under sustained attack.

Since 2011, I’ve studied authoritarianism and democratic breakdown across the world, including extensive field research living inside dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. I wrote the first book warning of Trump’s authoritarianism in 2017, The Despot’s Apprentice. Still, many political scientists, including myself, remain conflicted on the question of whether the United States still qualifies as a (admittedly badly broken) democracy. Some will say it has now passed the threshold and should lose the label; others find that declaration premature and overblown.

But most of us agree that the United States is rapidly lurching away from democracy—and toward “competitive authoritarianism,” a dysfunctional, autocratic system of government that lies between democracy and dictatorship.

In this edition, I’ll:

• Draw on 14 years of my research to explain how and why urgent public action matters in resisting democratic backsliding and the rise of authoritarianism;

• Explain, in detail, what “competitive authoritarianism” is while arguing that the less precise but more understandable blanket terms of “authoritarianism,” and “despot” are probably better terms for public-facing political messaging;

• Illustrate the difference between “input legitimacy” and “output legitimacy” to resolve a longstanding popular misunderstanding about what is and isn’t accurately classified as an “attack on democracy”;

• Trace the political dynamics that explain why Trump’s first term—as the “despot’s apprentice”—has now morphed into a far more worrying form that more directly threatens American democracy.

II: Don’t Wait for Instructions. Make Ripples Now.

From Madagascar to Thailand and Belarus to Tunisia, I’ve interviewed hundreds of terrible, powerful individuals who have worked to destroy democracy—and countless brave people who stood up to them. From that research, there are several key principles I’ve observed that are most applicable to any country that’s drifting toward the death of democracy—and the rise of authoritarian rule.

First, it’s far easier to save a democracy than to resurrect one. When democracy dies, it becomes much harder to push back against power. Challenging power becomes risky. Protesting becomes dangerous. Running for office may be deadly. It is therefore wiser to stand up for democracy against an autocrat-in-waiting than an autocrat.

Second, successful pro-democracy movements are big tents that transcend traditional political divides. To save institutions, it’s important not to fall into the trap of being divided by policy. Unite with people who disagree with you on everything, so long as they agree with you that democracy is worth saving.

Third, the inverse is true: exploiting latent divisions in the ruling movement can help divide and weaken attacks on democracy. For example, trying to pit Elon Musk against Donald Trump—two massive narcissistic egos—or trying to turn the MAGA nationalists against the Wall Street billionaires, is a viable strategy. Infighting saps political capital and creates unforced errors. Provoke it.

Fourth, democracy takes time to destroy, so slowing down the pace and “running out the clock” can be a viable strategy. In the United States, there are midterm elections coming up in 2026, which could be a chance to more formally constrain Trump. Even if the damage is going to happen, slowing and spreading out the damage can reduce the long-term impact on institutions—buying time until the balance of power shifts. Challenges in the courts are one way to achieve this; creating hesitancy among elected Republicans by making them aware of public discontent is another. It can still be a meaningful victory if damage to democracy happens, but it takes two years rather than two months.

Fifth, shape narratives, don’t just respond to existing ones. This is more a message for elected Democrats and influential pundits than most citizens, but the notion that the way to defeat Trumpism is solely to speak about high egg prices is beyond naive. Sure, discuss bread and butter issues. But political consultants who run focus groups will only tell politicians what voters are already saying.

Real leaders change political narratives, they don’t just chase existing ones. Donald Trump has radically changed political viewpoints precisely because he doesn’t just follow polls and test messages with focus groups. If people currently seem to care more about egg prices than the potential death of democracy, make an effort to persuade them they that they should care. Egg prices go up and down; authoritarianism can be forever.

Sixth, digital activism matters little compared to real-world protests, boycotts, and strikes. Democracy doesn’t get saved one post at a time. Authoritarians are delighted when their opponents only channel their anger into typed outrage that generates dopamine through clicks from like-minded partisans. Elon Musk will be constrained far more by Tesla boycotts and the prospect of plummeting sales figures than by mean memes. Donald Trump hates bad optics—and mass protests are terrible optics for a wannabe despot who (falsely) claims a “landslide” popular mandate.

There’s no magic rabbit about to be pulled out of a hat to push back against powerful anti-democratic forces. Targeted boycotts, consistent mass protests, and, eventually, coordinated general strikes—along with formal political organizing that puts pressure on complicit politicians while laying the groundwork for a future electoral surge—remain the tried and tested tools of effective pro-democracy opposition.

Seventh, nonviolent movements are more effective than violent ones. Nonviolent movements also lead to more democratic outcomes. If you don’t believe me, read the research by the world’s expert on that question, Harvard’s Erica Chenoweth.

Eighth and perhaps most crucially: Don’t wait for instructions. Ripples matter—and you can make some now.

My friends in Britain are baffled: why aren’t Americans in the streets? There is an enormous public appetite for opponents of Trump to feel like someone—a Democratic politician, perhaps—is finally going to stand up, let out a primal scream, and do something.

I feel that frustration. But what I’ve learned from pro-democracy movements around the world is that the most effective opposition often emerges organically from stubborn people who don’t wait for instructions, but instead make their own ripples. We are each one person, but every movement starts with one person—and then grows, one person at a time.

In Tunisia, a single disgruntled vegetable vendor sparked protests that took down a dictatorship and triggered uprisings in several other countries.² Yes, most individual efforts to stand up to power fail. Few catch on. But it’s also a numbers game. If ten people try to galvanize change, that’s a lot less likely to succeed than if millions of people take it upon themselves to try to create a better, more democratic world. Be one of those millions.

You have skills and talents; if you have the time and energy to do so, use them peacefully, non-violently, and passionately—but don’t wait for instructions on how to best do so. Join an existing organization, plan a protest movement, or organize something new. Just remember this: Authoritarians thrive on passivity.

And with that advice, let’s now turn to exploring America’s democratic peril in context; how to understand competitive authoritarianism; and why Trump’s second term is so much more of an existential threat to democracy than his first.