How did America get so vulnerable to dictatorship?

Plus, a rare opportunity to reform national emergencies

We were supposed to be so invulnerable. The oldest and wealthiest of democracies with an almost dogmatic tradition of constitutionalism and a mythos of great leaders deferential to the consent of the governed. Resistance to tyranny, we were all taught, is just part of who we are. 

And yet we’re staring down the possibility of an openly authoritarian leader. Could we really lose our democracy to a strongman? How did it come to this? 

This week, the British magazine The Economist devotes its cover story to this question — with the clear-eyed perspective that comes easier across an ocean. (It’s behind a paywall, but it’s worth creating a free account to read it in full.) 

The short answer: 

[I]f Americans believe that their constitution alone can safeguard the republic from a Caesar on the Potomac, then they are too sanguine. Preserving democracy depends today, as it always has, on the courage and convictions of countless people all across America—especially those charged with writing and upholding its laws.

But while democracy has never been guaranteed — the words on paper are only meaningful because we all agree to follow them — recent trends have opened the door to an unchecked presidential despotism that the founders could never have imagined. 

So, no, it’s not just vibes. Democracy today is more vulnerable today than in decades past. 

The three cracks in the firewall against autocracy

Democratic decline defies simple explanations. Our current crisis stems from everything from globalization, the atomization of modern social life, and backlash to demographic change to the fracturing of a shared fact-based reality and an electoral system that advantages authoritarian politics.

But for the narrow question — how could an American Caesar hope to succeed? — there are three key trends: 

One, polarization has eroded checks & balances. As The Economist writes, “[t]he Founding Fathers did not anticipate the rise of partisanship.” 

That means checks and balances — like impeachment — that were designed around branches of government competing with each other for power don’t work as well when the main competition is political parties jockeying across the branches. (Note: the rise of parties is not actually a bad thing. Political scientists pretty much universally agree they’re inevitable and critical for modern democracy — the flaw was not anticipating their inevitability.)

And this isn’t just partisans in Congress being unwilling to check a president of the same party. The increasingly partisan politics of some Supreme Court justices may explain the Court’s unwillingness to be an effective check, at least in cases where the president shares their ideological views.

Two, legislative dysfunction has increased the temptation to work around the system. In part because of that same polarization, the lawmaking process designed by the Constitution doesn’t work as well as it used to. Congress, simply put, has lost the ability to solve big problems. 

Not only does this dysfunction make radical, anti-system electoral politics seem more appealing, but it also increases the temptation for any leader — even institutionalists — to push the boundaries of their authority as a way to achieve their policy priorities. The Economist points to emergency declarations in particular: 

Most emergencies are declared to deploy federal resources when there is a natural disaster, which is how the power should work. But as it has become harder to pass legislation, presidents have found this escape route too tempting to leave unexploited. 

(Read about Protect Democracy’s work to constrain emergency powers here and here.) 

Three, constraints on presidential power have not kept up with ballooning executive power. Since the days of George Washington, when (per The Economist) “the entire executive branch consisted of four cabinet secretaries and five actual secretaries,” the American presidency has expanded exponentially — but “the legal constraints on the exercise of that power have not grown in proportion.” 

Presidential powers that might have made sense in the era of the Whiskey Rebellion (the first Insurrection Act dates from 1792) look very different now that the president heads a military of over two million personnel. Certain powers — especially to make war, declare national emergencies, or to deploy troops on American soil — are badly in need of modernization. If American democracy dies, it will most likely be through these vulnerabilities. 

---

A rare bipartisan opportunity to reform national emergencies

On that point, this week also saw a rare bright light in Congress’ attempts to reassert control over national emergencies, as the Senate held a promising hearing on reforming the National Emergencies Act (NEA). 

As Elise Wirkus and Aisha Woodward wrote on Wednesday:

Given the strong agreement around the need to reform emergency powers, [this week’s] hearing should serve as an opportunity to jumpstart conversations about legislative options to reform the NEA. Luckily, there is already a potential vehicle to do so.

Introduced last year by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the ARTICLE ONE Act would require congressional approval to extend a national emergency declaration beyond 30 days.

This legislation strikes a good balance of allowing the president to swiftly respond to natural disasters, national security threats, public health events, and other emergencies with broader legal authorities for a short timeframe, but would also install an appropriate check on these powers after the first 30 days of a crisis. And importantly, this is not only a bipartisan effort but a bicameral one, as the bill has also been introduced in the House by Representatives Chip Roy (R-TX) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management hosted a hearing on emergency powers in May 2023.

Maybe, with luck, the cracks in our firewall can be patched before it’s too late. 

Read about the ARTICLE ONE Act here. And Elise and Aisha’s full piece here. 

---

What else we’re tracking: 

• It’s now taken the Supreme Court longer to decide Trump’s relatively straightforward immunity case (at least, other courts have treated it as straightforward) than it took them to decide the more novel and complex 14th Amendment disqualification case. Conor Gaffney and Genevieve Nadeau explain how the Court “speeding when it benefits Trump, delaying when it doesn’t” is becoming a pattern. 

• For the second time in six months, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss have held Rudy Giuliani accountable for the harm he has caused them. In an agreement filed this week, Mr. Giuliani consented to the entry of an injunction permanently barring him from repeating his lies about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss in the future. Read more. 

• Reuters has a new and detailed investigation of Trump’s allies proposals to curtail DOJ independence. Trump aims to exert direct control over federal law enforcement and has “pledged to use it to pursue his own opponents, including Democratic President Joe Biden.” 

• In an event last week, Shannen Coffin — who was general counsel for Vice President Dick Cheney — warned that attempting a self-pardon would be an abuse of the office. (More on pardon abuses here).

• The Harvard Ash Center has a new podcast mini-series with lesser-known stories of “when democracy breaks,” from ancient Athens to today. 

• An unsealed court filing revealed that additional classified documents were discovered (twice) at Mar-a-Lago four months after the 2022 FBI raid.

• “For the women who accused the Trump campaign of harassment, it’s been more harassment.” Read this profile of Jessica Denson and others in ProPublica. (Protect Democracy represented Jessica in her challenge to the Trump campaign’s NDAs. Background here).

• The head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is moving to close the loophole that has badly weakened the Hatch Act (the law that limits political activity by federal employees). Read his explanation in POLITICO Magazine. 

• “We’ll See You at Your House.” The New York Times has a major story on how threats of violence are transforming our politics. (This tracks with our Violence & Democracy Impact Tracker, where “threats to public officials” ranked among top concerns for the first time in March.)

• ProPublica’s Andy Kroll has — and I mean this without exaggeration — a truly bonkers story of the chaotic and paranoia-filled collapse of the Michigan Republican Party as an institution: “Scenes From a MAGA Meltdown.” (I’ll keep saying it: parties matter.)