Are We Doomed To Sit In Front Of Our Screens While Our Democracy Gets Flushed Down The Toilet? Nope

Been Wondering Who The First Democrat The Fascist Trump Regime Would Arrest?

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, cuffed, and hauled off to ICE jail

Heavy-sounding OpEd title for the NY Times— Steven Levitsky’s, Lucan Way’s and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy? They proposed a simple test: “the cost of opposing the government. In democracies, citizens are not punished for peacefully opposing those in power. They need not worry about publishing critical opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in peaceful protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from the government. In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition— that all citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and seek to remove the government through elections— is a foundational principle of democracy.” The following afternoon, at the same time White House neo-Nazi Steven Miller announced they are considering suspending Habeas Corpus, Newark Mayor— and New Jersey gubernatorial candidate—  Ras Baraka was arrested by a gang of ICE thugs for demonstrating outside one of their deportation facilities, “taken into custody by a team of masked federal agents wearing military fatigues while outside the gates in a driveway swarming with protesters and reporters.”

Levitsky, Way and Daniel Ziblatt had written that “under authoritarianism opposition comes with a price. Citizens and organizations that run afoul of the government become targets of a range of punitive measures: Politicians may be investigated and prosecuted on baseless or petty charges, media outlets may be hit with frivolous defamation suits or adverse regulatory rulings, businesses may face tax audits or be denied critical contracts or licenses, universities and other civic institutions may lose essential funding or tax-exempt status, and journalists, activists and other critics may be harassed, threatened or physically attacked by government supporters. When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy. By that measure, America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism. The Trump administration’s weaponization of government agencies and flurry of punitive actions against critics has raised the cost of opposition for a wide range of Americans.”

And here we are. “The Trump administration has taken (or credibly threatened) punitive action against a strikingly large number of individuals and organizations that it considers its opponents. It has, for example, selectively deployed law enforcement agencies against critics. Trump directed the Department of Justice to open investigations into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly contradicted Trump’s false claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles Taylor (who, when he was a Department of Homeland Security official, anonymously wrote an opinion piece criticizing the president in 2018). The administration has also opened a criminal investigation into Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2022.”

The regime has targeted universities, ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s main donor platform. law firms Trump sees as friendly to the Democrats, the media, Republican politicians who don’t toe the line… “Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the media have occurred with even greater speed and force than equivalent actions taken by elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or Venezuela during their first years in office… For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of opposition has risen markedly. Although these costs are not as high as in dictatorships like Russia— where critics are routinely imprisoned, exiled or killed— America has, with stunning speed, descended into a world in which opponents of the government fear criminal investigations, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures and even Republican politicians are, as one former Trump administration official put it, ‘scared’ out of their minds ‘about death threats.’”

The administration’s authoritarian offensive has had a clear impact. It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to think twice about engaging in what should be constitutionally protected opposition. Consequently, many of the politicians and societal organizations that should serve as watchdogs and checks on the executive are silencing themselves or retreating to the sidelines.

For example, fear of retribution has had a chilling effect on donations to Democrats and progressive civic organizations, forcing several of them to scale back operations and lay off employees. In the wake of Trump’s attacks on leading law firms, opponents of the administration are struggling to find legal representation, as deep-pocketed and reputable firms that once readily engaged in legal battles with the government are lying low to avoid his wrath. Columbia University ceded to the administration’s extortionary demands for greater restrictions on student expression. As Trump observed, “You see what we’re doing with the colleges, and they’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much.’”

There are troubling signs of media self-censorship. CBS’s parent company, Paramount, which is seeking the Trump administration’s approval for a merger with Skydance Media, recently established additional oversight over 60 Minutes programming. This move triggered the resignation of the program’s longtime executive producer, Bill Owens, who cited a loss of journalistic independence.

And crucially, Republican lawmakers have abdicated their role as checks on executive power. As Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, put it, “We are all afraid. It’s quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.”

Americans are living under a new regime. The question now is whether we will allow it to take root.

So far, American society’s response to this authoritarian offensive has been underwhelming— alarmingly so. Civic leaders confront a difficult collective action problem. A vast majority of American politicians, chief executives, law partners, newspaper editors and university presidents prefer to live in a democracy and want to end this abuse. But as individuals confronting government threats, they have incentives to appease, rather than oppose, the Trump administration.

Civil society leaders seek to protect their organizations from government attacks: Chief executives need to protect shareholders and future business opportunities, media owners must avoid costly defamation suits and adverse regulatory rulings, and university presidents seek to avoid devastating funding cuts. For any individual leader, then, the price of defiance can often appear unbearably steep. Although they acknowledge that everyone would be better off if someone took the lead and defied Trump, few are willing to pay the price themselves. This logic has led some of America’s most influential figures, including politicians, billionaires, chief executives and university presidents, to stay on the sidelines, hoping that someone else steps forward.

Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian bullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary defensive measures, feel like the only reasonable course. But this is the fatal logic of appeasement: the belief that quietly yielding in small, seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm.

It usually doesn’t. And acts of individual self-preservation have serious collective costs. For one, acquiescence will probably embolden the administration, encouraging it to intensify and broaden its attacks. Autocrats rarely entrench themselves in power through force alone; they are enabled by the accommodation and inaction of those who might have resisted. Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile and hoping to be the last one eaten.

Individual acquiescence also weakens America’s overall democratic defenses. Although the retreat of a single donor or law firm may not matter that much, collective retreat could leave opponents of the Trump administration without adequate funding or legal protection. The cumulative effect on public opinion of every newspaper story not published, every speech or sermon not delivered and every news conference not held can be substantial. When the opposition plays dead, the government usually wins.

The acquiescence of our most prominent civic leaders sends a profoundly demoralizing message to society. It tells Americans that democracy is not worth defending— or that resistance is futile. If America’s most privileged individuals and organizations are unwilling or unable to defend democracy, what are ordinary citizens supposed to do?

The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the descent into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.

America’s courts remain independent and will almost certainly block some of the administration’s most abusive measures. But judges— themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and even arrest— cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal opposition is essential.

American civil society has the financial and organizational muscle to resist Trump’s authoritarian offensive. It has several hundred billionaires; dozens of law firms that earn at least a billion dollars a year; more than 1,700 private universities and colleges; a vast infrastructure of churches, labor unions, private foundations and nonprofit organizations; and a well-organized and well-financed opposition party.

But civil society must act collectively. Chief executives, law firms, universities, media outlets and Democratic politicians, as well as more traditional Republicans, have a common interest in preserving our constitutional democracy. When organizations work together and commit to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the costs of defiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once. When the costs of defiance are shared, they become easier for individuals to bear.

So far, the most energetic opposition has come not from civic leaders but from everyday citizens, showing up at congressional town hall meetings or participating in Hands Off rallies across the country. Our leaders must follow their example. A collective defense of democracy is most likely to succeed when prominent, well-funded individuals and organizations— those who are best able to absorb blows from the government— get in the game.

There are signs of an awakening. Harvard has refused to acquiesce to administration demands that would undermine academic freedom, Microsoft dropped a law firm that settled with the administration and hired one that defied it, and a new law firm based in Washington, D.C., announced plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by the government. When the most influential members of civil society fight back, it provides political cover for others. It also galvanizes ordinary citizens to join the fight.

America’s slide into authoritarianism is reversible. But no one has ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.

Question: what did you think of AOC the first time you heard her call for abolishing ICE?