Authoritarianism

Was Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell demonstrations a dress rehearsal for what’s to come in other states or nationally? The Atlantic’s David Frum thinks it is. And he’s not alone in this fear. If so it’d be another longtime-prediction by those accused of having Trump Derangement Syndrome having come true. There are increasing indications the administration will expand it’s use of the military domestically. 500 marines are reportedly poised to go into Los Angeles if needed to help squelch protests sparked by immigration enforcement raids. In the case of California and Los Angeles, neither California’s governor nor Los Angeles’ mayor called for the National Guard to be deployed. Some believe Trump did it because it’s a political domination move against Democratic Government Gavin Newsome, an outspoken Trump critic who many believe is eyeing the White House. Others say he did it as a way to get all the pieces in place for major anti-Trump demonstrations planned for June 24, a day after a Trump-ordered $45 million military parade that will celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary – which is also Trump’s 79th birthday. Trump’s critics feel this may be the opening salvo by Trump to ultimately delay the 2026 mid-term elections and control voting by eventually using the Insurrection Act. The Guardian: The White House said Trump was sending in the guardsmen to “address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester” in California. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said the move was “purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions”. Experts said it was the first time in 60 years that a president has activated a state’s national guard – a reserve military – without a request from its governor. Critics also saw it as an authoritarian flex by a strongman president who has relentlessly trampled norms and burst through guardrails. Since returning to office in January, Trump has sought to crush dissent at cultural institutions, law firms, media companies and universities. Many believed it was only a matter of time before he took the fight to the streets. ….The protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) raids present him with an antagonist that can be used as a focal point for anger, hatred and fear, ensuring that dissent is redirected away from the government and toward “an enemy within”. Trump is the master of distraction and, with the help of lurid rightwing media clips, wants to divert attention from policy failures and his ugly feud with Elon Musk. Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator, tweeted: “Important to remember that Trump isn’t trying to heal or keep the peace. He is looking to inflame and divide. His movement doesn’t believe in democracy or protest – and if they get a chance to end the rule of law they will take it. None of this is on the level.” Trump plans to meet with military leaders at Camp David: President Trump told reporters on Sunday that he’s heading to Camp David to meet with military and other leaders, shortly before he posted a message online calling Los Angeles protesters an “insurrectionist mob.” During a gaggle before boarding Air Force One, Trump would not rule out invoking the Insurrection Act, which could allow the military to be deployed domestically, but he suggested the protests against immigration raids were not yet an insurrection. “We’re going up to Camp David; we have meetings with various people about very major subjects,” Trump said. “We’ll be meeting with a lot of people, including generals, as you know, and admirals.” The New York Times’ Tyler Pager reports that this is the kind of fight has all the political components that Trump seeks: It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda. In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration’s efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain. Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city. As more demonstrators took to the streets, the president wrote on social media that Los Angeles was being “invaded and occupied” by “violent, insurrectionist mobs,” and directed three of his top cabinet officials to take any actions necessary to “liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.” And: “Nobody’s going to spit on our police officers. Nobody’s going to spit on our military,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he headed to Camp David on Sunday, although it was unclear whether any such incidents had occurred. “That happens, they get hit very hard.” The president declined to say whether he planned to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows for the use of federal troops on domestic soil to quell a rebellion. But either way, he added, “we’re going to have troops everywhere.” Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that “this is a fight to save civilization.” Mr. Trump’s decision to deploy at least 2,000 members of the California National Guard is the latest example of his willingness and, at times, an eagerness to shatter norms to pursue his political goals and bypass limits on presidential power. The last president to send in the National Guard for a domestic operation without a request from the state’s governor, Lyndon B. Johnson, did so in 1965, to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. On Sunday Trump said: “”We are going to have troops everywhere. We are not going to let this happen to our country.” The New European’s Political Editor James Ball call Trump’s crackdown on L.A. “hypocrisy” and “incredibly dangerous.’ He writes, in part: But the blazing hypocrisy of Trump and his top officials should stand out, too. One of Trump’s first actions on regaining the presidency in January was pardoning thousands of insurrectionists who participated in a violent invasion of Congress – including those who assaulted police. Now, mere months later, Trump claims to be so outraged by peaceful protest, which is protected by the First Amendment of the US constitution, that he is deploying troops against them. This risks a full-scale collapse of the USA’s already crumbling political norms. Trump has pardoned his own supporters for violent insurrection even as he deploys armed soldiers against his political opponents. This is the behaviour of dictators, not democratic leaders. It is a sign of a society reaching its breaking point. It has to be hoped that cooler heads prevail and manage to pull this particular crisis back from the brink. The people who actually make up the National Guard are not fanatics: they signed up to help their nation during crises, not to be a private army for a dictatorial president. California’s government and senior law enforcement officials will be trying to find ways to deploy troops that don’t risk escalating the situation. As always happens when Donald Trump is president, people will be working quietly to try to save America from the man leading it. Hopefully America’s luck will hold and they will be successful – but as Trump embraces his tyrannical impulses ever more openly, there are fewer and fewer people around him with either the ability or the inclination to hold him back. The citizens of Los Angeles were protesting against Trump’s unlawful use of the federal agency ICE to deport their friends and neighbours. For that, they are being called rebels against the state, and facing its military force. However the mess Trump has made in LA ends, America surely cannot withstand three and a half more years of this. Go to the link to read his column in its entirety. Trump’s plan to use the military to suppress demonstration raises many legal issues. Let’s get this straight: 1) Local law enforcement didn’t need help. 2) Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence. 3) Trump succeeded. 4) Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump’s mess. https://t.co/g6bwwZ29fc — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025 pic.twitter.com/AvN1phFxfg — George Conway ???? (@gtconway3d) June 9, 2025 As LA protests expand, so does misinformation. This evening @TedCruz shared a video from 2020 as if it was from today. Many of the false and misleading posts I'm seeing are from folks trying to lump peaceful protesters and violent rioters together. pic.twitter.com/mLihbt4hNM — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 9, 2025 Trump isn’t waiting for chaos—he’s engineering it. This National Guard move in LA isn’t about order. It’s bait. He wants a flashpoint big enough to justify invoking the Insurrection Act. Wake up. This is how power grabs start. — Jack Hopkins (@thejackhopkins) June 9, 2025 Trump’s border czar is threatening to arrest me for speaking out. Come and get me, tough guy. I don't give a damn. It won’t stop me from standing up for California.pic.twitter.com/DvVQljAgir — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025 Grotesque; shades of Pinochet https://t.co/TSQWhOYbQC — Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat) June 9, 2025 I want you by @deAdder Substack:https://t.co/maPT4lXf3k pic.twitter.com/OW995yJuTO — Michael de Adder (@deAdder) June 8, 2025 They talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome. But the real challenge we face is TSS: Trump Submission Syndrome. Members of Congress, surrendering their authority out of fear; law firms, prizing their business ahead of their oath, as advocates, to the law; universities,… — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) June 8, 2025 “If Trump can incite disturbances in blue states before the midterm elections, he can assert emergency powers to impose federal control over the voting process, which is to say his control” https://t.co/TpzmLYPO4n — Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) June 9, 2025 Ukraine continues to dismantle every corner of Russia's defense industry – this morning striking "JSC VNIIR', the producer of an array of electronics used in Russian air defense units, rockets and antennae. pic.twitter.com/HFaVLvfZ8p — Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) June 9, 2025 I have ZERO issue w/anyone in LA who is lighting dumpsters/cars on fire, & most certainly disrupting law enforcement activities, being arrested & prosecuted to fullest extent. Doesn't justify military involvement. This Administration is very clearly deliberately stoking fires. — Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) June 9, 2025 ID 7182022 © Rachwal | Dreamstime.com The post Is Donald Trump’s Deployment of National Guard in Los Angeles a “Dress Rehearsal” for What’s to Come? appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The caption of the image above on a social media site reads: Look at what’s happening in LA! Someone, call the National Guard! Oh, wait…that’s Jan 6…my bad. I will just add: It is chilling, disturbing, that President Trump has called up 2,000 National Guard troops to quell protests on the streets of an American city, while he refused to do the same when a violent mob attacked the seat of our government, threatened our democracy, a little over four years ago. The post What a Difference Four Years Make appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Autocrats today tend to govern by manipulation of the public, among other tactics, rather than solely using violence. Nanzeeba Ibnat/iStock/Getty Images Plus Daniel Treisman, University of California, Los Angeles President Donald Trump’s critics often accuse him of harboring authoritarian ambitions. Journalists and scholars have drawn parallels between his leadership style and that of strongmen abroad. Some Democrats warn that the U.S. is sliding toward autocracy – a system in which one leader holds unchecked power. Others counter that labeling Trump an autocrat is alarmist. After all, he hasn’t suspended the Constitution, forced school children to memorize his sayings or executed his rivals, as dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein once did. But modern autocrats don’t always resemble their 20th-century predecessors. Instead, they project a polished image, avoid overt violence and speak the language of democracy. They wear suits, hold elections and talk about the will of the people. Rather than terrorizing citizens, many use media control and messaging to shape public opinion and promote nationalist narratives. Many gain power not through military coups but at the ballot box. The softer power of today’s autocrats In the early 2000s, political scientist Andreas Schedler coined the term “electoral authoritarianism” to describe regimes that hold elections without real competition. Scholars Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way use another phrase, “competitive authoritarianism,” for systems in which opposition parties exist but leaders undermine them through censorship, electoral fraud or legal manipulation. In my own work with economist Sergei Guriev, we explore a broader strategy that modern autocrats use to gain and maintain power. We call this “informational autocracy” or “spin dictatorship.” These leaders don’t rely on violent repression. Instead, they craft the illusion that they are competent, democratic defenders of the nation – protecting it from foreign threats or internal enemies who seek to undermine its culture or steal its wealth. President Donald Trump appears at an Air Force base in Doha, Qatar, on May 15, 2025. Win McNamee/Getty Images Hungary’s democratic facade Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán exemplifies this approach. He first served from 1998 to 2002, returned to power in 2010 and has since won three more elections – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – after campaigns that international observers criticized as “intimidating and xenophobic.” Orbán has preserved the formal structures of democracy – courts, a parliament and regular elections – but has systematically hollowed them out. In his first two years he packed Hungary’s constitutional court, which reviews laws for constitutionality, with loyalists, forced judges off the bench by mandating a lower retirement age and rewrote the constitution to limit judicial review of his actions. He also tightened government control over independent media. To boost his image, Orbán funneled state advertising funds to friendly news outlets. In 2016, an ally bought Hungary’s largest opposition newspaper – then shut it down. Orbán has also targeted advocacy groups and universities. The Central European University, which was registered in both Budapest and the U.S., was once a symbol of the new democratic Hungary. But a law penalizing foreign-accredited institutions forced it to relocate to Vienna in 2020. Yet Orbán has mostly avoided violence. Journalists are harassed rather than jailed or killed. Critics are discredited for their beliefs but not abducted. His appeal rests on a narrative that Hungary is under siege – by immigrants, liberal elites and foreign influences – and that only he can defend its sovereignty and Christian identity. That message resonates with older, rural, conservative voters, even as it alienates younger, urban populations. A global shift in autocrats In recent decades, variants of spin dictatorship have appeared in Singapore, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Leaders such as Hugo Chávez and the early Vladimir Putin consolidated power and marginalized opposition with minimal violence. Data confirm this trend. Drawing from human rights reports, historical records and local media, my colleague Sergei Guriev and I found that the global incidence of political killings and imprisonments by autocrats dropped significantly from the 1980s to the 2010s. Why? In an interconnected world, overt repression has costs. Attacking journalists and dissidents can prompt foreign governments to impose economic sanctions and discourage international companies from investing. Curbing free expression risks stifling scientific and technological innovation – something even autocrats need in modern, knowledge-based economies. Still, when crises erupt, even spin dictators often revert to more traditional tactics. Russia’s Putin has cracked down violently on protesters and jailed opposition leaders. Meanwhile, more brutal regimes such as those in North Korea and China continue to rule by spreading fear, combining mass incarceration with advanced surveillance technologies. But overall, spin is replacing terror. America too? Most experts, myself included, agree that the U.S. remains a democracy. Yet some of Trump’s tactics resemble those of informational autocrats. He has attacked the press, defied court rulings and pressured universities to curtail academic independence and limit international admissions. His admiration for strongmen such as Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele alarms observers. At the same time, Trump routinely denigrates democratic allies and international institutions such as the United Nations and NATO. Some experts say democracy depends on politicians’ self restraint. But a system that survives only if leaders choose to respect its limits is not much of a system at all. What matters more is whether the press, judiciary, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, churches, unions, universities and citizens have the power – and the will – to hold leaders accountable. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán delivers a speech at a hotel in Madrid on Feb. 8, 2025. Thomas Coex/AFP via Getty Images Preserving democracy in the US Wealthy democracies such as the U.S., Canada and many Western European countries benefit from robust institutions such as newspapers, universities, courts and advocacy groups that act as checks on government. Such institutions help explain why populists such as Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi or Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, although accused of bending electoral rules and threatening judicial independence, have not dismantled democracy outright in their countries. In the U.S., the Constitution provides another layer of protection. Amending it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states – a far steeper hurdle than in Hungary, where Orbán needed only a two-thirds parliamentary majority to rewrite the constitution. Of course, even the U.S. Constitution can be undermined if a president defies the Supreme Court. But doing so risks igniting a constitutional crisis and alienating key supporters. That doesn’t mean American democracy is safe from erosion. But its institutional foundations are older, deeper and more decentralized than those of many newer democracies. Its federal structure, with overlapping jurisdictions and multiple veto points, makes it harder for any one leader to dominate. Still, the global rise of spin dictatorships should sharpen awareness of what is happening in the U.S. Around the world, autocrats have learned to control their citizens by faking democracy. Understanding their techniques may help Americans to preserve the real thing. Daniel Treisman, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Autocrats don’t act like Hitler or Stalin anymore – instead of governing with violence, they use manipulation appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

Until August of 1934, German judges swore an oath that reflected the spirit of the democratic Weimar republic: “I swear loyalty to the Constitution, obedience to the law, and conscientious fulfillment of the duties of my office, so help me God.” But that fateful summer, the judicial oath was tweaked just a wee bit: “I swear loyalty to the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, obedience to the law, and conscientious fulfillment of the duties of my office, so help me God.” Donald Trump would love to mimic what Hitler intoned on April 27, 1942: “I expect the German legal profession to understand that the nation is not here for them, but that they are here for the nation” – the national interest, as defined by Hitler – and woe to any recalcitrant judges “who evidently do not understand the demand of the hour.” Short of that, Trump is currently doing the next worst thing: defying federal court orders whenever he thinks he can get away with it and rampaging through the wild like a predatory grizzly, chewing with malice aforethought on our democratic sinew. Separation of powers? Nah, those are just words on old parchment. An independent judiciary, a co-equal branch of government? Roy Cohn, his dead mobbed-up mentor, would eat that crap for breakfast. And Trump’s impulse, as always, is to paw demagoguery on his phone, ranting about “USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK.” On the upside (there’s an upside!), it’s been inspiring to see so many “USA hating” judges stand tall for the rule of law and thwart him at every turn. As of May 29, he has reportedly suffered 180 beatdowns in federal court since the dark day he waddled back to power. In May alone, he reportedly lost 96 percent of the cases brought against him. Even 72 percent of the Republican-appointed judges ruled against him. Lest we forget, this is the same loser who tried to stage a coup after his 2020 election loss, only to lose 63 of 64 court cases. This guy’s win-loss record is worse than the Colorado Rockies. His biggest beatdown came last week, when the U.S. Court of International Trade, which has broad powers over trade issues, ruled his authoritarian imposition of tariffs is patently illegal. The three judges (one of whom is a Reagan appointee; one of whom is a Trump appointee) ruled unanimously that Trump pulled his policy out of his rear. Trump’s repeated strategy is to declare fake national emergencies in order to justify whatever he does. A 1977 law allows presidents to impose tariffs on other countries in very limited circumstances, like when there’s an “unusual and extraordinary” national security emergency. The three judges spotted Trump’s obvious con and put his sweeping tariffs in limbo. (In a separate case, a federal judge also ruled against Trump, citing the tariffs’ illegality.) That’s been happening all over the check-and-balance scoreboard. Federal judges have blocked Trump’s attempts to kill federal research on women’s health, blocked his attempts to kill pandemic relief funding, blocked his attempts to swipe $12 million from Radio Free Europe, and blocked his attempts to fire lots of Education Department workers. Judges have also blocked his attempts to sabotage the U.S. Agency for International Development, blocked his attempts to bar Harvard from enrolling international students, and blocked his many attempts to use a 1798 law (intended for wartime) and a 1940 law (intended for wartime) to justify his broadly illegal deportation actions. The big question is whether all these valiant efforts will turn out to be fingers in the dike and nothing more. Authoritarians are notoriously adept at playing the long game – crushing the judiciary not with one dramatic blow, but whittling away its powers bit by bit to justify what Hitler called “the demand of the hour,” all the better to ensure that it’s barely noticed by a feckless oblivious citizenry. At every step, Trump’s propaganda apparatchiks continue to denounce “unelected judges” and continue to claim, as Trump’s press secretary said the other day, that they are trying “to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him.” The MAGA regime’s abiding goal is to force federal judges to march in goosestep. The pressures to conform, to bow to the rising threats, will increase with each passing month. The rest of us, besieged by the onslaught on so many fronts, may be tempted to look away for the sake of our sanity. But we can ill afford a complicit judiciary staffed by “soldiers of law.” That term was coined in 1934 by Nazi jurist Roland Freisler, who said all judges should work with Der Leader to create “combat law…like the weapon’s tip which in battle is pointed at the enemy.” Freisler was killed on Feb. 3, 1945 during the Allied bombing of Berlin. I’m pleased to end this piece on an upbeat note. – Copyright 2025 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com The post The totalitarian toddler’s wet dream appeared first on The Moderate Voice.

The women behind Italy’s underground press during World War II offer important lessons for democracies today.