American Democracy: On the Path to Dictatorship, Not Just Threatened

Robert Kagan asserts that the United States is already on a path toward dictatorship, emphasizing that he does not need to be 'living under Vladimir Putin tomorrow' to recognize this trajectory. He believes that while many Americans find it hard to imagine such a shift occurring in their country, the process is clearly underway. Kagan expressed a wish for a more profound commitment from the American populace to the foundational principles of the Declaration and the Constitution, rather than their concerns being primarily about immediate personal impacts such as gas prices or the deportation of acquaintances.

Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, introduced the discussion by noting his own worries about the future of democracy ahead of the US midterm elections on November 3rd. Wolf's concern is shaped by his family's history as refugees from Nazi Germany, which taught him the consequences of democratic failure. He indicated that the rise of the radical right in contemporary times resonates with these historical lessons.

Wolf initiated this interview series, focusing on the implications of the midterms for Donald Trump, American democracy, and the nation's global standing. He highlighted Kagan as a scholar and former Republican adviser who has been vocal about Trump's authoritarian ambitions since 2016, noting Kagan's earlier warnings about America's slide into autocracy.

Martin Wolf challenged Robert Kagan's assertion, asking why the current state of affairs should be termed a 'dictatorship' rather than a 'severely degraded and threatened democracy.' Wolf pointed out that elections are still held, the courts, including the Supreme Court, continue to block administration actions, state officials resist federal demands and retain their elected power, and the press actively criticizes the president.

Kagan responded by clarifying that it is not a 'completed dictatorship' but rather a transition that is 'well down that transition.' He warned that the mere existence of elections does not guarantee safety from autocracy, as elections have been part of transitions to dictatorship in the past. Kagan noted that Trump appears 'more unhinged than ever,' taking actions that normal presidents would not, and stressed the possibility that Trump could attempt to use his power to consolidate control, pointing out that Trump is in full control of what other countries would term 'power ministries.'

Robert Kagan warned that while it might be difficult for Donald Trump to overturn a decisive election outcome, it would not be challenging for him to disrupt the counting process or even the seating of the next Congress. He highlighted that Trump's administration includes individuals whose 'sole purpose' is to overturn election results.

Kagan noted that the Justice Department is planning to deploy a 'historic number of election monitors' under this administration. He expressed concern that these monitors have previously engaged in actions that disrupt elections, such as questioning voting rights and potentially intimidating voters. Kagan conveyed his hope that the American public's growing opposition to Trump would have an effect but worried that the government possesses both the power and the will to prevent a fundamental change of power through the election.

He reiterated that any attempt to prevent the next Congress from being seated would signal a critical point, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis and a form of civil conflict. Kagan likened this situation to his earlier statement, emphasizing that one does not need to be living under Vladimir Putin to recognize the trajectory towards dictatorship in the U.S.

Robert Kagan attributes the compliance of Republicans with the Trump movement to 'human beings behaving like human beings,' citing careerism and the desire for belonging within the power structure as primary motivators. He observed that Republicans who refused to align with Trump have largely become irrelevant. Kagan characterized this phenomenon as an 'acid test' of who truly possesses principles.

When asked if fear or greed and opportunism are more significant factors, Kagan stated that it depends on the individual. For senior Republicans, he suggested that 'greed and ambition' play a larger role, as many are involved in consulting firms and rely on business support, necessitating a favorable relationship with the Trump administration. Conversely, for younger staff in their 30s or 40s with families, fear is a more dominant factor, specifically the fear of government retaliation, given Trump's history of targeting individuals for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

Robert Kagan asserted that American constitutional institutions are not 'self-enforcing' mechanisms that automatically activate in times of threat. Instead, he explained, they fundamentally depend on people to uphold and implement them. Kagan pointed out that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the role of political parties, which, while sometimes beneficial, can also pose a 'potential hazard' to democracy by prioritizing party solidarity over fidelity to the Constitution.

Kagan observed that the shift in Trump's power between his first and second terms is notable. He explained that Trump gained significant democratic legitimacy from winning a second election. Furthermore, Kagan argued that the Supreme Court effectively granted Trump a 'free pass' to act without legal constraint, despite some instances of the court blocking him. This declaration, according to Kagan, allowed a president to operate as desired, irrespective of legality, a power Trump has fully utilized.

Wolf had earlier reflected on his 2016 column, 'Donald Trump is how great republics meet their end,' suggesting his assessment was accurate. He queried how Trump accumulated such extraordinary power, given the perception of a well-established and trustworthy Republican constitutional framework.

Robert Kagan highlighted a significant shift in Donald Trump's inner circle during his hypothetical second term, noting the presence of 'true believers.' These individuals, Kagan explained, are not only committed to Trump but also to a fundamental mission of altering the American system. He characterized their ideology as distinct, describing them as 'not liberal, they're anti-liberal, they're post-liberal,' aiming to establish a hierarchical society based on race, religion, and sex.

Kagan stated that this group is 'fundamentally hostile' not only to the American Constitution but, more significantly, to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which the Constitution was designed to safeguard. He views Trump primarily as a 'vehicle' for these objectives, acknowledging that some might even consider him an 'imperfect vehicle' for their goals.

During Trump's first term, Kagan observed that Trump did not initially expect to win the presidency and, as a result, lacked a cohesive entourage. He appointed many nominal Republicans or 'stalwarts' who were not ideal for executing his mission. Kagan suggested that if these ideological 'true believers' had a more effective leader, they might have achieved their objectives more efficiently. Wolf pondered whether these principles suggested presidential powers akin to an absolute monarch.

Robert Kagan described the overall response of the American elite to the current political climate as a 'complete collapse,' with one minor caveat. He expressed surprise at the extent to which the legal community, including major New York firms, initially 'caved' to Trump, making deals with him. Kagan also criticized universities for allowing the federal government to 'bully them into all kinds of agreements on specious grounds.'

Kagan was particularly shocked by the silence of retired military leaders, who he felt should be vocal about the US military being transformed into a 'personal arm of Trump and the Trump movement.' He singled out journalists as the 'bravest' group, fighting back the most, despite his criticisms of their methods and a wish for them to be tougher and better understand their role. He also mentioned corporate leaders, such as Jamie Dimon, who accommodated Trump even before his election to protect business interests.

Wolf questioned whether any elites had demonstrated courage or covered themselves with glory during these challenging circumstances.

Robert Kagan stated that Donald Trump's unpopularity and the upcoming elections pose a problem for him, suggesting that Trump would prefer no elections at all. However, Kagan doubted Trump's capacity to completely annul an election, predicting a period of 'chaos, constitutional crisis, and in a certain sense civil civil crisis' instead.

Kagan attributed Trump's unpopularity to two specific policy decisions unrelated to his autocratic tendencies: involvement in the Iran war and his tariff policies. These decisions, he argued, created economic discontent, which harmed his approval ratings. Kagan speculated that if these policy missteps had not occurred and economic conditions were more favorable, there might not be a significant rebellion against Trump.

Kagan noted that Democratic candidates are largely avoiding discussing the constitutional crisis in their campaign ads, choosing instead to focus on local issues like dynamic pricing and data centers. He inferred from the lack of widespread public alarm about the state of democracy a 'shallowness of Americans' commitment to liberal values,' suggesting that many react only when directly affected by issues like gas prices or deportations.

Robert Kagan characterized the current state of American democracy as 'uncharted territory,' stating that the United States has never before faced this particular type of crisis. He admitted that while he seeks 'shoots of optimism,' he believes the country is already 'at the gates of hell.'

Kagan expressed skepticism about the ability to fully repair the damage done to institutions, even if a democratic victory or change of government were to occur in 2029. He highlighted a pervasive attitude among many Americans that 'if it isn't happening to me, it's not a problem,' and lamented the lack of widespread civic virtue and deeper commitment to the Declaration and Constitution, beyond immediate personal concerns.

Robert Kagan outlined potential scenarios through which the current administration might attempt to retain power by disrupting elections. One scenario involves using election monitors at polling places to claim fraudulent voting, which could then lead the Justice Department, reminiscent of actions by the FBI in Georgia, to seize ballot boxes. This would halt election results and congressional seating, potentially for weeks or months.

A more alarming scenario, according to Kagan, involves government officials such as ICE or the National Guard intimidating voters near polling areas, triggering protests. Republicans could then frame these protests as radical groups attempting to overturn the election. Kagan believes that political leadership, including figures like Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, would likely support Trump's actions or avoid confrontation, leaving resistance to 'the people in the streets.'

Robert Kagan warned that House Speaker Mike Johnson might refuse to seat a new Congress, citing alleged irregularities that require further investigation, which Kagan considers a 'real possibility.' He noted that this action would push the U.S. into 'no man's land,' a situation America has not experienced before, making the outcome hard to predict.

Kagan suggested that such a move could provoke 'popular outrage' which might influence politicians' behavior, potentially righting the situation. However, he also cautioned that once the system is 'cracked,' and the nation moves beyond the established process of fair elections, tabulation, and seating of Congress, it enters an 'unclear area.' In this scenario, Trump would not need a seated Congress to remain president, implying that such a deadlock would not negatively impact his position. Wolf stated that if the US remained without a Congress, and Trump simply moved on, this would demonstrably constitute a coup.

Robert Kagan stated that a Democratic Congress, especially if it controls both houses, represents the 'best hope' to turn things around. In such a scenario, he believes Trump would be forced into 'full dictatorship mode' prematurely, a state for which Kagan doubts the country is ready, as many still perceive themselves as living in a democracy.

Kagan suggested that a significant Democratic victory could lead to a 'breakdown of MAGA,' particularly if politicians prioritize re-election over blindly following Trump. He also predicted that if Trump does not run in 2028, the Republican Party would likely fracture due to the absence of a clear successor and the presence of numerous factions.

He emphasized the importance of a national repudiation of Trumpism, not just electoral defeat, to overcome the underlying movement of ideas that have fueled its success. Kagan suggested that a Democratic Congress would likely demand impeachment and hearings, placing Democrats in a much stronger position.

Robert Kagan expressed his deepest disappointment in George W. Bush, not only because Trump's actions threaten the republic but also due to Trump's repudiation of specific policies Bush was proud of. Kagan cited PEPFAR, the HIV program in Africa, other foreign aid initiatives, and Bush's open immigration policies as examples of Trump's reversals.

Kagan speculated that Bush, like other prominent Republican figures, prioritizes party loyalty, which prevents him from speaking out forcefully against Trump. He noted that while Bush might believe former presidents should remain out of current politics, he recently endorsed Republican Senate candidates, suggesting that party allegiance is the true reason for his silence. Kagan described the failure of political figures, including Barack Obama, to vocally oppose the existential threat to the republic as 'appalling,' though he acknowledged Obama's position is complicated by being a reviled figure among some Republicans.

Robert Kagan suggested that the constant in American history, particularly in domestic policy, is 'oscillation' between two different poles. He described this as a battle over American identity, specifically between the idea of a 'white Christian nation' and a 'polyglot nation of immigrants' that also believes in universal human rights.

Kagan highlighted that the 1920s and 1930s, especially the 1920s, were a high point of American racism, even more so than before. He also noted that in the 1930s, a significant portion of the population and elites believed that democracy had failed, with some leaning towards communism and others towards fascism. Kagan mentioned figures like Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh from the America First movement who genuinely considered fascism a potential future.

He argued that the period of 'liberal ascendancy' following the Great Depression and World War II, which discredited a strain of American conservatism, was often mistaken as a permanent state. Kagan observed that signs of this liberal ascendancy deteriorating and eroding became evident in the 2000s, bringing the country to its current state.

Robert Kagan asserted that there is 'no going back to where we were before' concerning America's role in the world. He posited that the most optimistic scenario is a world where other countries can no longer rely on the United States for their fundamental security, as they have for decades, and must instead find ways to ensure their own security.

Kagan envisioned a future where the United States emerges as a 'more limited superpower' but one that is 'positively inclined' toward other nations and their values. Domestically, he predicted a massive 'house cleaning' if a Democrat takes office, suggesting the necessity of firing everyone brought in under the previous administration, including 'election deniers' and 'substandard' personnel who prioritize fealty to Trump. This would apply to top levels of the FBI, Justice Department, and State Department, effectively undoing a reliable civil service.

Kagan questioned how such a comprehensive rebuilding of institutions could occur, particularly how a Democratic president could create a Justice Department even more independent from the presidency, given that presidents naturally want to use the department to their advantage. He noted that the damage done to institutions is long-standing and significant.

Robert Kagan emphasized that the American people are not victims in the current crisis but active participants, stating, 'They chose Donald Trump. They continued to support Donald Trump.' He contended that the period has fundamentally revealed the 'shallowness of Americans' commitment to the basic principles on which the country was founded.

Kagan questioned what kind of crisis would be necessary to re-infuse these democratic principles, as occurred after World War II, noting the difficulty of 'righting the ship.' From the perspective of the rest of the world, he suggested the best hope is for a 'more benevolent America,' but ruled out any return to the United States' previous global role. He also raised concerns about the scale of corruption within the government, describing it as a 'predatory criminal enterprise' focused on profit rather than foreign policy objectives, an issue he finds 'extraordinary and unbelievable' given its implications for global conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war.