The current survey results create continuous sleep disturbances for me. According to recent surveys, somewhere between 25% and 35% of Americans say they’d support a “strong leader” who doesn’t have to “bother with Congress and elections.” The 80 million Americans who support this movement represent a mainstream political force rather than an extremist group. I lose sleep thinking about what to do when many citizens decide to reject democratic values through free democratic elections.
This isn’t theoretical anymore. The event is currently taking place before our eyes. American voters in the millions back candidates who vow to break down democratic systems while they also vow to abolish elections to create a system ruled by one person. People hold this belief because they actually think democracy has failed and authoritarian rule would be superior. They want a king, and they’re willing to vote for one.
The traditional answer from political scientists is that you counter bad speech with more speech, that you educate people about democratic values, that you trust in the marketplace of ideas to eventually produce better outcomes. The marketplace faces a problem when most consumers reject the idea of a marketplace. What happens when people have access to all the information in the world and still choose authoritarianism?
I conducted multiple months of interviews with Trump supporters who expressed their willingness to let him maintain power without any time limits. Their argument follows a single line of thought which states that democratic systems are chaotic and that concessions indicate lack of strength while effective leadership needs absolute control. The leaders do not care about checks and balances because they have complete faith in their chosen leader. They don’t worry about future elections because they can’t imagine wanting anyone else in charge. The preference stems from a basic opposition to democratic values rather than any lack of understanding.
The situation creates an impossible conflict for democratic political systems to resolve. A democratic system needs citizens to establish their own system of governance as its core foundation. The people will stop making decisions when they choose to do so. What occurs when they decide to surrender their authority? The people have made a democratic choice to eliminate democracy which creates a dilemma about our obligation to uphold their decision or defend democratic institutions against their will.
Some countries have tried constitutional approaches to this problem. The German constitution includes a provision which prohibits political parties that seek to dismantle democratic institutions. The concept suggests democracy needs protection from those who would misuse its power while remaining true to its core principles. But even these protections require enforcement, and enforcement requires people in power who are committed to democratic principles. The establishment of enough authoritarian leaders in positions of power will reduce constitutional protections to mere written words without actual meaning.
The current educational system fails to produce the desired results. We have attempted to teach civics while working to enhance media literacy and explain how democratic institutions operate. But many Americans who want authoritarianism aren’t confused about how democracy works – they understand it perfectly and they don’t like it. The public witnesses the complex nature of change through its gradual pace and imperfect results which leads them to demand quicker and more forceful solutions. People deliberately choose to reject democracy which creates an obstacle for opposition efforts.
Economists employ methods to combat poverty which fail to deliver results in real-world situations. Some experts think that economic instability drives people toward supporting authoritarian rule, but economic growth would decrease these feelings. The research indicates that financial success does not prevent wealthy Americans from showing authoritarian tendencies which match those of people dealing with economic hardship. The need for strongman leadership exists among people from all social classes beyond what economic factors can explain.
Cultural and social interventions face similar challenges. Theoretical concepts of community development and civic involvement and democratic participation appear positive at first glance. But if people are participating in democracy specifically to end democracy, more engagement just makes the problem worse. You end up with highly engaged citizens who are engaged in dismantling the system from within.
The media environment creates additional difficulties for all situations. Social media algorithms function as new gatekeepers who spread anti-democratic content because their main objective is to achieve maximum user engagement. The platforms select to promote extreme authoritarian statements above balanced democratic dialogue because these statements generate higher online engagement. The attempt to control this content through anti-democratic means would create moral conflicts because it would undermine democratic principles.
Legal approaches run into similar problems. Theoretically you could prosecute people for seditious speech or for attempting to overthrow democratic institutions. But prosecuting political opponents is exactly what authoritarians do, so using legal force to stop authoritarianism makes you look authoritarian yourself. The legal system functions as a tool for authoritarians to silence their political adversaries through their dominance of the system.
International pressure together with isolation measures can work in specific cases yet America’s large size and worldwide importance create challenges for other countries to implement successful pressure tactics. Economic sanctions against the United States would hurt the sanctioning countries more than they’d hurt America. The experience of being diplomatically isolated would bring significant discomfort yet it would not determine the final outcome. And American authoritarians could easily frame international criticism as proof that foreign enemies are trying to undermine American strength.
The most alarming prospect is that there could be no way to resolve the problem. Maybe democracy is inherently unstable, and every democratic society eventually produces enough people who prefer authoritarianism to tip the balance. The American experiment might have been destined for a limited duration because we are now seeing its inevitable conclusion. The founders’ warnings about democratic government instability seem to have predicted the current situation better than we expected.
I refuse to surrender despite the fact that conventional methods have proven ineffective. We need to create new institutional systems that will draw people who avoid democratic participation into the political process. We require new approaches to boost democratic governance speed and decision-making authority while preserving essential safety measures. The foundation of new democratic systems must enable citizens to make their own choices through direct voting processes which deliver swift results.
The survival of democratic institutions depends on citizens upholding basic democratic commitment because institutions lose their ability to maintain democracy when public dedication reaches dangerous lows. The current priority focuses on safeguarding democratic institutions from individuals who exploit democratic procedures to dismantle democratic systems rather than converting authoritarian regimes into democratic ones.
The time is running out while we remain uncertain about how to solve this problem. The situation becomes critical when thirty percent of citizens actively seek to dismantle the existing governmental framework which you aim to protect. The implementation of anti-democratic methods to defend democracy may result in conditions that are more detrimental than the democratic issues we seek to address.
Maybe the most honest answer is that we don’t know what to do, and we’re running out of time to figure it out.
–David Walsh, Political Psychology Correspondent