Authoritarian Threats to Be Overcome

2. Intractable Conflict Threat and Opportunity

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

Authoritarian threats are not limited to foreign dictatorships or open military takeovers. In modern democracies, they often emerge more gradually, as political leaders and movements weaken the norms and institutions that keep power accountable: fair elections, independent courts, professional law enforcement, a free press, civil liberties, honest information systems, and the right of political opponents to compete. Democracies must resist not only direct “kinetic” attacks from authoritarian regimes, but also propaganda, hybrid warfare, corruption, intimidation, and other tactics that undermine the constructive handling of conflict.

In the United States today, many on the left see authoritarian danger primarily in Donald Trump’s efforts, and those of many of his allies, to concentrate executive power, weaken institutional checks and balances, punish enemies, pressure independent institutions, undermine confidence in elections, and portray opponents as illegitimate or dangerous. These fears have been reinforced by Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results, the January 6 attack on the Capitol, later efforts to reshape the federal civil service and independent agencies, threats against critics, and attempts to use government power against perceived opponents. For many liberals and pro-democracy conservatives, these actions look like part of a broader pattern of democratic backsliding or even outright authoritarianism.

Many on the right, however, see authoritarian danger in a different set of actions associated with President Biden, Democrats, progressive institutions, and what they often call the “administrative state.” Their concerns include claims that federal officials pressured social media companies to suppress disfavored views, that law enforcement and regulatory agencies have been “weaponized” against conservatives, that universities and professional institutions enforce ideological conformity, and that anti-discrimination rules can become vehicles for restricting speech, religion, property rights, parental authority, and political dissent. Conservatives often argue that these pressures are especially dangerous because they can be exercised through bureaucracies, courts, tech platforms, schools, and other institutions that are only indirectly accountable to voters.

The most constructive way to address these competing fears is not to dismiss one side’s concerns, while amplifying the other’s. Authoritarianism is best understood as a set of recurring tactics: concentrating power, weakening checks and balances, manipulating information, intimidating critics, politicizing law enforcement, corrupting elections, delegitimizing opposition, and treating public institutions as tools for partisan domination. These tactics are dangerous no matter who uses them. Citizens should therefore ask consistent questions: Is this action increasing accountability or evading it? Is it protecting rights for everyone or only for allies? Is it enforcing the law impartially or punishing enemies? Is it strengthening fair procedures or changing the rules so one side can no longer lose?

The core challenge is to defend democracy without turning democratic defense into another form of authoritarian politics or even hardball partisan politics. To the extent that the left frames the process of protecting democracy as "beating Trump" or "beating MAGA," they lose the support of a large portion of the population. To the extent that the right frames the process of protecting democracy as "defeating the libs" or "defeating "woke," they do the same. Defending democracy is not the same thing making sure your side wins. Rather, it means protecting the ability for each side to compete fairly —even those on the other side.

That means resisting strongman rule, political intimidation, censorship, lawless retaliation, election manipulation, and propaganda from any source. It also means improving democratic performance so that citizens are not tempted to trade constitutional limits and civil liberties for the promise of decisive victory over their opponents. The goal is not to eliminate conflict between left and right. The goal is to preserve a system in which those conflicts can be fought openly, peacefully, lawfully, and fairly. Both sides need to be willing to consider the needs and interests of the other side, and at time, compromise so that the needs and interests of a large part of the electorate can be met — not just the winning half.

The prompt we gave chat GPT was: The next essay I need is one on authoritarian threats to be overcome. Focus, particularly on the United States and the authoritarian threats that are currently being perceived by the left (on account of actions of Pres. Trump and the Republicans more broadly, and also threats seen on the right, based on actions of the Pres. Biden and others on the left.

—————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.

ChatGPT listed its sources as: For the left-of-center/pro-democracy concern about Trump-era authoritarianism, V-Dem’s 2026 Democracy Report says Western Europe and North America reached its lowest level in over 50 years “primarily due to ongoing autocratization in the USA,” and says the U.S. lost its long-term status as a liberal democracy. Reuters also documented what it described as at least 470 targets of Trump administration retribution, including federal employees, prosecutors, universities, media outlets, law firms, and civil servants, while noting the White House disputes the “retribution” framing.

For concerns about election-rule and executive-power issues under Trump, the Campaign Legal Center argues that a 2025 Trump executive order attempted to shift election-administration authority toward the executive branch, and reports that courts struck down provisions requiring new documentation burdens for federal voter registration and military/overseas voters. Freedom House’s U.S. report also emphasizes that the United States still has robust formal civil-liberty protections, which is important context for not overstating the case.

For right-of-center concerns about Biden-era authoritarianism, House Judiciary Republicans’ “Weaponization of the Federal Government” report asserts that the Biden-Harris administration weaponized federal authority, including in areas involving law enforcement and online speech. The Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri case involved claims that Biden administration officials pressured social-media platforms to suppress protected speech; the Court ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, leaving some of the underlying First Amendment questions unresolved rather than definitively deciding that all challenged conduct was constitutional or unconstitutional.

For the broader civic context, Pew reported widespread dissatisfaction with American democracy: in a spring 2025 poll, 62% of Americans were dissatisfied with how democracy is working, and Americans were unusually likely to say elected officials do not care what people like them think. Pew also found that trust in the federal government remains highly partisan and shifts with control of the White House, which helps explain why different sides perceive authoritarian threats differently depending on who holds power.