Challenging Domestic Authoritarian Tendencies

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

Domestic authoritarian tendencies* are especially difficult to challenge in polarized societies because each side often sees authoritarian danger almost entirely in the other side. Many on the left see the principal threat in Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s efforts to expand executive power, punish opponents, weaken independent institutions, and undermine confidence in elections. Many on the right see the principal threat in Democratic-aligned efforts to use courts, bureaucracies, universities, media, technology platforms, and regulatory agencies to suppress dissent, control speech, or entrench progressive priorities. In this environment, warnings about authoritarianism can easily sound like just another partisan attack.

For that reason, those who want to challenge domestic authoritarian tendencies need to make the defense of democracy principled, rather than tribal. (See our Newsletter Series on "Decoupling the Defense of Democracy from Partisan Politics" Parts 1 and 2 for more on this idea.) The issue should not be whether a particular tactic helps “our side” or hurts “their side.” The issue should be whether the tactic weakens fair elections, concentrates power, politicizes law enforcement, intimidates critics, suppresses lawful dissent, spreads deliberate falsehoods, undermines independent courts, scapegoats vulnerable groups, or makes it harder for opponents to compete peacefully. These standards should apply no matter who is in office and no matter which party benefits in the short run.

This does not mean pretending that all threats are equal, or refusing to name real dangers clearly. Some leaders and movements do more damage to democratic institutions than others, and citizens need to be honest about that. But effective democracy defense should focus on behaviors, institutions, and rules, rather than blanket condemnation of entire populations of voters. Calling millions of fellow citizens fascists, communists, traitors, racists, or enemies of America is usually more likely to deepen the fear and resentment that authoritarian leaders exploit. A better approach is to ask people across the political spectrum to defend the rights and procedures that they, themselves, will need when power changes hands.

Challenging domestic authoritarianism also requires showing that democracy can solve real problems. Authoritarian appeals grow stronger when people believe that democratic institutions are corrupt, unresponsive, elitist, chaotic, or incapable of addressing urgent concerns. Conflict-resolution and peacebuilding approaches can help by demonstrating ways to negotiate, deliberate, mediate, and design fair processes for handling hard disputes. When citizens see that difficult conflicts can be addressed without domination, humiliation, censorship, or revenge, the attraction of power-over politics begins to weaken. (Deliberative processes now being implemented in many local jurisdictions are a good way to demonstrate that. See, for instance, the work of Better Together America, Rich Harwood's New Civic Path, Martin Carcasson's and Jacob Bornstein's of deliberation in Colorado for examples.)

The goal, then, is not merely to defeat authoritarian leaders or movements, but to strengthen the democratic habits and institutions that make authoritarian politics less attractive in the first place. This means defending elections, courts, press freedom, civil liberties, due process, honest information, peaceful protest, and lawful opposition. It also means reducing destructive polarization, resisting dehumanizing language, building cross-partisan coalitions where possible, and insisting that no side should use state power to permanently cripple its opponents. Domestic authoritarian tendencies are best challenged by proving, in practice, that democracy can protect people, hold leaders accountable, and handle deep conflict without destroying the political community.

———————

This essay was written by ChatGPT and reviewed. edited, and approved by Heidi Burgess

The prompt we gave ChatGPT was: "Please do the same for Challenging Domestic Authoritarian Tendencies. Here I would like you to build on your essay on "Authoritarian Threats to be Overcome" by showing how those wanting to block those threats can do so without simply making partisan arguments and increasing polarization."

ChatGPT's reported its sources as: BI’s Guide description for this topic says that conflict expertise can help reduce the appeal of authoritarian, “power-over” leaders and movements by demonstrating that mutually beneficial ways of resolving difficult disputes are possible. The surrounding Guide section also frames this as part of building a resilient democracy capable of defending itself from internal and external threats.

Protect Democracy’s “Authoritarian Playbook” is useful here because it explicitly says authoritarianism tends to follow recurring patterns, and that recognizing those patterns can help distinguish genuine democratic danger from ordinary partisan conflict, hyperbole, and “politics-as-usual.” Its listed tactics include politicizing independent institutions, spreading disinformation, aggrandizing executive power, quashing dissent, and scapegoating vulnerable communities.

Brookings’ Democracy Playbook 2025 similarly emphasizes defending elections, rule of law, anti-corruption systems, and efforts to counter disinformation as pillars of democratic resilience. It also stresses that democratic actors need to reclaim transparency, good governance, and constitutional constraints rather than simply pursue partisan victory.

Bright Line Watch is another relevant source because it is explicitly organized around monitoring threats to U.S. democratic norms and institutions; its 2026 featured report describes legal-expert concern about politicized law enforcement, separation-of-powers dysfunction, and executive overreach.