The Path to American Authoritarianism
40 comments
·February 13, 2025EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK
bananapub
this has already happened, we're already in the post-coup world, most people just haven't caught up yet.
much of the media is already de-facto captured - look at the headlines on a major news website today and compare it to what has actually happened. they don't need to be bought or sued into the ground like happened in other countries - the US media has just bowed down without force.
sadeshmukh
The media isn't captured - I see countless articles like this criticizing Trump, even mainstream US media.
roenxi
> Even in countries such as the United States that have relatively small, laissez-faire governments...
What US is this article talking about??? The US government makes up about half the US economy by GDP [0]. It is the largest government in the history of history. Arguably maybe 2nd to China in recent years.
I quite like this article - it has two obvious implications. (1) Reduce the size and scope of government and (2) Maybe the US Democrats should experiment with nominating better candidates and policies. I'm not sure the situation is dire enough to justify either of those things, the Republicans have been in similar straits in the past and just kept on keeping on.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
fatuna
Some quick googling tells me the US gov spends between 35 and 40% of the US GDP. Also, the article says 'relatively'. Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations, the US government can definitely be called 'relatively small'.
scarab92
The government share of GDP is a silly thing to care about.
The important questions are:
1. What services do voters want (enough to pay for)
2. How can we meet that need at the lowest cost
The first has a broad range of valid answers, the second is something that everyone ignored until DOGE
ben_w
> The first has a broad range of valid answers, the second is something that everyone ignored until DOGE
They cared plenty before, and there's no real indication to me of a difference with DOGE.
Both pre- and post-DOGE, it's all about weird anecdotes like "this wrench cost $20,000! This toilet seat cost $600!"[0], which, even at their current rate of work, would only amount to a rounding error compared to the $2 trillion they talk about cutting.
Which is probably for the best, because the $2 trillion goal — about the combined total of the entire US social security system plus all military pensions — is so large that "success" will cause a huge recession.
[0] https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/378125...
roenxi
That is the spending, then there'll be a bump up beyond the official figures because of regulation (ie, control of companies that would turn up in categories other than direct government spending). That gets it to most of the economy in my mind.
And things like all the private businesses servicing government workers. Eg, in Washington - sure there'd be a lot there that isn't officially government spending but the ostensibly private infrastructure investment and consumption but really it is all supporting the operation of government.
Once the official stats say the government has reached 40% of the economy, the practical influence is going to be a bit larger again. I'm still happy to say >50%.
> Compared to other nations, especially other developed nations...
I don't think the difference can be defended as important. The US is running a large modern mixed economy. It hasn't been a small-government country since the 70s; at best.
That isn't a compelling case to say 40% of the economy is a small government. The ratio of government spending to private is getting pretty close to 1:1. I'd accept that it isn't "big" in the sense that some places manage to spend even more in % terms, but to call that behemoth "small" is a bridge too far. It is standard sized. Small governments don't control that much of the market.
EDIT And if you want to lean on the "relatively small", in the sense the article is using it makes sense to compare the sizes related to each other, in which case the US government is much larger than every other contender except China. Relative to the German or French government, the US government is enormous. It is a corruption honeypot.
dkjaudyeqooe
You're being misleading. You're including money that the government pays out in social security which is a retirement program and really nothing to do with government except that it's mandated. Ditto for health programs. In the absence of these programs insurance and investment companies would be doing the same.
The real difference is how governments involve themselves in the day to day of the economy and that has to do with regulation and other government interventions.
Small government is mostly ideological dogma since it makes no reference to what government is doing for you. Who wants a "small government" that provides no services to taxpayers?
It's amazing, and quite stupid, that the discussion seems to be so much about the size of government rather than what people are getting for their money and if it is worth the cost.
roenxi
All money the government pays out goes towards someone's lifestyle; objects don't use cash. I'm not sure what your complaint is there. The government paying someone to sit there and do nothing in retirement is at least as governmenty as paying someone to fill in holes in a road, for example.
> Who wants a "small government" that provides no services to taxpayers?
The people who are saying "I want a small government". That is what a small government is. A small government is one that doesn't do very much and that test is how you can tell the US government isn't one.
anovikov
I think the existence of states and the need for 2/3 of the states to agree to change Constitution, with no chance for 2/3 of them to ever become red, is a good protection against authoritarianism, so people shouldn't worry.
Also, blue states are free to ignore Presidential decrees and laws accepted by Congress if their Supreme Courts see them as unconstitutional, and it will become very inconvenient to rule the country if many of the states start ignoring Washington, which they have full right to do.
autoexec
> is a good protection against authoritarianism,
The increasing authoritarianism disagrees with you, and states can only ignore federal law to the extent that the federal government allows it. There has been an increase in defiance recently, but nothing stops the feds from storming in and enforcing their laws beyond it not being seen as worth doing.
anovikov
Because states have their own armies - the National Guard - it can be only done by military, not police, or even FBI/SWAT/whatever. That is, real military with tanks and fighter jets. A civil war.
I seriously doubt military loyalty to Trump can be THAT high.
jrs235
When things are moving fast and chaotic folks are more likely to just go along and not stick/speak up or out. Their self preservation instincts will commit atrocities on others rather than them be punished for disobeying orders. Military members can't just walk away without facing punishment in prison. They have to decide at what point the orders handed them are too unethical or unconstitutional. They will slowly be boiling frogs per se and rationalize what they are doing. Most likely don't have the immediate and timely access to personal lawyers to help them decide. And if they resist they will likely spend time in jail until adjudicated. The current head of the military seems like he will ignore legal advice from others and prevent soldiers from obtaining it. The current path really is setting us up to inflict severe pain on our neighbors and countrymen that don't go along to get along with what's happening or voice dissent with it. God help us all.
https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-ob...
autoexec
The National Guard is only authorized in the first place by the US constitution, and every member of the National Guard swears an oath to support and uphold the US constitution against all enemies (foreign and domestic), and also to obey the president of the US.
The idea that the national guard will rise up against their own commander in chief is a fantasy. We've already seen how it plays out when states raise an army against the federal government and it doesn't work out very well for them.
Even if (and it's a big if) the military didn't agree with Trump specifically, they'll still largely believe in the country and the constitution. If the federal government does something terrible and unconstitutional enough that it becomes necessary for states to attack the federal government they will have abandoned anything resembling 'state's rights' and moved into lawless/oath-breaking civil war.
ben_w
> I seriously doubt military loyalty to Trump can be THAT high.
While the military have sworn an oath to the constitution first and only the person of president to the extent that orders are lawful, the most recent opinion poll I found suggests 2:1 support in favour of Trump in the closest proxy I have for active military — I'll have to let everyone else argue how good a proxy "veterans" is, as I'm neither military nor Ami:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...
spiderfarmer
It also helps that the blue states have bargaining power. The typical red state gets back 19 cents more for each dollar sent to Washington than its blue-state friends. In other words, they subsidize the red states.
injidup
Blue states should start putting tariffs on red states, threatening to annex them, steal their resources and disenfranchise their voters.
nathanaldensr
That's illegal. The Import-Export Clause of the US Constitution forbids it.
pjmlp
Maybe, then again,
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-c...
At the rate things are going after two months, who knows if in four years democratic elections are still a thing.
null
cess11
Didn't protect against the Patriot/Freedom Acts, The CLOUD Act. Didn't protect against presidents actually ruling by decree. Didn't keep the US from illegally invading and occupying other countries, or put an end to its colonies and colonial practices.
dyauspitr
Only if there are repercussions to ignoring the constitution. There are plenty of illegal initiatives currently happening with no one really physically stopping them from happening.
maxerickson
At heart, law is a collective fantasy. If the fantasy breaks down, it doesn't matter what the paper says.
dkjaudyeqooe
Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket, who will enforce the constitution?
Between the two, it's become an irrelevant document.
tim333
The article seems to be jumping ahead of the current reality rather. I mean Trump may get worse but so far
>CBS News poll — Trump has positive approval amid "energetic" opening weeks; seen as doing what he promised (CBS polliing article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-approval-opinion-poll-202...)
I think the fix may be more for the Democrats to change closer to what the origins of their name mean - people power - and align more with what the average people want rather than the leftmost 10%.
dkjaudyeqooe
Every president (almost) gets a honeymoon period, you have to wait a few months before you get a reading on popularity.
tim333
True, but we'll probably have a bit of a mess and then he leaves in elections in four years in the normal manner.
kccoder
He didn't leave last time "in the normal manner," why would he do so this time? He's been hinting at a third term. I hope you're right and we have a normal election with a peaceful transfer of power in four years, but I'll believe it when I see it.
slowmovintarget
Right. All this breathless speculation over authoritarianism is bullcrap when what's actually going on is rooting out deeply entrenched bureaucracy, cleaning up corruption and waste, and securing the borders. The fact that the Trump administration is complying with judicial orders (many of which are unconstitutional on their face) that will be overturned on appeal is evidence that these are not authoritarian moves.
President Trump was voted in to do what he's doing. The fact that the Democrats are screaming bloody murder about him doing things they don't like doesn't suddenly transform the actions into authoritarianism.
> Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law. -- Wikipedia
Strong-arm tactics to preserve the power of the state and entrench one-party control were what was happening under the previous two Democrat administrations. What's happening now is a dismantling of those control structures in government. The funneling of billions of dollars out through NGOs and back in to DNC coffers and news organizations is stopping and the people on the gravy train are flipping out. Good.
nunez
What are your thoughts on this administration replacing nonpartisan heads of departments with people who completely agree with their agenda? Also, what are your thoughts on this administration paying civil servants to move into companies within the private sector that are owned by people like Elon?
slowmovintarget
Can you explain what you mean by "replacing nonpartisan heads of departments?"
Also, what do you mean by "paying civil servants to move?" They're creating buy-out packages for some federal employees. What evidence do you have that they are paying them to accept positions "for people like Elon" as opposed to, say, federal employees taking the buy-out and finding jobs in the private sector?
jimswhims
[flagged]
scoperesolution
[flagged]
How this is going to unfold? I think the first step is to seize the media, using buyouts (Twitter) and law suits (Gawker), and at a later stage using made up felony charges against owners (everyone is guilty of something).
From there on, the road is clear. People are gullible, majority will believe anything media tells them.