Being a woman is a terribly difficult task since it consists principally in dealing with men.
- Joseph Conrad
From Robber Barons to Bezos: Is History Repeating Itself? | Robert Reich
America’s Dance with Autocracy: What the 2024 Election Tells Us About Ourselves
In 2024, 74 million Americans found themselves clinging to the idea of a new Magic Kingdom—a quasi-fantasy where populism promised salvation, led by characters more fitting for caricature than serious governance.
The fact that figures like Herschel Walker and Dr. Oz even entered the political arena—albeit narrowly defeated—reveals a stark truth: Anyone, and anything, can command a considerable political following in America.
Well, almost anyone—if you’re a woman of color with convictions, don’t hold your breath. It’s a stark reminder of who has a seat at the table and who remains perpetually on the outside.
Where are we going?
It’s tempting to hope that the 266 million Americans who didn’t buy into the con will soon stand up.
However, democracy’s transformation into a "soft autocracy" isn't a pipe dream. The game plan is well-documented: it begins with a populist call against elites, reshaping districts to lock in power, changing voting laws to disenfranchise opposition, stacking the courts, and flooding the media with friendly messaging—all strategies we’ve seen proliferate from Hungary to Russia and, increasingly, here at home.
Trump’s impact isn’t unique; he’s merely a product of a decades-long, carefully curated Republican agenda.
The seeds were sown by predecessors like Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan. Trump merely reaped the harvest. And if he hadn’t, some other figure would have.
It’s a crisis of global proportions. Around the world, citizens are embracing the seductive calls of autocracy and repression, often under the false promise of safety and economic revival.
But history proves that a society doesn’t “fix itself” by limiting freedom and concentrating power at the top. Instead, it invites leaders who will exploit, repress, and eventually turn on the very people who welcomed them.
Here at home, the motivations might feel more familiar. Americans are angry—at high inflation, soaring prices, and a government that appears ineffective.
But underneath the usual grievances lies a deeper resentment: Americans have been locked in an economic vise since the Reagan era.
Despite being told for decades that the "American Dream" was within reach, working people are only falling further behind as profits swell at the top.
Trump recognized this anger, turned it into a tool, and rode it straight to victory. It's easy to win on anger, much harder to govern from it. Trump’s campaign wasn’t about solutions—it was about revenge.
The Democratic Party has struggled to provide a coherent answer to this anger. If they want to regain the confidence of middle America, they need a real strategy to reverse decades of stagnant wages and economic despair.
And like it or not, they may need to deliver this message through a candidate who isn’t immediately alienating to the majority: a white, Christian, and male figure that doesn’t prompt the same visceral pushback.
For all of Trump’s obvious flaws, he won over voters twice, in part because America still hasn’t proven ready for a woman or non-Christian in the highest office.
In the end, democracy’s greatest weakness may be its reliance on voter participation.(We said it, mandatory voting is the answer to true democracy).
By exploiting division, fatigue, and anger, demagogues don’t have to erase democracy—they simply need to discourage its practice.
If Americans don't guard their institutions, that familiar reassurance—“it’ll be fine, you won’t need to vote anymore”—might go from cynical jest to a promise kept.
Sincerely,
Adaptation Guide
No comments:
Post a Comment