America’s Illiberal March: A Regressive Retreat from Liberal Democracy
- Iain Rommel and Alex Tan
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
The actions of the second Trump administration has firmly raised the question about the commitment of both the American institutions and its people to the liberal part of liberal democracy, and perhaps is a nail in the coffin for the Land of the Free.
On October 19th, 2016, during the final presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Chris Wallace asked Republican presidential nominee Trump if he would commit to the principle of a peaceful transition of power. Trump had been maintaining that the upcoming presidential election was rigged and that Democratic presidential nominee Clinton had been stealing the election. In response to Wallace’s question, Trump stated, “I will tell you at the time.”
Given Trump’s unorthodox style, many were expecting another 4 years of a democrat in the White House, informed by polls predicting a sweep for Clinton. Coupled with Trump’s lack of decorum, Clinton’s predicted win did not seem unlikely. Furthermore, commentators and academics alike warned of Trump’s potential for authoritarian and fascist tendencies and made comparisons with past dictators. Specifically, experts on dictatorships and authoritarians warned that Trump resembled foreign fascists.
One professor of political science expressed disbelief of the parallels between Republican nominee Trump and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Italy’s Benito Mussolini. A further warned of global consequences of a Trump administration in 2016 and added that Trump’s ‘rigged election’ narrative is often associated with African and European dictators and cautioned that Trump would not only damage American democracy but also the reputation of democracy around the world.
A former Mexican President additionally warned Americans about Trump and was shocked to see that the Republican Party continue their support. Interestingly, this was in response to suggestions that perhaps Trump’s unorthodox behaviour was simply “overheated campaign rhetoric.” While Trump’s campaign promises could have been described as quixotic at the time, the general feelings in 2016 towards a successful Trump campaign win could have been described as dismissive and far-fetched.
Trump’s win in 2016 shocked many. While his subsequent strongman leadership could be extended to marking the end of American democracy, we argue that this instead could be an opportunity to reformulate the common misconception that democracy is a state to be achieved and not a place of compromise and continued ‘work-in-progress.’
Trump was elected again to the White House in 2024, this time winning the popular vote and flipping all seven swing states. The Republican Party also won back control of the US Senate at a time when the Supreme Court consisted of a 6 to 3 Republican-appointed conservative majority.
The Trump administration and his ‘Make America Great Again’ Republican Party seemed primed to manifest the authoritarian fears many warned about back in 2016. Some commentators stated that President Trump’s second administration will be encouraged by a Republican Party that is entirely his and fueled by lingering resentments from his first administration.
However, questions remain: what specific dictatorial and authoritarian behaviors were American voters warned about and what does this imply for liberal democracy in America? In opposition to warnings from the media and academics, American voters elected a would-be authoritarian to the executive branch of the United States of America for a second time.
We propose that a clarification of liberal democracy and democratic politics is required. It would be far easier to claim simply that Trump’s 2024 win was driven by feelings of disenfranchisement. Conceptions of democracy can help to explain the outrage and phenomenon of a 2024 Trump administration. But first, understanding the initial authoritarian warnings is paramount.
Authoritarian populism can emerge in a democracy by an elected leader that proceeds to erode a system of check and balances. The civil service is simultaneously filled with loyalists and attacks begin on the media, universities, and NGOs thus helping to tilt the political and social environment in the ruling party’s favour.
According to Levitsky and Ziblatt, authoritarian behaviour can be measured by the following traits: (1) denying the legitimacy of opponents, (2) tolerating or encouraging violence, (3) rejecting democratic rules, and (4) rejecting civil liberties of critics.
Following President Biden’s inauguration in 2021, Trump insisted that he had won the 2020 election and that the election was stolen from him. Even before votes were cast, Trump stated at a rally, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged, remember that.” Furthermore, attacking the legitimacy of Republican opponents, Trump stated, “I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling, it’s a scam [and] this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court.”
Furthermore, during his first presidency, President Trump floated violent strategies for keeping migrants away from America’s southern border. These strategies included a trench filled with snakes or alligators as well as slowing down migrants by shooting them in the legs. In September of 2020, Trump praised law enforcement officers for killing Michael Forest Reinoehl, a self-described member of the anti-fascist movement Antifa. In response to the killing, Trump said “That’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution.” And arguably the most memorable encouragement of violence took place in January of 2021. At a rally preceding the Capitol riot, Trump encouraged supporters stating, “you'll never take back our country with weakness.” He further endorsed violence by stating “We fight like hell.”
A hallmark of a liberal democracy is the presence and respect for an open and free media. However, in February of this year, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced to reporters in the briefing room that the Trump administration would be tightening its grip on news coverage. Until now, the White House Correspondents’ Association would determine how to share coverage of the President. Leavitt told assembled reports that the White House would now be making that determination. Leavitt accused the media association of dictating who was able to cover the President and said, “We will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility.” Additionally, the president’s chief regulator of broadcast is investigating ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and PBS and in his private capacity has filed lawsuits against Facebook, ABC, and X.
As the Trump Administration’s authoritarian behaviour is undermining the liberal nature of America’s democracy, it may not constitute the end of American democracy in full.
Gershberg and Illing argue that democracy is simultaneously a burden and a challenge. Like Sisyphus, they argue, “democracy is an unwieldy boulder continually throwing us back into an absurd situation. No matter what we do or how hard we push, the boulder persists.” Gershberg and Illing claim that this is what makes democracy dangerous; it presents not solely a collective-action problem but a “genuine existential dilemma.” Democracy demands of us that we accept the situation in which we find ourselves and assume responsibility. Normatively, what is supposed to take place in such a culture of democratic liberalism, they argue, is rules and norms, minority rights, respect for the rule of law, and the welcomed peaceful transition of power. However, they emphasize that this is liberalism and not democracy as such and assert that confusion on this point has concealed the nature of democratic life. In their words, “Liberal democracy, in other words, is the form of democracy most of us have come to prefer, but it is by no means the only form of democracy.”
Therefore, with Trump in the White House and armed with an administration of loyalists beginning their assault on many aspects of American liberal life, American democracy could perhaps now be without its liberal classification and existing more as an eroded variety. It could be more appropriately classified as illiberal procedural democracy.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of IIPA and this platform.
Author
Iain A. Rommel is a PhD candidate at the Univeristy of Auckland in Auckland, New Zealand. His current research pertains to democratic backsliding and autocratisation, and American judicial politics and polarisation.
Alexander C. Tan is principal research fellow at the Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs, and professor of political science and international relations at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.