An overview of expert analysis on the appeal of Trump’s authoritarian populism and the future of democracy in the United States
The recent victory of Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election has elicited significant fears among political experts regarding the trajectory of American democracy. Although the election was carried out legitimately, with Trump achieving a significant victory in the Electoral College and the popular vote, experts warn that his resurgence in power represents a danger to the integrity of democratic institutions and established norms in the United States.
Trump’s victory makes one wonder about the motivations and mindset of his supporters given his long history of false statements, felony convictions, and prior attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and block the constitutionally mandated transfer of power.
Overall, the research indicates that Trump’s policies benefited high-income individuals and corporations, despite the fact that he marketed them as advantageous to the middle class. Trump’s health and economic policies tended to exacerbate preexisting inequalities, resulting in the middle and low-income classes being at an even worse disadvantage.
The Age of Discontent: Populism, Extremism, and Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary Democracies, is a book written by scholars Matthew Rhodes-Purdy, Rachel Navarre, and Stephen Utych, which explores the relationship between economic discontent and the rise of support for authoritarian populist anti-democratic extremism in the United States and other countries.
Populism is a political strategy that attempts to advocate for the interests of the general public, frequently juxtaposing them with a perceived establishment or elite. Populist leaders assert that they represent the concerns and grievances of the general population, emphasizing a direct relationship between leaders and the people. Conversely, authoritarian populism integrates authoritarian governance with populist rhetoric. This form of populism not only asserts that the leader represents the people, but it also frequently undermines democratic institutions and processes to preserve or consolidate power.
The scholars posit that economic crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis, generate strong emotional responses within the public, particularly anxiety, and resentment — which can lead to cultural discontent and a backlash against political norms or the status quo.
The scholars argue that while economic discontent is often the primary cause of democratic discontent, its effects are indirect. Economic turmoil exacerbates existing cultural conflicts and intensifies feelings of resentment towards political elites and marginalized groups within society. This resentment can manifest in support for authoritarian populist movements and extremist ideologies that challenge democratic values. The emotional turmoil experienced during economic crises fosters narratives that blame specific groups for societal problems, leading to an increase in hostility and a desire for punitive political actions toward segments of the population.
Furthermore, the book highlights that the erosion of the welfare state and the weakening of social safety nets under neoliberal policies contribute to this cycle of discontent. The scholars suggest that when citizens feel economically insecure and perceive that their voices are not being heard within a democracy, they become more susceptible to extremist ideologies that promise to address their grievances, albeit in often undemocratic ways.
The scholars make it clear that many Trump supporters, particularly those who believe in conspiracy theories and feel disenfranchised, exhibit a profound discontent with the current sociopolitical status quo. This discontent is characterized by a belief that the democratic system is fundamentally broken and that elites have manipulated the electoral process to maintain power, as seen during events like the January 6th insurrection.
The book discusses how Trump supporters may not necessarily desire to dismantle democracy outright, but rather to reshape it in a way that aligns with their beliefs and grievances. They often view the electoral process as having been unfairly manipulated against them, leading to feelings of betrayal and anger. This emotional response can drive individuals to support actions that undermine democratic norms, such as the violent attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
Moreover, the scholars suggest that many Trump supporters are engaged in motivated reasoning, clinging to beliefs that justify their actions and perceptions of reality. This includes a willingness to embrace conspiracy theories that reinforce their views of being victimized by a corrupt system. The correlation between skepticism of the electoral process and other forms of conspiracism, such as skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines, indicates a broader pattern of distrust in established institutions.
Trump supports’ the desire for a more populist and nationalist form of governance, coupled with deep-seated discontent, which can manifest in ways that threaten the integrity of democratic processes. It is essential to recognize that their motivations are rooted in a complex interplay of emotional, psychological, and ideological factors rather than a straightforward desire to eliminate democracy itself.
Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 poses significant risks to American democratic institutions and norms. While the U.S. has robust constitutional protections and limitations, Trump’s rhetoric and proposed policies suggest he may attempt to erode democratic checks and balances in many troubling ways.
Politicization of Government Agencies
Trump has indicated plans to reinstate “Schedule F,” an executive order allowing him to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as political appointees. This could enable him to replace nonpartisan officials across federal agencies with loyalists, potentially compromising the independence and expertise of government institutions.
Targeting Political Opponents
Trump has openly discussed using the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute his political opponents or dissenters. Trump could face fewer constraints in weaponizing federal law enforcement against opponents given there will be a more accommodating Republican-controlled Supreme Court and Congress.
Suppressing Media and Free Speech
Trump has suggested revoking broadcast licenses for news outlets critical of him and has discussed using regulatory powers for “retribution” against corporations he views as oppositional to his views. This could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression more broadly and freedom of the press.
Undermining Election Integrity
Trump continues to falsely claim the 2020 presidential election was stolen. His rhetoric sows doubt about election legitimacy and he is willing to undermine election results that are not in his favor.
Expanding Executive Power
Trump and his allies have discussed strategies like “impounding” funds to bypass laws passed by Congress. This could further concentrate power in the executive branch at the expense of legislative oversight.
Eroding Nonpartisan Expertise
By replacing career officials with MAGA loyalists across agencies, Trump could diminish the government’s capacity to provide objective analysis and implement policies effectively.
Potential Use of Military Against American Citizens
Trump has suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces against protesters. Using the military for domestic law enforcement would be an extraordinary step with troubling constitutional implications.
While America’s democratic institutions have proven resilient so far, the cumulative effect of these actions could significantly weaken checks and balances. Trump’s more organized approach and stated intentions to radically reshape the government suggest a second term could pose a graver threat to democracy than his first. Significant obstacles to fully allowing Trump to dismantle democratic norms still exist. The federal system, an independent judiciary, and public awareness of these risks may help preserve core democratic functions even in the face of executive overreach or increased democratic backsliding.
Ultimately, the resilience of American democracy will depend not just on institutional protections but also on citizens' vigilance and engagement in defending democratic norms and processes. The next years will likely be a critical test of the nation’s commitment to its foundational democratic principles and its resistance to authoritarian rule.
Comments