Are Constitution, Guardrails Strong Enough to Prevent Authoritarian?

With American democracy already at a crisis point, extreme right-wing operatives have crafted an authoritarian playbook that would push it over the edge, destroying the nation’s 250-year-old bedrock system of checks and balances to create an imperial presidency. The Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership is a 920-page road map for a future president to wield excessive power to implement a dangerous policy agenda, ripping out democracy cracy by its roots and replacing it with a system that most Americans would find unthinkable. Source: americanprogress.org

In this post, we will discuss the dangers that an authoritarian could pose to both our country and the American people. We’ll discuss the guardrails that are in place, whether or not they’re able to successfully prevent someone with dictator tendencies from wreaking havoc and carrying out an extreme agenda, and ways in which an authoritarian could push right through those guardrails.

While it’s obvious who the President is in these scenarios, there’s an effort to reference a generic president so this guide is able to remain relevant in any future situation where a leader shows dictator tendencies.

Replacing Expert Civil Servants with Political Loyalists

One of the most alarming trends in the discussion surrounding authoritarian governance in the United States is the push to replace highly qualified civil servants with political loyalists. This shift does not merely threaten the operational integrity of government; it undermines the fundamental principles of meritocracy and professional public service that have been established throughout American history.

The Impact of Political Loyalty on Governance

When political loyalty becomes a primary criterion for employment in key government roles, the implications are profound. Expert civil servants bring a wealth of knowledge, experience, and adherence to established laws and principles. Conversely, political loyalists may prioritize allegiance to a President over the responsibilities to the American people.

The consequences of replacing skilled professionals with unqualified appointees extend beyond immediate administrative efficiency. For example, when agencies tasked with public health, environmental protection, and economic oversight are led by individuals more concerned with political optics than expert analysis, the results can be catastrophic. Critical decisions could be made that favor short-term political goals over long-term benefits for the public, undermining essential services and even threatening national security.

Weakening the Independent Media and News Reporting

As we navigate through the increasingly complex landscape of governance, the role of independent media becomes more critical than ever. A robust, free press acts as a watchdog, holding public officials accountable (they’re supposed to) and informing citizens about governmental actions and policies. However, when there is a concerted effort to undermine the independence of the media, the hazards to democracy become clear.

The Dangers of Media Control

Efforts to weaken independent media—whether through discrediting reputable outlets, denying press access, or promoting misinformation—serve to consolidate power among those currently in office. When a President or governing body casts doubt on the integrity of the news media, they sow seeds of mistrust among the public.

This not only hampers informed citizenry but also facilitates an environment ripe for authoritarianism, where contrary voices are silenced, and dissenting opinions are dismissed as “fake news.” Dictators like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán know all-to-well how important it is to control the media and give citizens no option for news other than the state media they control in the pursuit of consolidating power.

When Viktor Orbán came to the country for one reason—to visit Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago—we speculated that he was there to give Trump, and the leader of the Heritage Foundation who joined the meeting, tips on how to convert a democracy into a dictatorship. He had already successfully done so in Hungary. Putin and Trump have communicated on the phone at least 7 times since he left office in 2021. Relationships with these leaders and the Project 2025 playbook will be very helpful in the pursuit of the destruction of American democracy—should the guardrails in place not be strong enough.

Erosion of Public Trust

The attack on independent journalism also has significant ramifications for public trust. As of October, 2024, public trust in the media had reached an all time low. Only 37% of Americans have a great deal or some trust in mainstream media. If citizens view news organizations as biased or unreliable, they may retreat into echo chambers—consuming only that information which aligns with their pre-existing views. This phenomenon can lead to polarizing divisions within the populace, diminishing constructive dialogue, and creating an environment where critical thinking and informed decision-making are stifled.

This has already occurred. People are trapped in their media “bubbles,” missing out on the true facts of any story. While mainstream media has biased reporting that often favors the perspective that benefits corporations, right-wing media creates “alternative facts” and doesn’t share the reality of a story—or will not report on it at all if it doesn’t align with their narrative.

This is why people often say Conservatives live in an alternative reality they have labeled “Earth 2.” You won’t find negative news about Republican politicians on Conservative media (and vice versa with legacy media and Democratic politicians. Although if a Democrat in Congress is being investigated, they won’t just ignore the story). An example of how Fox News, in particular, handles reporting: During Donald Trump’s impeachment trial after January 6th, the impeachment team presented their case, which included never before seen video footage from that day.

Americans in the Conservative media bubble had been hearing mischaracterizations of what happened, but now they would finally see the reality of what occurred that day. That didn’t happen. Fox News wasn’t airing the impeachment hearing live as every other media organization had been. Instead, they went ahead with regular programming until it was time for Donald Trump’s defense team to present their side of the story. That part of the trial was covered live.

This happened in part because of the network’s normal operating procedure of obscuring facts and reporting news according to their Conservative ideology, but they chose not to cover that portion of the hearing live mainly because they had been lying to their audience about what happened that day, so airing video evidence from January 6th that showcased what actually took place that day would destroy their narrative and expose viewers to the truth.

In doing so, they would expose themselves as a media outlet that had been lying to its viewers, destroying its “credibility” and the trust loyal viewers had in them to report the real truth, not the “fake news” they report on mainstream media (which they are technically part of. They consistently talk of “cable news” as though they are outside of that group).

Ending the Independence of Independent Agencies

This is particularly troubling when we consider the role of independent agencies in the U.S. government. These agencies, which operate free from direct political control, are designed to implement laws and regulations that serve the public interest without succumbing to the whims of partisan politics.

The Role of Independent Agencies

Independent agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), are essential for safeguarding public welfare, regulating industries, and enforcing laws. Their independence ensures that decisions are based on scientific evidence and legal statutes rather than fluctuating political agendas. When these agencies function without interference, they can effectively provide oversight, maintain checks on corporate power, and protect vulnerable populations.

Threats to Independence

However, under the threat of an autocratic leader, the integrity of independent agencies would be jeopardized. Strategies to end their independence may include appointing loyalists who prioritize political alignment over expertise or dismantling regulations that restrict executive power. Such actions can lead to severe consequences, including compromised public health policies, diminished regulatory oversight, and increased corruption. The result would be a dangerously unregulated environment where powerful interests can exploit loopholes to increase their power or their net worth.

Misusing the Insurrection Act Against Americans to Stifle Dissent

When it comes to managing dissent, the Insurrection Act provides the President with extraordinary powers to deploy military forces domestically under specific circumstances. This legislation is intended to maintain law and order in times of chaos, but its potential misuse poses a significant threat to civil liberties, especially if wielded by an authoritarian leader. If a president chose to interpret or apply this act in a manner that minimizes popular dissent, the consequences could be serious.

Historical Context

The Insurrection Act has been invoked in various historical contexts, ranging from the enforcement of desegregation during the civil rights movement to responding to riots and natural disasters. In such instances, its purpose was to restore order and uphold constitutional rights. However, a leader with dictatorial aspirations could exploit this act to suppress protests, curtail free speech, and silence opposition by portraying peaceful dissent as an insurrection.

We would witness an environment where peaceful protests are met with an iron fist instead of the respect and protection they deserve. Furthermore, the judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding constitutional rights. Courts possess the power to challenge executive authority, interpreting the law in such a way that protects civil liberties.

Implications for Civil Liberties

This would result in unconstitutional detentions, and a climate of fear that stifles dissent. Such actions represent a direct affront to the principles of democracy, which rely on the free expression of ideas and the right to peaceful assembly. In this scenario, an authoritarian president could effectively divert attention from crucial issues by focusing on real or fabricated threats, consolidating power while diminishing trust in government institutions.

The Supreme Court as well as other lower courts have historically acted as watchdogs against abuses of power, stepping in to define the limits of presidential authority when necessary. This judiciary, alongside active civil society organizations and media, strengthens guardrails that hinder the concentration of power in any one individual, including the President of the United States.

However, when a President follows the advice of organizations like the Heritage Foundation and operatives like Leonard Leo—who has been working for years to get Conservative justices on the court—that all changes. Conservative Justices have been appointed from a list provided by Leo. Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh were all in that list.

The Erosion of Democratic Norms

The risks associated with the Insurrection Act are further compounded by broader attempts to undermine democratic norms. In initiatives like “Project 2025,” far-right factions aim to reshape the federal government in ways that solidify power and limit dissent. These initiatives may include misinterpretations of constitutional authority or outright alterations to statutes that protect citizens’ rights. The goal is not only to fortify a particular political agenda but to entrench a governance style that favors authoritarianism under the guise of patriotism.

Dehumanizing Dissent

One alarming tactic seen in recent political climates is the vilification of opposing voices. Labeling dissenters as “enemies of the state” or “unpatriotic” is a dangerous rhetoric that erodes the very foundation of a democratic society. This campaign against dissent not only undermines free speech but also fuels an environment where individuals may feel pressured to self-censor or conform to prevailing ideologies out of fear for their safety or reputation. In the long run, this could hamper critical dialogue and debate, which are essential ingredients for a thriving democracy.

At the heart of the checks and balances system established by the Constitution lies the fundamental belief in the importance and power of dissent. The framers recognized that a healthy democracy requires a diversification of voices and opinions regardless of whether they are in alignment with the prevailing political leadership. Should a president attempt to take on a dictator-like posture, the collective voice of dissent can act as a bulwark against tyranny.

Allowing the President to Circumvent Congress’ Power

In a functioning democracy, Congress holds the power of the purse, a vital check on executive authority that ensures accountability in how taxpayer dollars are allocated. However, a president with dictatorial ambitions acting as an authoritarian might seek ways to sidestep this congressional privilege, potentially devastating the balance of power established by the Constitution.

Erosion of Congressional Authority

One method a president could use to bypass Congress is by declaring states of emergency that provide broad latitude in fund allocation. Historically, presidents have declared emergencies for various reasons—ranging from national security concerns to public health crises. Under such declarations, an administration might redirect federal funds toward projects or policies that align with its agenda, potentially ignoring the will of the legislative branch.

The implications of this maneuver are significant. It not only undermines the authority of Congress but also raises concerns about the independence of the judicial branch. Ideally, the judiciary serves as a critical check on executive power, ensuring that actions taken by the president remain within constitutional boundaries. However, the effectiveness of judicial oversight hinges on the courts’ willingness and ability to challenge executive overreach.

Erosion of Judicial Independence

We have witnessed Donald Trump do this by attacking federal judges who were overseeing the cases brought against him. Claiming that the DOJ is politicized and carrying out “lawfare” sows distrust and in reality, was projection—claiming the current President is acting in a way that you would is not just misinformation, it’s classic projection. If the DOJ were to become politicized and carry out political persecution (prosecution), that would be Fascism 101.

If a president were to act as an authoritarian, he might attempt to influence the judiciary through a variety of means. From appointing sympathetic judges to exerting political pressure, the executive branch could severely impair the courts’ impartiality. Moreover, if controversial decisions are made by lower courts, a president could exploit this situation to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the judiciary, thus prompting public distrust in judicial rulings and circumventing legal opposition.

The Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court holds the power to interpret the Constitution and its rulings can either restrain or endorse executive actions. While the Constitution has provisions for judicial review, a president bent on undermining democracy might attempt to pack the court by expanding its size or appointing justices who share their political ideology. Such efforts would threaten the balance of power and could lead to a Supreme Court that aligns with the president’s agenda rather than serving as an impartial arbiter of the law.

If you are thinking to yourself, “This has already happened,” you’re right. The only difference being that the entire court has not been compromised. While the judges who would dissent on cases where the President is clearly acting as an authoritarian are in the minority, Justices like Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson can at the very least be voices of reason in discussions and in questioning parties during hearings to bring important aspects of a case to the forefront.

Intelligence Agencies

Intelligence agencies, along with numerous other factors, bolster the United States’ resilience against the emergence of a dictatorial regime. These agencies play a critical role in safeguarding national security and monitoring both external threats and potential abuses within the government. Their independent structure and oversight mechanisms are designed to prevent the concentration of power that could enable a leader to act unilaterally or authoritarian.

Moreover, the existence of a professional and nonpartisan civil service ensures that governmental functions remain operational, even amidst political upheavals. Bureaucratic norms and ethical standards within federal agencies serve to stabilize governance, making it challenging for any single individual to wield unchecked authority.

For many decades, there have been efforts to advance radical proposals to weaken America’s middle class, stripping them of fundamental freedoms and subverting the rule of law, most notably by capturing the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Project 2025 blueprint makes those prior efforts look quaint. Project 2025 unabashedly promotes the wholesale violation of norms and laws, consolidating enormous power in a president and trampling on Congress’ constitutional role to take away Americans’ long-cherished freedoms and opportunities.

Not only would this authoritarian playbook make it easier for a far-right executive branch to weaken the independence of public agencies, install political cronies throughout the government, punish people it disagrees with, and control what news the media can report, but it would also allow the government to eliminate abortion access, health care choices, overtime pay, educational opportunities, and countless other programs that benefit communities and families.

Conclusion

As we reflect on the strength of the guardrails established by the United States Constitution and the checks and balances woven into our government, it is essential to acknowledge that these mechanisms are not merely theoretical concepts. Rather, they exist as practical frameworks designed to maintain democracy and inhibit any shift toward authoritarianism, including a potential dictator-like rule.

One of the primary defenses against presidential overreach is the bicameral structure of Congress. The legislative branch holds significant power in law-making and has the authority to impeach a sitting president. This is not just a theoretical check; it is a constitutional process with historical precedent. If a president attempts to act outside the bounds of constitutional authority, Congress can intervene. While the political will to exercise these powers may fluctuate based on party lines, the mechanism itself remains intact and operational.

Moreover, regular elections serve as a vital check on presidential power. The electoral process allows citizens to express their will and replace leadership that moves toward authoritarianism. Holding the president accountable during elections reinforces the principle that public office is a privilege granted by the electorate, and it can be revoked when a leader fails to uphold democratic norms.

The only issue with this particular guardrail is its historical precedents. Authoritarian leaders were elected into office by the people at first, and then they became dictators and refused to leave. People often wonder how fascists could possibly get elected in the first place. We witnessed exactly how that could happen in the 2024 election. There was no denying who the President-elect is. Everything was laid out in his agenda and he told us over and over what he was going to do if elected. 2 months before election day he began to sow doubt in yet another democratic election. We don’t know if he would have gone as far this time and attempted to overturn the election.

He claimed election fraud was already happening in Pennsylvania. His campaign and Republicans in government were spreading the lie that Democrats opened the Southern border and encouraged millions of immigrants to come into the country to vote for the Democrat in the 2024 election. Republicans in Congress attempted to pass legislation requiring proof of citizenship to vote, simply to legitimize the conspiracy theory. It’s already illegal for non-citizens to vote.

They can’t even register to vote. So when the Republican won the election, the question was, “What about all the fraud? What happened to the millions of immigrants who were going to vote? The bottom line is that had he lost the election, we would haveseen a replay of what happened after the 2020 election. He won, so the election was free and fair. Had he lost, the election was full of fraud and corruption. Funny how that works.

In essence, the intricate web of checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution creates a formidable barrier against tyranny. Each strand of the web adding a layer of protection to preserve the democracy that makes America that shining beacon of freedom to the rest of the world. The American people are strong and resilient but in the end it’s up to the government and our institutions to protect us from authoritarian rule. Let’s hope that the guardrails in place were constructed properly, using super-strong materials, so they remain in place for the next four years and for any threat we might face in the future.

How are you feeling after the results of the 2024 election?

Further reading