I have written previously on the Christian duty to foster democratic participation, but even this topic can reinforce partisan divisions. Indeed, while recent polls show that a large majority of Americans believe that democracy is under threat, members of each political party generally say that it is theother party that poses the danger.
The media has generally focused on former President Donald J. Trump as the most immediate “threat to democracy,” but some of his supporters have argued that this focus is itself a source of political instability. For example, a few days before Mr. Trump selected him as his running mate in this year’s election, J.D. Vance charged on the website X that rhetoric about Mr. Trump as an authoritarian “led directly” to the assassination attempt. (Though Republicans have also adopted the rhetorical strategy of calling Democrats “fascists.”)
But what is authoritarianism, and would a second Trump administration really impose it on the United States? “The Authoritarian Playbook,” a report released in 2022 by the nonpartisan organization Protect Democracy, offers an evaluative framework for answering these questions. It identifies seven tactics through which “would-be authoritarians pursue power” and cause democratic systems to “backslide towards more authoritarian forms of government.” Because modern Western autocrats rarely come to power through overtly authoritarian means—Hitler himself assumed power through democratic institutions—learning to recognize the dangers is crucial if we are to defend democracy before the backsliding occurs.
The “Playbook” offers evidence that Mr. Trump and the Republican Party have shown a willingness to use the tools of authoritarianism, and it provides examples from the first Trump administration. Certainly, these tactics can be used across the political spectrum—concealing President Biden’s cognitive decline for so long is one possible example of spreading disinformation—but the “Playbook” suggests that threats to democracy are disproportionately coming from the right. This is a reflection of our current moment, and it may not always be the case. (There is a good reason these studies strive to remain nonpartisan.) But as Catholics, we are responsible for promoting the wellbeing of all, and that means standing against authoritarianism whenever and wherever we see it.
Listed below are the seven tactics of authoritarianism to watch for—both through the current election season and in the first months of a new administration, whichever candidate takes office in January 2025.
Politicizing independent institutions. Independent institutions such as the Department of Justice and state election offices are crucial to functioning democracies because they are staffed by qualified professionals who carry out the mission of their agencies according to the law, not according to the whims of a president or governor. This ensures continuity as well as expertise. According to the “Playbook,” attempts to politicize these institutions are often “cloaked in language delegitimizing non-partisan and professional civil service…such as by labeling it ‘the deep state.’” Efforts to undermine the integrity of these institutions, or to weaponize them for political power, should be resisted. (One example: Under the Trump Administration, the Department of Agriculture prevented its staff from using the term “climate change” or reporting on the effect of climate change on crops.)
Spreading disinformation. It is common for politicians to “spin” facts to further their own agendas, but lies that are repeated aggressively to manipulate public perception are a hallmark of authoritarian campaigns. For example, the authors of the “Playbook” write, the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, and the sense of grievance that lie inspires, “are almost certain to drive authoritarian attitudes for years to come.” Conspiracy theorists can be found on both sides of the political spectrum (including on the left following the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump), but we should be wary of leaders who lend credibility to them and who engage in spreading disinformation themselves. Citizens should also pay attention to fact-checkers and be skeptical of biased news sources—especially those that animate negative emotions like anger or resentment.
Aggrandizing executive power. Authoritarians tend to assert the ultimate authority of the executive branch, describing legitimate checks and balances as corrupt or anti-democratic. The authors of the “Playbook” observe that “the too-easily abused powers of the president have been exploited over decades by both parties” in the United States, but they add that “the Trump administration took this to new heights.” Specifically, they write that Mr. Trump “embraced emergency powers, pardons, and acting appointments while ignoring congressional subpoenas and spending appropriations, rejecting legislative oversight, and claiming immunity from judicial accountability.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision granting broad immunity for “official acts” further weakens the checks and balances on executive power, and the recent release of Project 2025—a blueprint for “institutionalizing Trumpism,” as Kevin D. Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, told The New York Times—proposes an overhaul of the U.S. government that would greatly weaken congressional oversight. Mr. Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, but several of its authors were members of his previous administration and are considered likely to serve again if he returns to power.
Quashing dissent. Democracy depends on the freedom of people to voice different views without fear of political retaliation. But there is a distinction between the social rejection of a particular viewpoint and political repression. Efforts to obstruct or punish dissenting voices through the power of the state—such as Mr. Trump’s call for one of his chief Republican critics, former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, to be prosecuted by a military tribunal—are authoritarian, while communal or personal efforts to reject particular viewpoints are not. For example, individuals or groups might decide to boycott (or “cancel”) someone who advocates particular positions, but unless the cancellation is backed by threat of political retaliation or violence, it is not authoritarian but democratic. Likewise, prosecution for crimes unrelated to political opinions would not constitute “quashing dissent.”
Scapegoating vulnerable communities. Authoritarians “employ political strategies that target minorities in a way that energizes and reinforces solidarity among their supporters,” write the “Playbook”authors, generating animosity toward racial, sexual, gender and ethnic “others.” In the United States, the history of white supremacy and patriarchy demands particular attention to the power differential inherent in politics. So, for example, we should be wary of “migrant crime” as an issue designed to drum up fear and resentment—especially since migrants are actually less likely than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes. Catholics should be especially sensitive to this tactic, as our faith calls us to stand in solidarity with the vulnerable and marginalized.
Corrupting elections. Free and fair elections—and a collective willingness to accept the results—are essential to democracy but contrary to authoritarian power. Recently, as the “Playbook” notes, authoritarians have become more adept at undermining elections by tilting the rules against their opponents or defying election results. Often this is done through means such as gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics. (Hungary’s slide into authoritarianism offers a compelling example.) In the United States, the “Playbook” reports, since 2020 “at least 19 states have passed election law changes that both reduce ballot access and provide more opportunities for partisan interference in the vote counting and certification process.”
Stoking violence. Officials using or threatening violence as a way of quashing dissent, or blaming violence without evidence on those who criticize a leader or movement, are blatant signs of authoritarianism, and often go hand in hand with other tactics such as politicizing independent institutions and spreading disinformation. Violence and violent rhetoric—whether officially sanctioned or not—also undermine the trust citizens have in one another and make them more susceptible to believing authoritarian rule will keep them safe, or that violence is the only way to solve political problems. Catholics have the moral duty to exemplify Gospel nonviolence and demand it of our leaders.
St. Augustine once said that Christians should “condemn adultery by living chastely,” which is a helpful framework for how to respond when we see the warning signs listed above. We should condemn authoritarianism by acting democratically. Chris Crawford, a policy strategist at Protect Democracy, identifies what this approach might entail: “We need to build a broad coalition of people who may have strongly held differences of opinion on politics or policy, but who are willing to prioritize the defense of our democracy. This does not mean that the differences go away, but it means that we can preserve the system that allows us to have those disagreements peacefully.” (See Mr. Crawford’s recent Short Take, “How poll workers are defending democracy.”)
Catholics should be the ones demonstrating love of neighbor (and enemy), reweaving the fraying fabric of our democracy through both interpersonal interactions and political engagement. In doing so, perhaps we can offer the world an example of what Pope Francis has called “a better kind of politics, one truly at the service of the common good.”
[Also read: “Americans are worried about Christian nationalism. The church should take that as a wake-up call.”]
