We make no effort to hide our political views at the Duck of Minerva. But our posts fall on a spectrum that ranges from ‘pure academic’ to ‘raving partisan.’ The default setting is probably academic-of-center. This one is at the far end of the ‘raving partisan’. If that’s not what you signed up for, just ignore it.

If you’re on Bluesky and follow me, you probably know my current take on the domestic situation in the United States. But if you do not, or if you want a slightly more polished version, then here it is.

If you’re on Bluesky and follow me, you probably know my current take on the domestic situation in the United States. But if you do not, or if you want a slightly more polished version, then here it is.

Stick a Fork in It

The Republic as we knew it is over. The fight now is whether the new one will be a fascistic, competitive authoritarian regime or a pluralist democracy that, one hopes, is better than what came before.

Even if you think restoration is possible, it isn’t a good idea. The past seven months have confirmed what a lot of observers already suspected: the American Constitution has failed. Or, more accurately, the constitutional order built out of the New Deal, the Second Reconstruction, and the repudiation of the Nixon presidency is no longer viable.

I am not making a prediction. There is no caveat along the lines of “if we continue on our current trajectory.” The founders designed the Constitution to prevent this kind of regime. The original guardrails — impeachment, the enumeration of limited presidential powers, and the establishment of legislative supremacy — did not work. The ones added after the Civil War — most notably the 14th and 15th amendments — have been nullified by the Supreme Court. The de facto amendments created by the accretion of judicial decisions over the last ninety years are falling. The post-Watergate reforms are being composted.

The Breakers

Setting aside Donald Trump — along with the kleptocrats and reactionaries who cling to him like barnacles cling to a decrepit yacht — I think we can safely say that two officials drove the biggest shivs into the back of the Republic: John Roberts and Mitch McConnell. Once we recognize this, two things follow.

First, the small-d democratic opposition should go “scorched earth” on the Court. By this I mean that it should adopt the same kind of rhetoric — the same denial of its legitimacy — that conservatives employed for decades prior to wresting super-majority control.

Second, the filibuster must go. The Biden presidency confirmed that it presents an insurmountable barrier to the structural reforms we need to create a viable republic. Moreover, the future of constitutional democracy in the United States depends on shifting power back to the legislative branch. McConnell’s use of the filibuster to sabotage Democratic presidents broke congress. It rendered the House and the Senate incapable of routinely responding to the needs of the American people.

I discuss some of the consequences here. In brief it created both demand and supply for an increasingly autocratic presidency. The executive branch, unlike congress, remained capable of routine and decisive action. Moreover, congressional dysfunction undermined constraints on the executive.¹

In other words, reactionary populists were right: the system was broken. Unfortunately, the “cure” they offer is far, far worse than the disease.

The Regime and its Opponents

The regime is not only reactionary, it is kleptocratic and oligarchic. New institutional arrangements will not survive if the United States fails to address the obscene concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few — or if it leaves intact a grift economy that funnels money upwards while creating profound systemic economic risk.

The single most important problem for pro-democracy forces is that too many people — especially in position of power — seem unable to truly believe that we are living in a consolidating competitive authoritarian regime. Perhaps they are too habituated to the “rules” of the system that no longer exists. Perhaps they still cling to the drug of American exceptionalism, which makes it difficult for them to accept that “it can happen here.” Perhaps they understand it intellectually, but find it too difficult to adjust their worldview accordingly.

I say “seems” because it is possible that, behind the scenes, Democratic officials are taking necessary steps. These include creating tight working groups — probably at the staff level — to develop contingency plans for a range of very dangerous, and increasingly plausible, contingencies. They need plans for coordinating and leading massive civil resistance against any effort to nullify the midterm results.² They need some idea of what they will do if Trump declares martial law, and they need shared metrics for assessing the degree that the U.S. is sliding into an informal police state. They need courses of actions for the first hours of a military coup — or at least contingency plans for how they will communicate with one another if that happens, so that they can coordinate their response to rapidly changing circumstances.

Do they have a strategy for dealing with the administration if Trump dies and there is a smooth transfer to a smarter, more ideological Vance? What about if what follow is a power struggle between Vance, Miller, and other contenders?

The range of plausible outcomes within the next few years is much, much broader than, I think, most leaders of the opposition fully appreciate. Many of these outcomes are simply beyond the experience of most American politicians, let alone the American people. They are the “stuff” of comparative politics — of the experiences of people in other countries and the academics who study them.

The same is true for what Democrats will need to grapple with should they regain control of the government.

I have seen reports that there already is a network of lawyers and state attorneys generals who are coordinating and planning. But I have tapped my contacts and no one is aware of any effort to, for example, rope in people who have experience mobilizing against competitive authoritarian regimes — such as veterans of the Orange and Rose Revolutions.

Similarly, the only Democratic analogs to a “Project 2025” appear to be either bullshit sinecures or fundraising mechanisms. I would bet that there are hundreds of academics and policy experts willing to help – ones with specialized knowledge that the Democratic establishment doesn’t even know that it needs: in regime transitions, security-sector reform and demobilization, rebuilding civil society, and the like.

As horrible as things are, the fat lady hasn’t sung. The regime is rushing to consolidate control because Trump is wildly unpopular. The economy is only getting worse. Trumpland is making mistakes, and Trump himself is in obvious decline. He has no credible heir. But even a D+10 or D+12 environment won’t matter if the administration successfully fucks with the election. And if you don’t think it will, then you must have slept through August 2020–January 2021.

But let us assume that I am wrong; that I suffer from “TDS” or have spent too long basting in social media^.3 Then people will have wasted some of their time. However, if I am right, and here I should stress that I have said nothing that will surprise many political scientists and analysts, then the failure to plan could be catastrophic.

An earlier version of this piece is cross-posted at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

¹ Partisan polarization is obviously a big part of this story, but there is no short-term, institutional reform that can address it.

² Hell, they need to stop using their vast communication network to ask us for five dollars and instead use it as a mobilization and education tool.

³ I cannot express how much I hope that I am wrong. I am certainly wrong more often that I am right. But I will say that, unfortunately, this is an area where my track record is pretty solid.