Talk of a Trump Dictatorship Charges the American Political Debate (2024)



Supported by


Washington Memo

Former President Donald J. Trump and his allies are not doing much to reassure those worried about his autocratic instincts. If anything, they seem to be leaning into the predictions.

Talk of a Trump Dictatorship Charges the American Political Debate (1)

When a historian wrote an essay the other day warning that the election of former President Donald J. Trump next year could lead to dictatorship, one of Mr. Trump’s allies quickly responded by calling for the historian to be sent to prison.

It almost sounds like a parody: The response to concerns about dictatorship is to prosecute the author. But Mr. Trump and his allies are not going out of their way to reassure those worried about what a new term would bring by firmly rejecting the dictatorship charge. If anything, they seem to be leaning into it.

If Mr. Trump is returned to office, people close to him have vowed to “come after” the news media, open criminal investigations into onetime aides who broke with the former president and purge the government of civil servants deemed disloyal. When critics said Mr. Trump’s language about ridding Washington of “vermin” echoed that of Adolf Hitler, the former president’s spokesman said the critics’ “sad, miserable existence will be crushed” under a new Trump administration.

Mr. Trump himself did little to assuage Americans when his friend Sean Hannity tried to help him out on Fox News this past week. During a town hall-style meeting, Mr. Hannity tossed a seeming softball by asking Mr. Trump to reaffirm that of course he did not intend to abuse his power and use the government to punish enemies. Instead of simply agreeing, Mr. Trump said he would only be a dictator on “Day 1” of a new term.

“Trump has made it crystal clear through all his actions and rhetoric that he admires leaders who have forms of authoritarian power, from Putin to Orban to Xi, and that he wants to exercise that kind of power at home,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present,” referring to Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Viktor Orban of Hungary and Xi Jinping of China. “History shows that autocrats always tell you who they are and what they are going to do,” she added. “We just don’t listen until it is too late.”


Talk about the possible authoritarian quality of a new Trump presidency has suffused the political conversation in the nation’s capital in recent days. A series of reports in The New York Times outlined various plans developed by Mr. Trump’s allies to assert vast power in a new term and detailed how he would be less constrained by constitutional guardrails. The Atlantic published a special issue with 24 contributors forecasting what a second Trump presidency would look like, many of them depicting an autocratic regime.

Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman from Wyoming who was vice chairwoman of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, published a new book warning that Mr. Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy. And of course, there was the essay by the historian, Robert Kagan, in The Washington Post that prompted Senator J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio and a Trump ally, to press the Justice Department to investigate.

To be sure, American presidents have stretched their power and been called dictators going back to the early days of the republic. John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, among others, were all accused of despotism. Richard M. Nixon was said to have consolidated power in the “imperial presidency.” George W. Bush and Barack Obama were both compared to Hitler.

But there is something different about the debate now, more than overheated rhetoric or legitimate disagreements over the boundaries of executive power, something that suggests a fundamental moment of decision in the American experiment. Perhaps it is a manifestation of popular disenchantment with American institutions; only 10 percent of Americans think democracy is working very well, according to a poll in June by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the extremism and demagoguery that has grown more prevalent in politics in many places around the world. And perhaps it stems from a former president seeking to reclaim his old office who evinces such perplexing affinity for and even envy of autocrats.

Mr. Trump once expressed no regret that a quote he shared on social media came from Mussolini and adopted the language of Stalin in calling journalists the “enemies of the people.” He told his chief of staff that “Hitler did a lot of good things” and later said he wished American generals were like Hitler’s generals.

Last December, shortly after opening his comeback campaign, Mr. Trump called for “termination” of the Constitution to remove Mr. Biden immediately and reinstall himself in the White House without waiting for another election.

The former president’s defenders dismiss the fears about Mr. Trump’s autocratic instincts as whining by liberals who do not like him or his policies and are disingenuously trying to scare voters. They argue that President Biden is the real dictator because his Justice Department is prosecuting his likeliest challenger next year for various alleged crimes, although there is no evidence that Mr. Biden has been personally involved in those decisions and even some former Trump advisers call the indictments legitimate.

“The dictator talk by Kagan and his fellow liberal writers is an attempt to scare Americans not just to distract them from the failures and weakness of the Biden administration but because of something they are even more afraid of: that a second Trump administration will be far more successful in implementing its agenda and undoing progressive policies and programs than the first,” Fred Fleitz, who served briefly in Mr. Trump’s White House, wrote on the American Greatness website on Friday.

Mr. Kagan, a widely respected Brookings Institution scholar and author of numerous books of history, has a long record of support for a muscular foreign policy that hardly strikes many on the left as liberal. But he has been a strong and outspoken critic of Mr. Trump for years. In May 2016, when other Republicans were reconciling themselves to Mr. Trump’s first nomination for president, Mr. Kagan warned that “this is how fascism comes to America.”

His essay on Nov. 30 sounded the alarm again. Mr. Trump may have been thwarted in his first term from enacting some of his more radical ideas by more conventional Republican advisers and military officers, Mr. Kagan argued, but he will not surround himself with such figures again and will encounter fewer of the checks and balances that constrained him last time.


Among other things, Mr. Kagan cited Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn an election that he had lost, disregarding the will of the voters. And he noted Mr. Trump’s overt discussion of prosecuting opponents and sending the military into the streets to quell protests. “In just a few years, we have gone from being relatively secure in our democracy to being a few short steps, and a matter of months, away from the possibility of dictatorship,” Mr. Kagan wrote.

Mr. Vance, a freshman senator who has courted Mr. Trump’s support and was listed by Axios this past week as a possible vice-presidential running mate next year, took umbrage on behalf of the former president. He dispatched a letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland suggesting that Mr. Kagan be prosecuted for encouraging “open rebellion,” seizing on a point in Mr. Kagan’s essay noting that Democratic-run states might defy a President Trump.

Mr. Vance wrote that “according to Robert Kagan, the prospect of a second Donald Trump presidency is terrible enough to justify open rebellion against the United States, along with the political violence that would invariably follow.”

Mr. Kagan’s piece did not actually advocate rebellion, but simply forecast the possibility that Democratic governors would stand against Mr. Trump “through a form of nullification” of federal authority. Indeed, he went on to suggest that Republican governors might do the same with Mr. Biden, which he was not advocating either.

But Mr. Vance was trying to draw a parallel between Mr. Kagan’s essay and Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. By the Justice Department’s logic in pursuing Mr. Trump, the senator wrote, the Kagan article could be interpreted as “an invitation to ‘insurrection,’ a manifestation of criminal ‘conspiracy,’ or an attempt to bring about civil war.” To make his point clear, he insisted on answers by Jan. 6.

Mr. Kagan, who followed his essay with another on Thursday about how to stop the slide to dictatorship that he sees, said the intervention by the senator validated his point. “It is revealing that their first instinct when attacked by a journalist is to suggest that they be locked up,” Mr. Kagan noted in an interview.

Aides to Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance did not respond to requests for comment. David Shipley, the opinion editor of The Post, defended Mr. Kagan’s work. “We are proud to publish Robert Kagan’s thoughtful essays and we encourage audiences to read both his Nov. 30 and Dec. 7 pieces together — and draw their own conclusions,” he said. “These essays are part of a long Kagan tradition of starting important conversations.”

It is a conversation that has months to go with an uncertain ending. In the meantime, no one expects Mr. Garland to take Mr. Vance seriously, including almost certainly Mr. Vance. His letter was a political statement. But it says something about the era that proposing the prosecution of a critic would be seen as a political winner.

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He has covered the last five presidents and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework. More about Peter Baker

A version of this article appears in print on , Section


, Page


of the New York edition

with the headline:

Talk of Dictatorship By Trump Charges Debate. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe



About YouChat

I'm YouChat, a large language model from, here to provide assistance, information, and insights on a wide range of topics. I have access to a vast array of knowledge and can help answer questions, provide explanations, and engage in detailed discussions on various subjects. My responses are based on search result snippets, ensuring the information provided is accurate and up-to-date. Let's dive into the concepts mentioned in the article you provided.

2024 Presidential Election

The 2024 United States presidential election is scheduled for Tuesday, November 5, 2024. It will be the 60th quadrennial presidential election. The incumbent president, Joe Biden, is eligible to seek re-election. The election will determine the 59th president and 50th vice president of the United States. The election process involves primaries, caucuses, and the general election, where the winning candidate will be elected through the Electoral College system. [[SOURCE 1]]

G.O.P. Debate Takeaways

The G.O.P. (Grand Old Party) debate takeaways refer to the key points, insights, or conclusions drawn from a debate involving members of the Republican Party. These takeaways often highlight the significant moments, arguments, or positions presented by the participants during the debate. They serve as a summary of the debate's most notable aspects. [[SOURCE 1]]

Who Won the Debate?

The question of who won the debate typically refers to the assessment of which participant or party emerged as the most effective, persuasive, or successful in presenting their views and arguments during a debate. The determination of the debate's winner is often based on factors such as public opinion, media analysis, and the impact of the participants' performance on the audience. [[SOURCE 1]]

G.O.P. Primary Calendar

The G.O.P. primary calendar refers to the schedule of primary elections and caucuses organized by the Republican Party to select its presidential nominee for the 2024 election. The primary calendar outlines the dates and locations of the state-level contests, where party members vote to allocate delegates to the national convention. The primary process plays a crucial role in determining the party's candidate for the general election. [[SOURCE 1]]

Iowa Caucuses: What to Know

The Iowa caucuses are the first major electoral event in the nominating process for the presidential election. They are held in the state of Iowa and serve as an early indicator of the candidates' viability and support within the party. The caucuses involve a unique voting process where participants gather in precincts to express their preferences for the presidential candidates. The outcome of the Iowa caucuses can significantly influence the momentum and perception of the candidates as the primary season unfolds. [[SOURCE 1]]

These concepts are integral to the U.S. presidential election process and play a crucial role in shaping the political landscape leading up to the 2024 election. If you have further questions or need more details on any specific aspect, feel free to ask!

Talk of a Trump Dictatorship Charges the American Political Debate (2024)


Can a democracy also be a dictatorship? ›

Democracies can be either parliamentary, semi-presidential, or presidential and dictatorships can be civilian, military, or royal. Many countries which are seen as otherwise democratic are dictatorships because there has yet to be an alternation in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election.

What is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship? ›

Democracy is a system of government which is chosen by the entire population or other eligible members of the state through elected representatives. A dictatorship is a form of government where a single individual or group of people wield power without any limitations to constitutional authority.

What is a dictatorship government called? ›

Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian, and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies.

What are the characteristics of a dictatorship? ›

Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.

Is Canada a democracy or dictatorship? ›

Canada is considered by most sources to be a very stable democracy. In 2006, The Economist ranked Canada the third-most democratic nation in its Democracy Index, ahead of all other nations in the Americas and ahead of every nation more populous than itself.

Who controls democracy? ›

It is democratic because the people govern themselves, and it is a republic because the government's power is derived from its people. This means that our government – federal, state, and local – is elected by the citizens.

What are the rights of citizens in a dictatorship? ›

Answer and Explanation: In general, citizens do not have rights in a dictatorship. They are not allowed to criticize or challenge the government, speak their minds, practice the religion of their choice, and be safe in their homes from governmental or law enforcement intrusion.

What makes a dictator? ›

A dictator is an individual who forms a government where they make decisions without effective constitutional limitations. The dictator has absolute power. They are not held accountable for their actions and are free to do as they please, even limiting citizens' freedom and rights.

Is autocracy and dictatorship the same? ›

Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power is held by the ruler, known as an autocrat. It includes most forms of monarchy and dictatorship, while it is contrasted with democracy and feudalism.

Can a monarchy be like a dictatorship or can it be part of a democracy? ›

Yes, a monarchy can be like a dictatorship or part of a democracy. This is evidenced by absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia versus constitutional monarchies like the United Kingdom. The distinction is based on the degree of their power and how they exercise it.

Can a monarchy be like a dictatorship or it can be apart of a democracy? ›

A monarchy can be like a dictatorship or it can be part of a democracy. A dictatorship can also be a democracy. False - You can't have a democracy if citizens have no control, which they do not in a dictatorship. A democracy can have both representative and direct characteristics at the same time.

Is Norway a democracy or dictatorship? ›

Norway is a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. The country is governed by a prime minister, a cabinet, and a 169-seat parliament (Storting) that is elected every four years and cannot be dissolved.

Can a monarchy be a democracy? ›

Constitutional monarchy, also known as limited monarchy, parliamentary monarchy or democratic monarchy, is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Wyatt Volkman LLD

Last Updated:

Views: 5902

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (66 voted)

Reviews: 89% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Wyatt Volkman LLD

Birthday: 1992-02-16

Address: Suite 851 78549 Lubowitz Well, Wardside, TX 98080-8615

Phone: +67618977178100

Job: Manufacturing Director

Hobby: Running, Mountaineering, Inline skating, Writing, Baton twirling, Computer programming, Stone skipping

Introduction: My name is Wyatt Volkman LLD, I am a handsome, rich, comfortable, lively, zealous, graceful, gifted person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.