For years, my understanding was that (1) if a small group of committed authoritarians and kleptocrats could gain enough power and public support, and (2) the US Constitution is ambiguous enough that the US could become a nation that is more authoritarian, clandestine and kleptocratic than democratic, transparent and honest.
The issue now seems ripe.
Q: Is the US Constitution ambiguous enough to allow for the rise and maintenance of a federal regime that is more authoritarian and kleptocratic than democratic and honest? Take into account Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United, Trump v US, Snyder v US and other inherently anti-democratic or pro-corruption cases.A: The U.S. Constitution, while designed to establish a framework for democratic governance, contains inherent ambiguities that have been interpreted in ways that could potentially facilitate the rise and maintenance of a more authoritarian and kleptocratic federal regime.Ambiguities in Constitutional Text1. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The Constitution's system of checks and balances, as noted by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, assumes that ambition will counteract ambition among the branches of government. However, the development of political parties has often led to branches acting in concert rather than in opposition, potentially undermining this system 6.2. Vague Language: Terms like "executive power," "judicial power," and "necessary and proper" are inherently ambiguous, allowing for broad interpretations that can shift the balance of power 4.
Supreme Court Decisions1. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): This decision held that independent spending on political campaigns by corporations and unions could not be limited, arguing that such spending does not pose a substantial risk of corruption. Critics argue this ruling has allowed for an influx of "dark money" into politics, potentially enabling kleptocratic behaviors by allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to exert disproportionate influence over elections 3 27.2. Trump v. United States (2024): The Supreme Court's decision granted the president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for "core constitutional powers" and presumptive immunity for "official acts." This ruling could be seen as expanding presidential power in ways that might facilitate authoritarian tendencies by reducing accountability 11 30.3. Snyder v. United States (2024): This case narrowed the definition of corruption under federal law, making it harder to prosecute state and local officials for accepting gratuities after official actions. This decision could encourage corrupt practices by reducing the legal risks associated with such behavior 22 24 29 32 34.
Potential for Authoritarian ConstitutionalismAuthoritarian Constitutionalism: Scholars have discussed the concept of authoritarian constitutionalism, where constitutional mechanisms are used to maintain power rather than limit it. This could theoretically occur within the U.S. framework if constitutional ambiguities are exploited to centralize power or protect corrupt practices 2 7 9.Federalism and Anti-Commandeering: While federalism provides a check against centralized authoritarianism by preserving state autonomy, it also means that federal efforts to combat corruption at the state level can be limited, potentially allowing for kleptocratic practices at lower levels of government 8.
ConclusionThe U.S. Constitution's ambiguities, combined with certain Supreme Court interpretations, provide a landscape where authoritarian and kleptocratic tendencies could theoretically flourish. However, these tendencies are not inevitable outcomes of the Constitution's design but rather potential interpretations and exploitations of its ambiguities. The balance between democracy and authoritarianism largely depends on the political culture, the integrity of elected officials, and the vigilance of the judiciary and the public in upholding democratic norms and values.While the Constitution provides a framework for democracy, its effectiveness in preventing authoritarianism or kleptocracy relies heavily on the interpretation and application of its principles by those in power.
According to that, and assuming it is a basically correct analysis, I conclude that the US can legally become mostly authoritarian and mostly kleptocratic.
I see that as possible, maybe likely in the next 2-4 years, despite the opposing will of the American people, who overwhelmingly say they are pro-democracy in opinion polls. However, despite 80% in one poll saying they are pro-democracy, 41% also say they also support “having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament or elections”, which they see as is a very good or fairly good system. And, an annual poll indicates that for 2024, ~65%, are "afraid" or "very afraid" of government corruption.
A final point -- the human mind: How can some people be both pro-democracy and pro-authoritarianism at the same time? Easy. They unconsciously rationalize it. They do not think deeply or even rationally. This is not a matter of people being stupid. It is a matter of humans being human. In two recent posts, here and here, I tried to articulate this idea. In short, lots of people rationalize reality into comfortable illusions and they don't have any inkling they did it. They sincerely believe in their illusions. Two prominent social scientists wrote this about political reasoning in 2016:
“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.”
