Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Saturday, March 1, 2025

Fight hard as hell now, or keep your powder dry for 2026 and 2028?

My instinct is to fight hard now against each major attack that djt and MAGA elites launch against democracy, the rule law and our civil liberties. Some or maybe most people think that strategy is ineffective. Instead, we should wait to fight at major milestones, e.g., the 2026 and 2028 elections. My instinct isn't empirical analysis. So I asked for an empirical analysis.

Perplexity in deep research mode:
Q: Some Americans are torn between openly opposing Trump and MAGA authoritarianism now vs staying quiet and openly opposing in the months before the 2026 mid-term or 2028 presidential elections? Which strategy is riskier for democracy and the rule law?  

A: The United States faces an unprecedented threat to its democratic institutions, with former President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement openly embracing authoritarian tactics. This has sparked a critical debate: should pro-democracy forces oppose these threats immediately, or adopt a strategic delay until the 2026 midterms or 2028 presidential election?  

1. The Accelerating Pace of Democratic Backsliding Authoritarian movements thrive on incrementalism. Once in power, they exploit institutional weaknesses, rewrite rules, and normalize breaches of democratic norms. Research on competitive authoritarian regimes demonstrates that delays in opposition allow incumbents to capture key institutions—judiciaries, electoral systems, and media—thereby tilting the playing field irreversibly ( ). For instance, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán consolidated power by gradually dismantling checks on executive authority over a decade, rendering subsequent opposition efforts ineffective ( ).  In the U.S., Trump’s second-term agenda includes purging nonpartisan civil servants, weaponizing the Justice Department against critics, and expanding unilateral executive powers through untested legal theories ( ). These actions, if unchallenged, could institutionalize authoritarian governance long before 2026. As the Carnegie Endowment notes, oppositions that wait until backsliding becomes severe face dramatically reduced odds of success—winning only 13% of elections in contexts where liberal democracy scores fall below 0.50 ().  

2. The Closing Window for Legal and Institutional Resistance Immediate opposition leverages existing legal and procedural tools to slow authoritarian advances. For example, litigation against unconstitutional executive orders—such as Trump’s attempts to revoke birthright citizenship—has temporarily halted their implementation. However, courts alone cannot safeguard democracy. The judiciary’s enforcement capacity depends on executive compliance, and Trump’s allies, including Vice President JD Vance, have hinted at ignoring unfavorable rulings.  Delaying resistance risks allowing authoritarian actors to reshape the judiciary and legislative frameworks. The Heritage Foundation’s "Project 2025" blueprint aims to install MAGA loyalists across federal agencies, ensuring Trumpism outlives his presidency(). Once entrenched, these appointees could neuter oversight mechanisms, making future legal challenges futile. Historical parallels from Poland and Turkey show that delayed opposition often confronts a captured state apparatus.  

The Risks of Strategic Delay 
1. Entrenching Authoritarian Control Delaying opposition until 2026 assumes that democratic institutions will remain intact enough to facilitate a competitive election. This is a dangerous miscalculation. Authoritarian regimes methodically dismantle electoral integrity: gerrymandering, voter suppression, and disenfranchisement tactics escalate over time (). By 2026, MAGA-controlled states could certify fraudulent results under the guise of "election integrity" laws, as seen in Georgia’s 2021 voter suppression bill (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/dangerous-cracks-in-us-democracy-pillars/).  Furthermore, Trump’s proposed Schedule F executive order would reclassify 50,000 federal workers as political appointees, enabling a loyalist bureaucracy to manipulate future elections10. Once implemented, reversing such measures requires winning power in a system skewed against dissent—a near-impossible task.  

2. Erosion of Collective Action Capacity Opposition movements require time to organize, fundraise, and build coalitions. Delaying resistance until 2026 risks fracturing pro-democracy forces, as activists lose momentum and donors shift focus. The 2022 IPU report on democratic threats emphasizes that disengagement and polarization—key authoritarian tools—accelerate when citizens perceive resistance as futile.  Psychological studies of authoritarianism also highlight the "spiral of silence," where individuals self-censor dissent if they believe their views are unpopular. Immediate opposition counters this by demonstrating widespread resistance, whereas delay reinforces perceptions of inevitability.  

Comparative Risk Analysis 
1. Immediate Resistance: Risks of Escalation Opposing MAGA authoritarianism now carries risks of violent backlash, legal persecution, and short-term democratic instability. Trump has already incited violence against perceived enemies, and his allies in Congress have threatened to investigate pro-democracy NGOs1920. However, these risks are mitigated by the U.S.’s strong civil society, independent media, and federalist structure. States like California and New York can serve as counterweights to federal authoritarianism ( ).  

2. Strategic Delay: Risks of Irreversible Damage Waiting until 2026 risks allowing MAGA to consolidate control over the judiciary, electoral systems, and bureaucracy. By then, legal challenges may lack enforceability, protests could face militarized suppression, and elections might no longer reflect popular will. The Brookings Institution warns that delaying opposition in backsliding democracies reduces the likelihood of reversing authoritarianism by 50–70% ().  

Conclusion: The Necessity of Immediate, Multifaceted Resistance The gravest risk to U.S. democracy lies in underestimating the speed and ruthlessness of authoritarian consolidation. Historical precedents—from Hungary to Venezuela—demonstrate that delayed opposition confronts a captured state, rigged elections, and a demoralized populace. While immediate resistance risks short-term instability, it preserves the legal, institutional, and societal tools necessary for long-term democratic survival.  

Pro-democracy actors must adopt a three-pronged strategy: Legal and Legislative Pushback: Challenge unconstitutional actions in court while pressuring GOP defectors to uphold institutional norms.  

Grassroots Mobilization: Sustain protests, strikes, and voter registration drives to maintain public engagement. 

 Coalition Building: Forge alliances between progressives, moderate conservatives, and business leaders to isolate MAGA extremists.  The 2024–2028 period is not a conventional political cycle but a battle for democracy’s survival. As Protect Democracy’s analysis concludes, "Closing civic space doesn’t always look like tanks in Tiananmen Square...it begins with small precedents that add up". The time to resist is now.
I agree with that analysis. Fight now or maybe forever lose your ability to fight, your democracy and your liberties.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)