Operation "Save American Democracy"

I return from the United States to Europe with a clear conclusion: American Democrats have 400 days to begin saving American democracy. If the outcome of next fall's midterm elections is a Congress that begins to constrain Donald Trump, then there will be another 700 days to prepare for a peaceful transfer of executive power, which is the only way to secure the future of this republic. Operation "Save American Democracy," Phases 1 and 2.

Hysterical hyperbole? I wish it were. But during my seven weeks in the United States this summer, I was daily struck by the speed and brutality with which President Trump is attacking the norms of American democracy that had hitherto seemed settled, and by the desperate weakness of the resistance to those attacks. A growing body of international evidence suggests that once liberal democracy erodes, it is very difficult to rebuild. Destroying is far easier than building.

That is why all Democrats, regardless of party or ideology, must want the Democratic Party to regain control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections on November 3, 2026. Not because of Democratic politics, which are confused, nor because of their current leadership, which is in disarray, but simply because American democracy needs Congress—the primary instrument of presidential power enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—to start doing its job again. That will not happen as long as Republicans, dominated and intimidated by Trump, control both chambers.

Much has been made of comparisons with other authoritarian takeovers, from 1930s Europe to Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, but what strikes me most are the specifics of the American case. To name just four: excessive executive power; chronic redistricting; endemic violence; and the way in which a would-be authoritarian leader can exploit the intense capitalist competition that permeates every aspect of American life.

The danger of executive overreach has been present from the beginning. Revolutionary War hero Patrick Henry (“give me liberty or give me death”) voted against the Constitution at the Virginia Convention in 1788 precisely because he believed it would allow a criminal president to “attempt, with one bold move, to seize the American throne.” Throughout the 20th century, presidents from both parties have expanded the “executive power,” which is vaguely defined in Article 2 of that Constitution. More recently, the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, has upheld a theory of the single executive branch developed by right-wing legal theorists that gives presidential powers the broadest possible interpretation. And now, the Trump administration, well-prepared, unlike in 2017, has exploited every loophole and opportunity in executive power, but has also openly broken the law and ignored court decisions that have tried to stop it.

During my seven weeks in the US this summer, I was daily shocked by the speed and brutality with which President Trump is attacking the norms of American democracy, which until then seemed settled, and by the desperate weakness of the resistance to these attacks.

Tom Ginsberg, one of America’s leading comparative constitutional scholars, argues that the single greatest flaw in the unreformed U.S. Constitution is that it gives state legislatures the power to redraw electoral boundaries. The term “gerrymandering” itself was coined in 1812. In recent times, partisan gerrymandering has become even more extreme as American politics has become increasingly polarized. Then in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that it cannot correct even the most egregious partisan gerrymandering (except for those based on race). So now, at Trump’s direct request, Texas is redrawing its electoral boundaries to give Republicans five more seats in the midterm elections, and California is announcing that it will conduct a counter-gerrymander to give Democrats five more seats. There is no longer even a semblance of impartiality in the most basic democratic procedure.

No European society can match the US in the ubiquity of violence. Hardly a day has passed this summer without the evening news reporting at least one violent crime, including another horrific mass shooting at a school. There are more guns in the US than there are people. France loves its pseudo-revolutionary political theater, but the US had a mob storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Now, right-wing activist Charlie Kirk has been murdered. Before anyone knew who the killer was, Elon Musk declared that “the left is the party of murder,” while Trump blamed the hate speech of the “radical left.” It will be a miracle if the US avoids a spiral of political violence last seen in the 1960s. That, in turn, could serve as an excuse for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, deploy even more troops, and further exploit the supposed state of emergency.

Meanwhile, universities, business leaders, law firms, media platforms, and tech moguls have failed miserably in their attempts to act together. They have either bowed their heads, humiliatingly giving in, like Columbia University and the law firm Paul, Weiss, or they have cajoled the president, like Mark Zuckerberg. Why? Because they all follow the logic of fierce market competition and fear of targeted retaliation. I never imagined I would see fear spread so far and so quickly in the United States.

Add to that the attempts to disqualify or intimidate voters, along with Trump's threat to ban mail-in voting, and there are serious doubts about how free and fair the November elections will truly be. The job of all Democrats, regardless of party, is to ensure that they are as free and fair as possible. The job of the Democratic Party is to win despite such obstacles.

The key will likely continue to lie in everyday matters. It is in the economy that the paradoxical hope lies. The impact of Trump’s tariffs on rising prices is already being felt. The number of employed people is declining. Trump’s “big, beautiful law” will further increase the already staggering national debt of $37 trillion. In fiscal year 2024, servicing that debt cost more than the entire $850 billion defense budget. But until a debt crisis actually breaks out, such macro risks remain distant and abstract for most voters, much like forecasts of reduced GDP growth had little impact on the Brexit referendum debate.

So the big question is whether the negative economic consequences of Trump’s policies will be sufficiently tangible for ordinary voters before the election. One astute political observer suggested to me that Trump, flush with revenue from the new tariffs, could make a pre-election cash payment to voters, perhaps presented as compensation for the “temporary hardships” of the transition to a Magna economy. That would be a classic populist move.

The most important task for Democrats in the next 400 days is to show voters in an undeniable and clear way the real economic costs of Trump’s policies. Democrats will not win by simply talking about defending democracy, as important as it is, let alone by engaging in culture wars. They must follow the advice of former Clinton adviser James Carville and focus relentlessly on the issues “at the kitchen table.” It will also show that they truly care about ordinary working- and middle-class Americans, whose support they have lost over the past 30 years.

Then comes the second phase - the presidential election in 2028. But today's challenges are enough for today. Despite all the serious threats to democracy itself in the US, for now the first rule of democratic politics still applies: just win the next election.

The text is taken from "The Guardian"

Translation: NB