Variations of the Unrelated: 2025

Wednesday

Donald Trump and Right Wing Authoritarian Followers

The late social scientist Robert Altermyer wrote a book called The Authoritarians. In it he describes "social dominators" and seperately "right wing authoritarian" followers. In a side by side comparison what makes them different from each other? Where do their interests overlap?

ChatGPT:

Robert Altemeyer’s book The Authoritarians offers a detailed psychological profile of two distinct but often mutually reinforcing personality types: Social Dominators (SDOs) and Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs). While they may end up on the same political or ideological “team,” they differ greatly in motivation, behavior, and worldview.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two types, followed by an explanation of where their interests overlap:

Side-by-Side Comparison

Trait	Social Dominators (SDOs)	Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs)
Core Motivation	Power, dominance, winning	Obedience, conformity, security
Personality Style	Manipulative, strategic, ruthless	Loyal, fearful, deferential
View of Authority	Want to be the authority	Want to obey the authority
Morality	Ends justify the means; amoral	Moral absolutism; “good vs evil” thinking
Attitude Toward Others	Contemptuous of the weak	Hostile to out-groups but loyal to in-group
Empathy	Low to none	Moderate for in-group, low for out-groups
Aggression	Proactive and strategic	Reactive and loyalist
Beliefs	Often cynical and disbelieving in ideology	Genuinely believe the ideology (e.g., nationalism, religion)
Relationship with Rules	Will break rules to dominate	Will enforce rules strictly if told to
Deceptiveness	Often lie and manipulate	Gullible and easy to deceive

Where Their Interests Overlap

Although their motivations differ, SDOs and RWAs often work together, especially in authoritarian systems:

Area of Overlap	Explanation
Support for authoritarian leaders	RWAs admire strong leaders; SDOs seek to become or serve those leaders for personal gain.
In-group loyalty	RWAs are loyal to their group; SDOs use group identity to rally support and control others.
Hostility toward outsiders	Both often show xenophobia, racism, or opposition to “out-groups,” though for different reasons.
Justification for aggression	SDOs rationalize it as necessary; RWAs see it as righteous when directed by authority.
Intolerance of dissent	RWAs fear it as disruptive; SDOs crush it as a threat to power.

Summary

SDOs are like the chess masters—they manipulate, dominate, and use ideology as a tool for control.
RWAs are like the loyal foot soldiers—they follow rules, seek order, and are susceptible to fear-based messaging.
Together, they often form the backbone of authoritarian systems: the SDOs lead, and the RWAs follow.

Altemeyer found this alliance especially dangerous in political systems where the SDOs exploit the fears and loyalty of RWAs to amass and hold power—despite not actually believing in the ideals they promote.

How do SDOs and RWAs correlate with Donald Trump and his followers?

Robert Altemeyer himself, along with John Dean (of Watergate fame), explicitly linked Donald Trump and his base to the SDO-RWA dynamic in their book Authoritarian Nightmare (2020). Here's a breakdown of how Donald Trump maps onto the Social Dominator (SDO) profile, and how many of his followers resemble Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs):

Donald Trump as a Social Dominator (SDO)

Altemeyer’s analysis shows Trump fits the SDO profile almost perfectly:

Trait	Evidence in Trump’s Behavior
Desire for dominance and control	Repeated emphasis on “winning,” power, loyalty tests, control over media/narrative
Amorality	Frequent lying, disregard for norms, use of threats and insults
Manipulativeness	Use of disinformation, gaslighting, scapegoating enemies
Lack of empathy	Dismissal of COVID deaths, mocking the disabled, separating families at the border
Disdain for democratic norms	Attempts to overturn the 2020 election, attacks on the judiciary and press
Hypocrisy and cynicism	Panders to religious/right-wing values while clearly not believing in them personally

Altemeyer considered Trump’s score on the Social Dominance Orientation scale to be extremely high—"through the roof."

Trump’s Base as Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs)

Many of Trump’s most loyal followers exhibit the three defining traits of RWAs:

1. Authoritarian Submission

Loyalty to Trump, even when he contradicts norms, laws, or reality
Belief that Trump is a “strong leader” sent to save the country
Obedience to his word over traditional institutions

2. Authoritarian Aggression

Anger at dissenters (journalists, protesters, Democrats)
Support for violence when framed as necessary to “protect America” (e.g., Jan 6, “lock her up” chants)
Dehumanizing of out-groups (immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ+ people, “the liberal elite”)

3. Conventionalism

Strong attachment to traditional norms (gender roles, religion, nationalism)
Outrage at changing cultural values (e.g., CRT panic, “war on Christmas”)
Tendency to view political conflict in black-and-white moral terms

How the SDO–RWA Dynamic Plays Out with Trump

Dynamic	Real-World Manifestation
SDO manipulates RWA fears	Trump amplifies fear of immigrants, crime, socialism, etc., to mobilize his base
RWA provides unwavering loyalty	Even when Trump’s claims are false or self-serving, his followers support him
Mutual reinforcement	The more Trump defies the “elites,” the more RWAs love him; the more loyalty they show, the more power he grabs
Disregard for truth or consistency	RWAs tolerate contradictions if they feel Trump is defending “their side”
Erosion of democratic norms	Enabled by SDO's disregard for rules and RWA’s preference for order over freedom

Summary

Trump = Social Dominator: Seeks power for its own sake, uses manipulation, shows little empathy or moral concern.
Many Trump supporters = RWAs: Seek safety, order, and a strong leader; easily swayed by fear-based rhetoric; deeply loyal.

This toxic alliance, as Altemeyer warned, can be extremely dangerous to democracy—because it aligns manipulative leadership with blind, obedient loyalty.

If you want, I can show how this dynamic compares historically (e.g., with fascist movements), or unpack how to counter it.

ChatGPT July 2025

Tuesday

What is Ultimate Attribution Error?

Ultimate Attribution Error is a concept in social psychology that describes a bias people have when they explain the behavior of individuals from in-groups (the group they identify with) versus out-groups (other groups). It's an extension of the fundamental attribution error, but at a group level.

Summary:

The ultimate attribution error occurs when people attribute:

Negative behavior of out-group members to their character or disposition (e.g., "they're just bad people"), and
Negative behavior of in-group members to external or situational factors (e.g., "he was under a lot of stress").

Likewise, people often attribute:

Positive behavior of in-group members to their disposition (e.g., "she's smart"), but
Positive behavior of out-group members to luck or external factors (e.g., "he just got lucky").

Examples:

Race or Ethnic Groups:
- A white person sees a Black person succeed and says, "He probably got a handout or special treatment" (external), but if a white person succeeds, they say, "She worked hard and earned it" (internal).
- If a member of a minority group commits a crime, someone might think, "That's just how they are" (internal), but if someone from their own group does, they might say, "He was in a bad situation" (external).
Political Groups:
- A Democrat might say, “That Republican lied because they’re corrupt” (internal), but if a Democrat lies, “They had to because of political pressure” (external).
- Vice versa for Republicans viewing Democrats.
National or Cultural Groups:

An American sees a foreigner being rude and thinks, "People from that country are just rude" (internal).
But if an American is rude abroad, they might say, "He was just having a bad day" (external).

Is this affected by idology?

The ultimate attribution error itself is a psychological bias that can affect anyone, regardless of political ideology—liberal or conservative. It’s a general human tendency to favor one’s in-group and judge out-groups more harshly. That said, there are some nuanced findings in psychology that can help explain how it might play out differently depending on a person’s political leanings.

Key Points:

Not inherently tied to conservatism or liberalism: Ultimate attribution error is about group identity and bias, not political orientation. Liberals and conservatives are both capable of this bias when thinking about "their side" vs. "the other side."
How it might appear more often in conservatives (in some studies):
- Conservatives tend to score higher on measures of group loyalty, threat sensitivity, and preference for order and tradition.
- These traits may make conservative individuals more prone to us-vs-them thinking, which could lead to more frequent or intense ultimate attribution errors when judging out-groups.
- Example: Some research has found conservatives more likely to attribute poverty to laziness (internal trait), whereas liberals are more likely to cite systemic causes (external factors).
How it might show up in liberals:
- Liberals may be more likely to show ultimate attribution error in the reverse when dealing with groups they feel strongly allied with (e.g., marginalized communities).
- This can include over-attributing positive actions of minority groups to internal traits while downplaying negative behaviors as solely the result of external pressures.

TL;DR:

The ultimate attribution error is not exclusive to conservatives or liberals. It’s a human bias, but how and where it shows up might depend on the group a person identifies with or opposes. Conservatives might show it more in areas related to tradition, authority, or nationalism; liberals might show it more when defending disadvantaged or progressive groups.

Want a real-world political example broken down from both sides?

ChatGPT

What has changed politically, socially, and economically in Hungary since Victor Orban took office?

According to ChatGPT:

Viktor Orbán has been Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010, leading the country under the Fidesz party. His long tenure has brought significant political, social, and economic changes. Here's a breakdown of what has changed and how freedom, quality of life, and public opinion have been affected.

🔹 Political Changes

Centralization of Power:

Orbán’s government has significantly centralized power. Constitutional changes and reforms have weakened checks and balances, including judicial independence and media freedom.
Electoral laws were modified in ways that benefit Fidesz, helping it maintain a supermajority in Parliament.

Media Control:

Many independent media outlets have been bought by pro-government allies or folded due to pressure. The media landscape is now heavily pro-government, limiting diverse viewpoints.

Civil Society & NGOs:

Orbán's government has cracked down on NGOs, especially those receiving foreign funding or involved in human rights or refugee advocacy. Legislation has made it harder for them to operate.

Relations with the EU:

Hungary has clashed with the EU over rule of law issues, migration policy, and corruption. Some EU funds have been frozen due to concerns over democratic backsliding.

Freedom Score: According to organizations like Freedom House, Hungary has shifted from a “consolidated democracy” to a “hybrid regime”—a mix of democratic and autocratic features.

➡️ Are people more or less free?

Less free politically and in terms of civil liberties, especially regarding press, judiciary, and dissenting voices.

🔹 Social Changes

National Identity & Migration:

Orbán has emphasized nationalism, Christianity, and traditional family values.
His government is strongly anti-immigration and has run controversial campaigns against the EU and figures like George Soros.

Education and Culture:

Universities and cultural institutions have been brought under greater state control.
The government promotes a nationalist interpretation of history and culture.

LGBTQ+ Rights:

Rights for LGBTQ+ individuals have been restricted. For example, a law was passed banning the depiction of LGBTQ+ content to minors, similar to Russia’s “gay propaganda” law.

➡️ Social atmosphere:

More controlled, with growing intolerance toward marginalized groups and less space for progressive or liberal movements.

🔹 Economic Changes

Growth & Investment:

Hungary has seen decent economic growth, low unemployment, and increased foreign investment, especially from China and Russia.
Orbán’s government emphasizes low corporate taxes, making Hungary attractive to multinationals like BMW and Samsung.

Wages and Cost of Living:

Wages have risen, but so have prices, especially for housing.
Inflation and housing costs have been significant issues, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Corruption:

High levels of corruption are reported, especially in the use of EU funds. The perception is that political allies and family members of Orbán have become very wealthy.

➡️ Has quality of life improved?

Mixed: Material conditions (jobs, wages) have improved for many, but inequality, corruption, and housing affordability remain problems.

🔹 What Do Orbán's Supporters Think?

Supporters tend to believe:

He restored national pride and sovereignty.
Hungary is safer and more stable under his leadership.
Economic growth and job creation are signs of good governance.
He's standing up to global elites, the EU, and progressive ideology.
Traditional values and national identity are protected.

Support base:

Strong in rural areas and among older, conservative voters.
State media reinforces positive narratives about his leadership.

🔹 Summary: Is Hungary Better or Worse Off?

Aspect	Direction of Change
Political Freedom	↓ Less free
Media & Civil Society	↓ Less independent
Social Tolerance	↓ More restrictive
Economy & Jobs	↑ Improved (mostly)
Inequality & Corruption	↔/↑ Ongoing problems
Public Sentiment	↔ Divided

If you're curious, I can also show how Hungary compares to its neighbors, or how Orbán's Hungary is perceived in international politics. Would that be helpful?

Thursday

"Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy," author Katherine Stewart

Chat GPT Summary: In "Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy," author Katherine Stewart explores a coordinated effort among various right-wing factions aiming to undermine American democracy. Published in February 2025, the book delves into the alliances formed between Christian nationalists, billionaire donors, and conservative ideologues within the Republican Party. Wikipedia+5NewPages.com+5The Guardian+5Ms. Magazine+3The Guardian+3Wikipedia+3

Stewart identifies three primary components driving this movement:The Guardian

Wealth: The infusion of substantial financial resources from ultra-wealthy donors destabilizes the political system by promoting deregulation, tax cuts for the affluent, and policies that erode labor protections. BookBrowse.com+2Wikipedia+2The Guardian+2
Disinformation: The strategic dissemination of false information serves to divide the populace and advance an undemocratic agenda.
Christian Nationalism: Religious rhetoric is employed to mobilize working-class voters, promoting the belief that governance should be exclusively in the hands of white, male, conservative Christians, while others are expected to comply. Wikipedia

Five Groups

The book categorizes the movement's participants into five groups:BookBrowse.com

Funders: Billionaires and donors financing the agenda.Wikipedia+1The Guardian+1
Thinkers: Conservative think tanks and intellectuals crafting ideological frameworks.Ms. Magazine
Sergeants: Activists and enforcers promoting the movement's goals.Ms. Magazine+1The Santa Barbara Independent+1
Infantry: Conservative voters and grassroots supporters.Wikipedia
Power Players: Leaders and politicians implementing the strategies.Wikipedia

Stewart emphasizes that the funder class is religiously diverse, encompassing not only evangelicals but also Catholics, Jews, and atheists. The Guardian+5Wikipedia+5Ms. Magazine+5

Throughout her investigation, Stewart highlights the movement's exploitation of contemporary issues such as immigration, gender roles, and economic anxiety to further its objectives. She underscores the strategic and well-organized nature of these efforts, contrasting them with the less coordinated pro-democracy forces. The Santa Barbara Independent+1The Guardian+1The Guardian+1Ms. Magazine+1

Despite the alarming findings, Stewart offers a message of hope, urging pro-democracy advocates to organize and strategize effectively in response. She believes that a majority of Americans support democratic principles over authoritarianism and emphasizes the need for persistent effort to protect democracy. The Guardian

"Money, Lies, and God" has received critical acclaim for its thorough research and compelling narrative. Publishers Weekly describes it as "an urgently needed background on the 2024 election results," while Kirkus Reviews calls it "an impassioned takedown of a 'militant minority.'" NewPages.com+2Wikipedia+2BookBrowse.com+2BookBrowse.com+1Wikipedia+1

Overall, the book serves as a clarion call to recognize and counteract the forces threatening American democracy.

ChatGPT

Monday

What do Americans who favor tarrifs get wrong about trade deficits before they are enacted?

Americans who favor tariffs often misunderstand how trade deficits work before tariffs are enacted. Here are some key misconceptions:

Misconceptions About Trade Deficits & Tariffs

Viewing Trade Deficits as a Loss
- Many believe that a trade deficit (importing more than exporting) means a country is "losing" money. In reality, trade deficits often reflect a strong economy where consumers and businesses have purchasing power. The U.S. trade deficit is largely due to foreign investment in American assets (like stocks, bonds, and real estate), which balances the flow of money.
Expecting Tariffs to Reduce Trade Deficits Automatically
- Supporters assume that imposing tariffs will reduce the trade deficit by discouraging imports. However, trade deficits are influenced by broader factors like currency strength, consumer demand, and investment flows. Tariffs may shift trade to other countries rather than bring manufacturing back.
Underestimating Costs Passed to Consumers
- Tariffs are often seen as a tax on foreign producers, but in practice, domestic consumers and businesses end up paying higher prices for goods. This can reduce purchasing power and economic growth.
Ignoring Retaliation and Supply Chains
- Countries affected by tariffs often retaliate with their own tariffs, harming exporters. Additionally, many American industries rely on imported materials, so tariffs can make domestic manufacturing more expensive.

When Are Tariffs Effective?

Tariffs can be useful in specific scenarios, including:

Infant Industry Protection: Temporary tariffs can help nascent domestic industries develop before facing global competition.
National Security: Protecting industries vital to defense, such as steel or semiconductors, from foreign dependence.
Counteracting Unfair Trade Practices: If a country heavily subsidizes its industries or engages in dumping (selling below cost), tariffs can level the playing field.

When Are Tariffs Harmful?

Long-Term Protectionism: Prolonged tariffs can lead to inefficiency, higher consumer costs, and stagnation in domestic industries.
Broad-Based Consumer Goods Tariffs: These often harm consumers more than they help local industries.
Retaliation and Trade Wars: If other nations impose counter-tariffs, American exporters suffer.
Global Supply Chain Disruptions: Many industries rely on international components; tariffs increase costs and reduce competitiveness.

Should Tariffs Be a Long-Term Revenue Source?

Historically, tariffs were a major revenue source before income taxes, but they are not reliable today.
Relying on tariffs for government revenue is regressive, disproportionately impacting lower-income consumers through higher prices.
Modern economies use income and corporate taxes as more stable and efficient revenue sources.

While tariffs can be a strategic tool, they should not be the foundation of a long-term government budget. Their use should be carefully targeted, temporary, and paired with policies that enhance domestic competitiveness.

ChatGPT, March 2025

Thursday

What does a lonely horse think about when he stands still in a field?

A lonely horse standing still in a field might be thinking about where its herd or human companions are.

Horses are social animals, so if they're alone, they might feel uneasy, bored, or even a little sad. They could be scanning the horizon, listening for distant sounds, or waiting for something familiar to appear. Some might try to self-soothe by swaying, nibbling on grass absentmindedly, or just standing with their head lowered in a kind of quiet resignation. If they’ve had close bonds before, they might even be reminiscing in their own way, longing for company.

Define Illiberal Democracy

Illiberal democracy is a governing system where elections take place, but democratic institutions, civil liberties, and the rule of law are weakened or manipulated to maintain power. It combines elements of democratic legitimacy (such as voting) with authoritarian control over key institutions.

Key Features of Illiberal Democracy:

Elections Without Fairness – Leaders hold elections, but they manipulate the system through voter suppression, media control, or changes to election laws to ensure they remain in power.
Weak Rule of Law – Courts, law enforcement, and government institutions are controlled or influenced by the ruling party, limiting their independence.
Suppression of Opposition – Political opponents, activists, and independent media face restrictions, intimidation, or legal action.
Centralization of Power – Leaders expand executive authority, often limiting the role of legislatures, regional governments, or independent agencies.
Erosion of Civil Liberties – Freedom of speech, press, and assembly are restricted, often under the guise of national security, public order, or cultural preservation.
Nationalism & Populism – Illiberal democracies often emphasize national identity, conservative social values, and resistance to foreign influence (e.g., the EU, the UN, or global corporations).

Examples of Illiberal Democracies:

Hungary under Viktor Orbán – Uses elections to maintain legitimacy but weakens judicial independence, media freedom, and opposition parties.
Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – Holds elections but jails journalists, weakens opposition, and consolidates executive power.
Russia under Vladimir Putin (before full autocracy) – Maintained the appearance of democracy while controlling media, limiting opposition, and manipulating election outcomes.

Is India an illiberal democracy?

India has historically been considered the world's largest democracy, but in recent years, some political analysts and global organizations have described it as an illiberal democracy due to concerns about declining civil liberties, press freedom, and institutional independence.

Arguments Supporting the Illiberal Democracy Label:

Media and Press Restrictions:
- India has seen increasing pressure on independent media, with journalists facing arrests, harassment, or raids by tax authorities.
- International press freedom organizations (e.g., Reporters Without Borders) have noted declining press freedom rankings.
Judicial & Institutional Concerns:
- Critics argue that government influence over institutions like the judiciary and election commission has grown.
- Some key court decisions have favored the ruling party, raising concerns about judicial independence.
Civil Liberties & Minority Rights:
- There have been restrictions on protests (e.g., crackdowns on farmers' protests and anti-CAA demonstrations).
- Critics say laws such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and actions in Kashmir (revoking Article 370) have targeted minority communities.
Electoral Fairness & Political Opposition:
- While elections are held and remain largely free, opposition leaders have faced investigations, arrests, and political pressure.
- Electoral bonds and funding systems favor the ruling party, making competition unequal.

Counterarguments: Why India is Still a Democracy:

Regular Elections: India still holds competitive elections with high voter participation, and opposition parties continue to win in various states.
Independent Judiciary (Though Controversial): The Supreme Court has made rulings against the government in some cases, showing some level of independence.
Active Civil Society: Protests, activism, and social movements remain strong, even if they face suppression.

Conclusion:

India is still a democracy but has shown illiberal tendencies under recent governments, particularly in how dissent, media, and institutions are handled. Organizations like Freedom House have downgraded India’s status from “Free” to “Partly Free,” and some scholars call it an "electoral autocracy" rather than a full illiberal democracy.

Comparison: Illiberal Democracy vs. Full Authoritarianism

1. Elections

Illiberal Democracy: Held regularly but often manipulated (unfair advantages, media control, suppression of opposition).
Full Authoritarianism: Elections (if any) are rigged, symbolic, or non-existent.

2. Opposition

Illiberal Democracy: Opposition parties exist but face restrictions (arrests, financial pressure, legal cases).
Full Authoritarianism: No real opposition; dissent is criminalized.

3. Media Freedom

Illiberal Democracy: Restricted but not entirely suppressed; independent media faces intimidation and censorship.
Full Authoritarianism: Fully controlled by the state; no independent journalism.

4. Judicial System

Illiberal Democracy: Judiciary exists but is influenced by the ruling party.
Full Authoritarianism: Judiciary is fully controlled by the regime and lacks independence.

5. Civil Liberties

Illiberal Democracy: Restricted (e.g., surveillance, protest bans, targeted laws) but still present.
Full Authoritarianism: Almost non-existent; dissent is criminalized.

6. Rule of Law

Illiberal Democracy: Exists but is selectively applied to favor the ruling party.
Full Authoritarianism: The leader or ruling party’s will is the law.

7. Power Structure

Illiberal Democracy: Centralized leadership with weak checks and balances.
Full Authoritarianism: Absolute control by a dictator, ruling party, or military.

8. Nationalism & Populism

Illiberal Democracy: Often emphasized to justify power (e.g., protecting culture, religion, or national identity).
Full Authoritarianism: May be used, but control is more based on fear and coercion.

Examples of Each System:

Illiberal Democracy: Hungary (Viktor Orbán), Turkey (Erdogan), India (some argue under Modi), Russia (before turning fully authoritarian)
Full Authoritarianism: North Korea (Kim Jong-un), China (Xi Jinping), Saudi Arabia (Mohammed bin Salman), Russia (under Putin post-2022)

Key Difference:

An illiberal democracy still holds elections and maintains a façade of democracy, while a full authoritarian regime eliminates meaningful political competition and rules through repression.

ChatGPT. Feb. 2025

Tuesday

What is the strategy called whereby a person uses the liberties of society to his advantage to ultimately take them away?

The strategy you’re describing is often referred to as “illiberal democracy”, “paradox of tolerance” exploitation, or “authoritarian subversion”.

A more specific term is “tyranny of the means”, where individuals or groups use the freedoms of an open society—such as free speech, democratic participation, and legal protections—to ultimately undermine those same liberties once they gain power.

Another concept that aligns with this is “entryism”, where an extremist group infiltrates an institution or political system under the guise of following its rules, only to gradually reshape it to serve their own ends.

This tactic is particularly discussed in relation to Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance”, which suggests that unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance itself, as intolerant groups exploit freedom to erode it.

Examples

Here are some historical and modern examples of how extremists or authoritarian movements have used the freedoms of a society to ultimately erode them:

1. Nazi Germany (1930s)

Strategy: The Nazi Party participated in democratic elections and used the Weimar Republic’s constitutional liberties (such as free speech, assembly, and political participation) to spread propaganda and gain political power.
Outcome: After winning power in 1933, Hitler and the Nazis swiftly dismantled democracy, suppressing opposition, eliminating free speech, and using emergency laws to establish a dictatorship.

2. Communist Takeovers in Eastern Europe (1940s-1950s)

Strategy: Communist parties in countries like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland initially participated in coalition governments after World War II, taking advantage of democratic institutions.
Outcome: Once in positions of power, they used legal mechanisms, political purges, and suppression of opposition to establish authoritarian regimes under Soviet control.

3. Theocratic Takeover in Iran (1979)

Strategy: Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters used the popular uprising against the Shah to present themselves as advocates of freedom and democracy.
Outcome: Once in power, they consolidated control, eliminated secular opposition, and established a strict theocratic regime that curtailed many of the freedoms they initially claimed to support.

4. Venezuela’s Chavez and Maduro (1999-Present)

Strategy: Hugo Chávez won power through democratic elections, campaigning on populist rhetoric that promised greater freedom and justice.
Outcome: Over time, Chávez and later Maduro eroded democratic institutions, cracked down on opposition, manipulated the judiciary, and restricted press freedom, effectively turning Venezuela into an authoritarian state.

5. Islamist Extremist Groups in Western Democracies

Strategy: Radical Islamist preachers and groups have used free speech protections in liberal democracies to promote anti-democratic and often violent ideologies.
Outcome: Some individuals radicalized under such protections have sought to impose restrictive interpretations of law (such as Sharia law) that contradict the very freedoms that allowed them to organize.

6. Modern Far-Right and Populist Movements

Strategy: Some far-right movements in Europe and the U.S. have used democratic elections and free speech laws to spread nationalist and authoritarian-leaning ideologies.
Outcome: Once in power, some of these leaders have worked to undermine judicial independence, weaken press freedom, and erode democratic norms (e.g., restrictions on the media in Hungary and Poland under Orbán and PiS).

The Common Pattern

Each of these cases follows a similar pattern:

Use the freedoms of a society to gain legitimacy and power.
Exploit democratic institutions to consolidate control.
Restrict those same freedoms to prevent opposition and ensure continued rule.

This is why some scholars, like Karl Popper, argue that democracies must be vigilant against those who seek to exploit open societies to destroy them.

Prevention

Modern democracies attempt to guard against authoritarian subversion in several ways, using legal, institutional, and societal measures to prevent extremists from using democracy to destroy democracy. Here are some key strategies:

1. Constitutional Safeguards

Anti-Authoritarian Provisions: Some constitutions include provisions that prevent leaders from easily dismantling democratic institutions. For example, Germany’s Basic Law includes safeguards against extremist groups exploiting democracy (e.g., banning anti-democratic parties).
Term Limits: Many democracies have term limits to prevent leaders from consolidating power indefinitely (though authoritarian-leaning leaders often try to remove these limits, as seen in Russia and Venezuela).

2. Legal and Judicial Measures

Banning Extremist Groups: Some democracies ban political parties or organizations that openly advocate for the destruction of democracy (e.g., Germany’s bans on neo-Nazi groups).
Laws Against Hate Speech and Incitement: Countries like Canada and Germany have laws that prevent extremist speech from being used to undermine democratic values.
Independent Judiciary: A strong and independent judiciary can act as a check against leaders who try to undermine democracy from within (though authoritarians often attempt to weaken the courts).

3. Media and Information Protections

Independent Press: A free and independent media helps expose authoritarian tactics and keeps leaders accountable. However, authoritarians often try to discredit or control the media (e.g., Hungary under Viktor Orbán).
Fact-Checking and Countering Disinformation: Many governments and civil society groups actively combat misinformation and propaganda used by extremists to gain support.

4. Political and Electoral Reforms

Preventing Electoral Manipulation: Safeguards such as independent election commissions, fair districting, and strong voter rights help prevent extremists from rigging elections.
Campaign Finance Laws: Regulations on campaign funding can help prevent authoritarian-leaning figures from gaining disproportionate power through moneyed interests.

5. Social and Educational Initiatives

Civic Education: Teaching citizens about democratic principles and the tactics of authoritarian subversion can help build resistance to manipulation.
Promotion of Pluralism and Tolerance: Encouraging a culture of open debate and respect for different viewpoints helps reduce polarization, which extremists often exploit.
Resilience Against Extremist Recruitment: Community programs that counter extremist narratives (whether far-left, far-right, or religious fundamentalist) help prevent radicalization.

6. International Cooperation

Alliances with Other Democracies: Organizations like NATO, the EU, and the UN promote democratic norms and impose sanctions on governments that attempt to erode democracy.
Monitoring Democratic Erosion: Groups like Freedom House and Transparency International track and report on democratic backsliding, helping raise awareness of authoritarian tactics.

Challenges and Ongoing Threats

"Democratic Backsliding": Even in well-established democracies, leaders can gradually erode democratic norms (e.g., by attacking the media, undermining the courts, or restricting opposition parties).
Exploiting Social Media: Extremists and authoritarian figures use social media to spread propaganda, manipulate public opinion, and bypass traditional democratic safeguards.
Polarization and Disinformation: Deep political divides and widespread misinformation make it easier for extremists to exploit democracy’s weaknesses.

Conclusion

Democracies are always at risk of being undermined from within, and history shows that once freedoms are lost, they are difficult to regain. That’s why modern democracies must balance tolerance and vigilance—ensuring free expression while also defending against those who would use that freedom to destroy it.

Democratic Backsliding

Democratic backsliding, where elected leaders gradually erode democratic institutions and norms, is a pressing concern in various countries. Here are some notable examples:

1. United States

Recent Developments: In 2024, Donald Trump was re-elected as President. His administration has been marked by efforts to expand executive powers, with many Republican lawmakers supporting these moves, often out of fear or political expediency.
The New Yorker
Impact on Democratic Institutions: There are growing concerns about the erosion of checks and balances, with potential implications for the independence of the judiciary and the freedom of the press.

2. Guinea

Recent Developments: The junta, led by Col. Mamadi Doumbouya, seized power in a 2021 coup. Despite initial promises to transition to civilian rule, the junta has missed deadlines for democratic elections and has intensified its authoritarian grip.
AP News
Impact on Democratic Institutions: The regime has cracked down on opposition, detaining political leaders and suppressing dissent. The lack of a clear roadmap back to democracy has raised concerns both domestically and internationally.

3. Hungary

Recent Developments: Under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Hungary has experienced significant democratic backsliding. The government has systematically undermined judicial independence, restricted press freedoms, and altered electoral laws to favor the ruling party.
Impact on Democratic Institutions: These actions have weakened the system of checks and balances, leading to increased centralization of power and diminished political pluralism.

4. India

Recent Developments: Prime Minister Narendra Modi's tenure has seen increasing restrictions on press freedoms and civil liberties. Independent journalism faces challenges, with arrests of journalists and suppression of dissenting voices becoming more common.
projectdemocracy.com
Impact on Democratic Institutions: The erosion of press freedom and the suppression of dissent have raised concerns about the health of India's democracy and its commitment to pluralistic values.

5. El Salvador

Recent Developments: President Nayib Bukele has taken steps that critics argue undermine democratic norms, including the removal of Supreme Court judges and the Attorney General, as well as deploying the military to influence legislative decisions.
Impact on Democratic Institutions: These actions have concentrated power in the executive branch, raising alarms about the potential erosion of democratic checks and balances.

Global Perspective

As of 2024, 71% of the world's population resides in countries experiencing autocratization, with 42 nations undergoing democratic backsliding.

Phys.org

This trend underscores the importance of vigilance and proactive measures to safeguard democratic institutions and norms worldwide.

ChatGPT, February 2025