When I worked on human rights policy for the U.S. government, I used to speak about the “dictator’s dilemma” or the “authoritarian spiral.” It takes a number of forms, but the basic gist is that once a government or a leader heads off in an authoritarian direction or begins a crackdown, there are structural incentives to double down, rather than to ease up.
So, in China, as President Xi Jinping has centralized power, cracked down on independent voices, forced religious groups deeper underground, and attempted ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang; he has at the same time made the Chinese state more brittle, and cut off valuable feedback loops. How does he respond to rising discontent and dysfunction? With more repression.
To take another example, in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was once a democratic golden boy. But his use of right-wing xenophobic populism and the rampant corruption of his cronies have proven to be like a drug — requiring ever greater doses of each in order to comfortably hold on to power.
President Donald Trump, too, finds himself in such a spiral. Questions about the legitimacy of his election endure, several of his acts of wrongdoing have been exposed, and the prospects of his re-election are imperiled — but none of this will cause him to moderate. It will lead him to double-down. In his mind — and likely he is correct — to admit any fault, to give up any lie, to moderate on any behavioral or policy question, would be to begin the unraveling of the regime he has built.
He will need more corruption, more racism and misogyny, more lies, more reckless foreign policy, and more rot of our institutions as time goes on. But none of that will truly dampen the flames of grievance on which Trump rose to power, flames he fans with ever-greater intensity.
At the same time, progressives also face a paradox: the greater the need for change, the harder it is to get the democratic mandate for it.
The growth of economic inequality in this country, the rise of monopoly power, the infection of our political system with money so that the largest economic players write the rules in their favor — all of these things have disfigured the ideal of free and fair competition that is at the heart of democracy and of capitalism.
Globalization and digitization, as well as the rise of non-state actors, have each augmented the complexity of threats to stability and peace in the 21st century. Climate change poses an existential threat that is different from but comparable to the threat of nuclear war (which is itself rising again after many years of being managed effectively).
Incremental adjustments will not address these challenges — the need for significant change, for a reset of our politics and our economy is real and ultimately existential. And yet, the dysfunction (including Trumpism) that is itself an indicator of the need for change is, at the same time, dislocating and frightening. And when we feel dislocated and frightened, our human tendency is to be cautious and conservative, to retreat from bold action precisely when we need it most and when it is the only way to actually right the ship.
America is trapped between political realities that make it nigh impossible for Trump and the Republican Party to break out of a pattern of corruption and lies and that make it difficult for Democrats to persuade voters to embrace progressive change on the scale that’s needed.
Like many others, I find myself feeling anxious. When I talk to friends, I hear at least two distinct lines of argument that reflect the appeal of certain Democratic primary candidates. I think both groups of friends are right in their analysis.
Those who advocate for significant structural reform of our politics and economy are right that the current system is neither fair nor sustainable. Those who argue that we must meet voters where they are to win and that a second Trump term would be a catastrophe that would multiply his damage to our republic by an order of magnitude are also right.
Beating Trump is half the task of saving America — and yet, if that’s all we do, we’ll be just as vulnerable to Trumpism as we were in 2016. At the same time, we can’t get a shot at the change we need to repair the damage done and prepare America to succeed in the 21st century unless we beat him.
The Republicans are hopelessly consumed by Trump. Democrats have a chance. There’s no easy solution — and the fact that Democrats actually care about and talk about huge challenges we face as a country and the problems in people’s everyday lives can make us look like downers next to a president who daily proclaims his own greatness.
In a moment like this, Democrats should look to an unlikely role model: Ronald Reagan. In 1980, Reagan was trying to tackle the “malaise” of the moment and to get a mandate to re-make the role of the American government and the relationship of people to government. His optimism about the possibility for change won him the mandate to make it. We need a progressive agenda that’s united with Reaganite optimism.
The Democratic candidate, whoever she or he ultimately is, must re-assure voters that they will be safe and secure during a time when the world seems stormy and America’s future adrift. The candidate cannot assume that just because voters want an end to the madness of the Trump era, they are ready to embrace with confidence the changes needed to begin the next era.
Voters need to be persuaded. Optimism about the possibility of tackling our challenges will be more effective than reminders of the scale of our problems. We must address the fear and pessimism, and break it down, in order to open the door to hope and progress.
Daniel Baer is a former executive director of the Colorado Department of Higher Education. He served as deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor and as U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in the Obama administration
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
