Introduction: Why the “Dictator” Debate Is a Dangerous Distraction
The public debate over whether Donald Trump is a “dictator” is an endless and ultimately unproductive exercise. While the question dominates cable news and social media, it is a simplification that misses the more complex and insidious nature of the threat to American democracy. To simply label him a dictator, as Reddit user HereToCalmYouDown argued in a widely discussed post, “grants him too much power/credit.” It substitutes a blunt, ill-fitting term for a precise diagnosis of the problem, obscuring the actual mechanics of the assault.
The more urgent task is not to debate a title but to understand a playbook. To move beyond the simplistic “dictator” framework is to explore the precise, surprising, and impactful truths about how modern authoritarianism functions. Grounded in scholarly analysis and clear historical patterns, these truths reveal a threat that is at once more systematic and more uniquely American than many realize.
–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>-
The Playbook Isn’t Imported from Abroad—It’s Made in Corporate America
The model for the current anti-democratic turn in American politics is not found in the autocracies of Hungary or Turkey, but in the governance of American corporations. According to legal scholar Sarah C. Haan, this model can be understood as “corporate authoritarianism”—a system that maintains the form of democracy but has been stripped of its substance.
In corporate governance, formal democratic features like voting rights and elections exist, but the playing field is so tilted that incumbents almost never lose. This is the model being transferred to our politics. It is a system designed to entrench a small group at the top, allowing them to enjoy power with little practical accountability. The core strategies are derived directly from the corporate world:
Promoting “Shareholder Passivity”: Corporate leaders have long promoted the idea that voting is costly, low-value, and best left to management. This culture, which frames voter passivity as rational and efficient, translates directly into a political strategy of promoting voter apathy and suppressing turnout to consolidate power.
Controlling Election Administration: Unlike public elections, which are decentralized, corporate elections are funded, planned, and operated by the incumbent leadership. This centralized control allows for a range of vote-suppressing techniques, such as moving corporate elections to obscure places that are difficult to reach, holding elections in tiny venues, requiring pre-registration in addition to ID, or even “forbidding shareholders who are also employees of the company from voting in person.” The desire to exert similar control over public election machinery, such as the U.S. Postal Service, reflects this corporate mindset.
Using Unequal Voting Rules: The principle of one-person-one-vote, while a cornerstone of political democracy, has been abandoned in much of corporate America. Companies like Meta use “dual-class” stock, where a founder’s shares carry more votes than ordinary shares, allowing an individual like Mark Zuckerberg to exercise de facto control over the company while owning less than 14% of its stock. The real-world political application of this mindset is already visible. As Haan notes, “Political experts were caught off guard when Elon Musk used lotteries to get Americans in swing states to register to vote before the 2024 election. They should have anticipated that a corporate autocrat would game differences in voting power or experiment with vote buying.” The corporate acceptance of unequal voting power helps normalize and provide a rationale for a political system where not all votes carry equal weight, thereby creating a conceptual model for defending anti-majoritarian structures like the electoral college.
–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>-
The Political Style Has a Name: “Authoritarian Populism”
The political style on display is a hybrid phenomenon that scholars at UC Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute have defined as “authoritarian populism.” It combines two distinct but mutually reinforcing political traditions:
Populism: The populist element involves rhetorically dividing society into two groups: a virtuous, hardworking majority (“the people”) and a corrupt, self-serving elite. The leader positions themselves as the only authentic voice and true representative of “the people.”
Authoritarianism: The authoritarian element is characterized by the drive to consolidate executive power, suppress political opposition, and transform independent institutions—courts, the press, government agencies—into political tools to serve the leader’s agenda.
The key insight is how these two elements work together. Authoritarian populists use the populist “us-versus-them” narrative to justify their authoritarian actions. Researchers describe this worldview as a pair of binoculars: one lens shows a profound threat from an identity-based out-group (like immigrants or minorities), while the other shows a deep-rooted struggle against corrupt elites. The resulting fear and antagonism create a political environment where anti-democratic measures are not only tolerated but seen as necessary for the in-group’s survival. This makes the style distinct from pure authoritarianism. As the Berkeley researchers note: “Unlike pure authoritarians like Putin, who maintain close ties with elites and seek to maintain a status quo, authoritarian populists often decry elites and blame them for citizens’ problems.” This anti-elite rhetoric is the populist engine that justifies the authoritarian power grab.
–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>-
The Unwavering Support Isn’t Just Political—It’s a Personality Cult
A core component of Donald Trump’s political power, and a key factor his would-be successors lack, is the support of a “personality cult.” Research from the Australian National University (ANU) identifies a hard core of extremely loyal supporters who exhibit characteristics common to personality cults throughout history. These features include:
Unquestioning loyalty to a strong leader who is perceived as infallible and truthful.
A devotion with “religious parallels,” in which the leader is viewed as a savior with a unique ability to protect society.
This status is something Trump has actively cultivated, as captured in one of his most quintessential statements:
“I am your voice… I alone can fix it.”
Perhaps the most surprising finding from the ANU research relates to the personality traits of these followers. Members of this cult score distinctly high on the self-discipline facet of the “conscientiousness” personality trait. This detail provides a crucial psychological insight. While traditional conservatism is associated with the order facet of conscientiousness—explaining a preference for social stability—Trump’s cult members are defined by self-discipline. This psychological underpinning explains their stable, disciplined loyalty, even when confronted with actions that seem chaotic or destabilizing to traditional conservatives, such as the storming of the US Capitol.
–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>-
Machismo Isn’t Just Posturing—It’s a Tool of Power and Corruption
The performative machismo of authoritarian leaders is not mere political theater; it is a central “tool of rule” that is deeply interconnected with other instruments of power. According to historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, displays of virility are a deliberate strategy for political legitimation, projecting an image of strength and dominance.
This strategy is directly linked to corruption. The projection of a hyper-masculine strongman reinforces the idea that the leader is a man above the laws that weaker individuals must follow. As Ben-Ghiat notes, his “glamour for many lies precisely in his ability to get away with things that ordinary men cannot, whether in the bedroom or in politics.” This performance of virility enables and justifies his corrupt practices.
This worldview also translates directly into state policy. It fuels attacks on women and LGBTQ+ populations, who are cast as enemies of the state alongside prosecutors, journalists, and the political opposition. This is not a modern phenomenon. Leaders like Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi weaponized their sexual appetites, using state resources to procure partners. Their actions provide a stark historical example of how personal virility, state corruption, and the mechanics of governance become fused in the authoritarian playbook.
–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>-
Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight, Not Just in the Dark
The primary threat to American democracy is not a sudden, violent coup but a gradual and methodical process of “democratic backsliding.” Since the end of the Cold War, the decay of democracies has largely shifted away from military takeovers and toward subtler, non-violent methods. The most common of these is “executive aggrandizement,” a political application of the corporate authoritarian model, where a legally elected leader systematically dismantles the checks and balances on their power from within the system.
This gradual erosion happens in broad daylight. Actions that fit this pattern include sustained attacks on the free press, demanding personal loyalty from supposedly independent government officials, abusing the pardon power to reward allies and obstruct justice, and relentlessly casting doubt on the integrity of the electoral process itself.
The cumulative effect of this backsliding is measurable and stark. According to a Freedom House report, over the last decade, the United States’ score in the annual Freedom in the World assessment has dropped by 11 points, from 94 to 83. This has moved the U.S. out of the cohort of established democracies like France and Germany and placed it alongside newer democracies such as Romania and Panama.
–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>-
The Phrase “Enemy of the People” Has a Chilling Past and a Global Contagion
While nearly all presidents have sparred with the media, Donald Trump’s rhetoric has been different in kind, not just degree. His attacks are aimed not at correcting a specific story but at delegitimizing the press as an institution. His use of the phrase “enemy of the people” carries a particularly dark historical weight. As former Senator Jeff Flake noted in a speech on the Senate floor, the phrase is freighted with a sinister past:
“…so fraught with malice was the phrase ‘enemy of the people,’ that even Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of ‘annihilating such individuals’ who disagreed with the supreme leader.”
This rhetoric has had tangible global consequences. The term “fake news,” popularized by Trump, has been adopted by leaders around the world to justify crackdowns on media freedom. Between January 2017 and May 2019 alone, leaders in 26 different countries cited “fake news” to introduce or enact new laws restricting journalism. The model for this can be seen in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s allies acquired nearly 500 news outlets. In 2018, these allies donated the outlets—a group that included all of Hungary’s local daily newspapers—to a government-controlled conglomerate, ultimately giving Orbán’s party control of approximately 80% of the country’s media market and effectively silencing independent journalism.
–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>–<>-
Conclusion: Recognizing the Real Threat
Simplistic labels like “dictator” fail to capture the reality of the threat facing American democracy. The true danger is not a caricature of a 20th-century strongman, but a complex, systemic assault using a playbook that is both historically tested and uniquely American. It is a slow, methodical erosion of democratic norms, not a sudden seizure of power.
This assault is a self-reinforcing system. It leverages the tools of corporate governance to maintain a facade of democracy while gutting its substance. The performative machismo legitimizes corruption, which is modeled on corporate impunity. The personality cult ensures loyalty even when norms are broken, and the relentless attacks on the press prevent accountability for all of it.
Now that we can see the playbook—a gradual erosion modeled on corporate power, fueled by a personality cult, and legitimized by historical rhetoric—what does effective democratic defense truly require of us?
submitted by /u/fOeVeRbEfOrE
[link] [comments]