“The populist faction that dominates the Republican Party embraces a vision of authoritarian leadership that goes beyond usual democratic norms. It is now the center of the American political scene” | Photo credit: AFP
Since World War II, Washington has defined its foreign policy as a moral conflict between democracies and dictatorships, though that definition has proven malleable and adaptable to those who side with the United States and those who oppose it. The binary distinction between democracy and autocracy is now further blurred by political trends within the United States itself.
A different situation prevails
In the past, American presidential politics was marked by disagreements over policy and principle, as the president and Congress jostled for advantage and the limits of executive authority were negotiated. Despite serious disagreements, norms of civility and tolerance prevailed in a climate compatible with democratic governance.
This situation is no longer relevant. The populist faction, perhaps the majority, that dominates the Republican Party, adheres to a vision of strongman leadership that goes beyond the usual democratic norms. This vision is now at the heart of American politics, as confirmed by the Supreme Court decision of July 1, 2024. granted former US President Donald Trump’s wish to ensure that his attempts to overthrow the 2020 presidential election He would not be tried before the presidential election in November.
The Supreme Court has granted U.S. presidents absolute immunity from prosecution for essential official acts and Chief Justice John Roberts summarized the decision The six-justice conservative majority said: “We conclude that, under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president enjoy some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed while in office. At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, that immunity must be absolute. With respect to his other official acts, he is also entitled to immunity.”
The Supreme Court’s decision does not place presidents above the law, but it removes restrictions on presidential abuses that Democrats and Republicans have imposed since the 1970s, when growing executive authority and abuses of power were checked after Watergate.
Three progressive justices dissented, warning that granting presidential immunity would have consequences for American democracy. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that “the category of presidential actions that can be considered unofficial is bound to become ever smaller.”
The phases of transformation
The American presidency has undergone periods of transformation in the modern era, each involving a dramatic expansion of power. The first was the rise of the administrative state under Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, which grew in size and cost under Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon, when bipartisan values expanded the scope of government and generated a complex bureaucracy to address social problems and welfare. This administrative state, with its resources and agencies, allowed presidents of both parties to direct public policy and build their legacies. They had to place the administration under their direct control, leading to the centralized apparatus that rests in the Executive Office of the President.
Far-right opinion began to view the ever-expanding administrative state as unconstitutional, socialist, and contrary to individual liberties. With the rise of Republicans in the Southern states and the political activation of evangelicals, the conservative movement eventually became convinced that the answer lay in a leader wielding power from above and a different orientation toward the laws that hindered his ambitions. President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act, which granted certain autocratic powers, expanded the administration’s surveillance capabilities, and authorized the torture of prisoners in violation of the law.
The populist strain of Republican conservatism is concentrated among rural, poor, religious, disadvantaged by globalization, culturally and economically threatened, and driven by anger and discontent. These people seek a leader who will attack the existing system, flout its procedures, and take corrective action on their behalf. Democrats are seen as their enemies rather than political adversaries, the struggle pitting the people against an overly powerful government and the corrupt and illegitimate Washington establishment.
The new normal
Populists have found their natural leader in Donald Trump. From the moment he announced his intention to run for president, he made it clear that he had no regard for the legal limits imposed by democracy. During his term, Mr. Trump waged a campaign against the norms and institutions of bipartisanship, culminating shortly after his 2020 election defeat, when, despite the authoritarian measures characteristic of a strong president, he was prevented from overturning Joe Biden’s election victory.
Populist extremism is the new norm for the political right that has taken control of the Republican Party. It energizes the party with its hatred of the administrative state and sees the authoritarian presidency as the panacea for its grievances, thereby threatening the foundations of democracy. Mr. Trump himself embodies this idea with ambiguous but ominous statements to his supporters, such as in Florida on July 26: “You won’t have to vote again, we’ll make it so you don’t have to vote.” If these sentiments do not abate in the coming years, democracy in the United States faces an uncertain future.
Krishnan Srinivasan is a former foreign minister
