By Nicholas Kristof
As this presidential election appears to be a toss-up, what could American democracy and the global landscape look like should Donald Trump regain the presidency?
I believe it is an exaggeration to assert, as Hillary Clinton did, that a Trump victory would signify “the end of our country as we know it.” I don’t think Trump can transform the United States into a dictatorship.
Nonetheless, over my four decades of global reporting, I have often witnessed charismatic leaders win democratic elections only to erode those very democracies. The populist left accomplished this in Venezuela, Mexico, and El Salvador, while the populist right did so in Hungary, India, and Poland (which managed to recover).
In his craving for power, disregard for democratic practices, and desire to elevate himself while stifling dissent, Trump bears similarities to those leaders.
“He is the most dangerous person to this country,” Mark Milley, the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed to Bob Woodward.
Rather than naming himself dictator for life, Trump has already embraced the typical strongman tactic of attempting to weaponize the legal system to intimidate and punish adversaries. During his presidency, he suggested prosecuting Clinton and instigated a criminal inquiry into former Secretary of State John Kerry.
“Sometimes revenge can be justified,” Trump stated in June.
It’s important to recognize that his attempts to go after Clinton and Kerry were largely unsuccessful, and American democracy endured his initial term relatively intact. Democratic institutions in the United States are more resilient than those in Hungary or Venezuela, making our system less susceptible.
It is also true that during his first term, Trump’s authoritarian tendencies were hindered by incompetence and frantic attempts by his aides to curtail his actions. A second term might see him more prepared, bringing in allies who would facilitate his anti-democratic ambitions.
I’ve observed in many nations how threats and retaliation can coerce the business sector and civil society into reluctant compliance. When Trump was president, reports indicated his administration took measures against Jeff Bezos and his business interests, potentially jeopardizing a $10 billion military cloud computing contract. This might elucidate Bezos’s choice to refrain from endorsing the presidential election through The Washington Post, which he owns.
During my time as The New York Times’ bureau chief in Beijing years ago, my critical articles about China’s prime minister led the Chinese government to rigorously audit my taxes. Thus, it was reminiscent to hear that Trump directed aides to utilize the IRS to audit his critics or those who wouldn’t comply, like James Comey and Andrew McCabe of the FBI.
Aides were initially resistant, yet Comey and McCabe were eventually chosen — ostensibly at random — for audits. Trump claimed ignorance about this, but his denials echoed patterns used in China. Chinese officials would often disseminate statements known to be false — not to persuade anyone, but to cloud issues or set a party narrative for supporters to echo.
The First Amendment is firmly entrenched in the United States, and it will endure. However, Trump can undermine a free press by intimidating corporate proprietors. Last year, for instance, he demanded investigations into NBC’s corporate owners for treason due to the network’s coverage, and more recently, he suggested punitive measures against ABC News for its handling of the presidential debate.
“They’re a news organization,” he stated regarding ABC News. “They must be licensed to operate. Their license should be revoked.” He later called for CBS to lose its license as well and insisted that “60 Minutes” “should be taken off the air, frankly.” While national news organizations do not actually require licenses, their local affiliate stations do.
Trump has consistently advocated for changes to libel laws to lessen protections for media outlets. Two years ago, he suggested imprisoning journalists who refuse to disclose sources in national security matters and gleefully remarked that the looming threat of prison rape would compel journalists to divulge sources. (I have faith that journalists possess stronger resolve, as evident in the bravery of reporters risking their lives in oppressive regimes like Russia.)
Equally concerning is Trump’s indication that he would deploy armed forces against American citizens. In October, he proposed using the National Guard or military against “the enemy from within,” such as “radical left lunatics.”
Such rhetoric could provoke increased political violence akin to what was witnessed on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump seemed to recognize the potential for unrest in his April Time magazine interview, when questioned about the likelihood of violence following the election. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he said ominously. “It always depends on the fairness of an election.”
Consider too the implications of a Trump victory on the international stage.
Had Trump been reelected in 2020, Russian troops could potentially be stationed in Kyiv, Ukraine; he would have struggled to rally an international coalition to counter Russia (even if he had desired to). Ukraine would likely have faltered, Russia might have advanced into Moldova or Latvia, and NATO could very well be a hollow entity. The West’s ineptitude could embolden China in its dealings with Taiwan and the South China Sea, increasing the likelihood of conflict in Asia.
Trump portrays himself as a strongman, yet my discussions with foreign officials and business figures suggest he may actually convey weakness. He would compromise the Atlantic alliance and jeopardize the network of nations Joe Biden has united to confront China, seeming to overlook the threats from Moscow and Beijing.
Only last month, Trump labeled some American critics as “scum” and a bigger threat than China and Russia. Perhaps this is why Russia is meddling in the U.S. elections with the apparent intent of supporting Trump.
We cannot predict how events will transpire, and Trump would not realize all his ambitions. Two years prior, he called for the “termination” of the Constitution, and that is unlikely to occur. During his presidency, when a federal circuit court halted one of his initiatives, he instructed an aide to simply “cancel” the court; that failed back then, and it will fail next year as well.
However, could Trump diminish the democratic nature of the United States and render the world significantly more perilous? Certainly. We would be risking our future.
______
Contact Kristof at Facebook.com/Kristof, Twitter.com/NickKristof or by mail at The New York Times, 620 Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10018.
