Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

After America E10: The New World Disorder - Authoritarians and Global Chaos

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

Can American democracy survive the encroachment of authoritarian regimes? This episode of "After America" tackles this critical question by exploring the global impact of authoritarianism and democratic backsliding. We take a close look at the establishment of post-World War II institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the International Monetary Fund, and analyze how these have contributed to global peace and stability. Using case studies from Hungary, Russia, and China, we examine the erosion of democratic norms and its influence on foreign policies, posing the unsettling question of what might happen to global stability if key democratic nations, particularly the United States, were to falter.

We highlight the rise of authoritarianism and its profound impact on global governance, and we dissect how regimes like Russia and China undermine multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, opting for unilateral actions and exclusive alliances. Through examples such as the Russia-China partnership and Russia's involvement in Venezuela and Syria, we reveal the mechanisms these regimes use to maintain power and challenge democratic nations. The potential consequences of an authoritarian shift in traditionally democratic countries, such as the United States, are scrutinized, underscoring the risks to global peace and stability.

Finally, we ask the questiono - what would the world look like with a second Trump presidency? We discuss how European allies might scramble to forge new security pacts and bolster their defenses, and consider the broader risks of unilateral actions by an increasingly isolated United States. The episode concludes with a sobering look at the future of global stability in a world without American leadership, posing profound questions about the fragile state of democracy and the global order.

Guests: Dr. Tom Ginsburg, Dr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Stephen Marche, and Dr. James Robinson

Credits:
JFK Speech: Courtesy of the JFK Library
Trump on NATO: Courtesy of CSPAN
Infados - Kevin MacLeod
Dark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Shawn:

In 1945, with the cities of Europe still in ruin as a result of World War II, the United Nations was born. This new institution was not just a council of nations. It was a symbol of hope. The UN became a global stage where disputes could be resolved with words instead of weapons, where nations could come together to uphold human rights and prevent the kind of atrocities that had scarred the previous decade. As the Cold War loomed, another key alliance was solidified the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Formed in 1949,. Nato was more than a military alliance, though. It was a promise, a promise that an attack on one would be an attack on all, a collective shield against the spread of tyranny. This alliance of democracies became a bulwark, ensuring that the horrors of global conflict would not return. But it wasn't just about peace. It was about prosperity too. The creation of economic institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund laid the groundwork for rebuilding shattered economies, fostering trade and reducing the chances of future wars driven by economic despair. This intricate web of alliances, institutions and agreements formed a new world order, built on shared democratic values, and has significantly contributed to global peace and security. And has significantly contributed to global peace and security. It has created a rules-based international order that deters aggression, promotes economic cooperation and provides mechanisms for resolving conflicts, making the world safer and more stable over the past several decades. But what happens if the very architects of this order, the countries that bolster it, begin to falter or even collapse? What happens to global stability, peace and order in that vacuum? And what if that country is the United States? Welcome to After America. I'm your host, sean C Fettig. Find, follow and like Deep Dive with Sean C Fettig on your favorite podcast platform and on YouTube, and check back every Sunday through September for new episodes of After America as we examine the precarious state of American democracy, how we got here and where we might be headed. The clock is ticking. Democracy is at a crossroads and the time to act is now.

Shawn:

Democratic backsliding is a growing global concern, as several countries once considered stable democracies have regressed in democratic practices. Notable examples include Hungary, turkey and India, where leaders have gradually eroded democratic institutions, weakened judicial independence, restricted press freedom and consolidated power. In Hungary, prime Minister Viktor Orban has systematically dismantled democratic norms since 2010. And in Turkey, president Recep Tayyip Erdogan used a failed coup in 2016 to purge dissent and centralize power. And in India, prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has increased media control and suppressed dissent through sedition and anti-terrorism laws.

Shawn:

But the implications of democratic backsliding and a rise of authoritarianism are not confined to countries' borders. As countries experience democratic backsliding, their foreign policies also shift. As nations regress democratically, they deprioritize human rights and democratic values, focusing instead on consolidating domestic power and forming alliances with authoritarian regimes. This centralization of decision-making results in erratic and unaccountable governance, straining traditional diplomatic relationships with democratic states and leading to international relationships with democratic states and leading to international isolation, economic sanctions and diplomatic censure. In Hungary, under Viktor Orban, democratic institutions have been systematically dismantled, leading to a foreign policy shift away from Western democracies and towards authoritarian states like Russia, china and Turkey, and towards authoritarian states like Russia, china and Turkey. Hungary's closer ties with Russia, including energy deals and political support, have raised concerns among its EU and NATO allies. India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also seen domestic democratic erosion influence its foreign policy. Modi's Hindu nationalist agenda has strained relations with Pakistan and complicated partnerships with democracies like the United States due to concerns over India's human rights record. Simultaneously, india has sought closer ties with authoritarian regimes such as Russia and Iran, driven by strategic and economic interests, reflecting the challenges of balancing foreign policy amid democratic backsliding.

Shawn:

In this episode of After America, we are going to examine how authoritarian regimes behave on the world stage, the alliances they create, how they influence global peace, stability and order, and what could happen to it if democracy in the United States were to fail. The rise of authoritarianism across the globe is not just a shift in governance. It's a seismic transformation in how nations engage with each other and, ultimately, how global stability is shaped. As more countries fall under the sway of authoritarian leaders, their foreign policies are reshaped, driven by a ruthless prioritization of regime survival, power consolidation and the projection of influence, often at the expense of international norms and cooperative engagement. The consequences of this shift ripple far beyond borders, fueling regional aggression, undercutting international norms and fostering an environment of global instability. In stark contrast, democratic nations typically forge alliances and partnerships based on shared values. The foundation of these relationships lies in mutual defense, economic cooperation and the respect for principles like human rights and the rule of law.

Kennedy:

The United States means to do its full share in working towards an effective solution of this problem, and we believe that the clarity and firmness of our own commitment to the full defense of Europe can be helpful in this direction. The proper first forum of these matters is, of course, the North Atlantic Council.

Shawn:

Consider NATO and the European Union. These alliances are built on the bedrock of common values, fostering trust and long-term cooperation that strengthens the global fabric. Member states commit to these democratic principles, ensuring that their alliances are not just transactional but are rooted in a deep and enduring commitment to each other. This solidarity is further reinforced by mutual defense agreements, ensuring that when one nation is threatened, the others stand ready to protect it. Nato is perhaps the most prominent example of this a powerful alliance where the security of each member is intertwined with the others. Economic partnerships within democracies also reflect this commitment to shared values. They promote free trade, investment and economic growth that contribute to global prosperity investment and economic growth that contribute to global prosperity. The European Union's single market or trade agreements like NAFTA now USMCA are not just about economic gain. They're about building a global community based on respect and mutual benefit.

Shawn:

But authoritarian regimes view the world through a different lens. Their foreign policy decision-making is often centralized under a single leader or a tight-knit elite, allowing for swift and sometimes ruthless responses to international events. This centralization bypasses the checks and balances present in democracies where foreign policy is subject to oversight by legislative bodies, the judiciary and public opinion. In Russia, for example, president Vladimir Putin's consolidation of power has led to bold and aggressive actions, like the annexation of Crimea, and military interventions that serve to bolster his personal power while expanding Russia's global influence. These decisions are not made with the welfare of the global community in mind, but are calculated moves to ensure the regime's survival and dominance. This focus on power and control is also evident in the way authoritarian regimes engage in real politic, a pragmatic and often ruthless approach to international relations.

Shawn:

Unlike democracies which strive to build genuine partnerships based on mutual respect, authoritarian regimes manipulate relationships to extract concessions and secure strategic advantages. China's Belt and Road Initiative, bri, a global strategy to build infrastructure and enhance trade connectivity across Asia, europe, africa and beyond, intended to expand China's economic and political influence through investment and partnerships, is a prime example. Presented as a development project, it often ensnares participating countries in debt dependencies, expanding China's influence and securing strategic assets. The BRI is less about fostering global development and more about extending China's reach across continents, creating a network of indebted and dependent states.

Shawn:

The manipulation of international norms and agreements is another hallmark of authoritarian regimes. They frequently violate these accords for short-term gains, destabilizing the very frameworks that were designed to promote peace and stability. North Korea's approach to nuclear negotiations exemplifies this tactic. The regime enters agreements to denuclearize in exchange for economic aid, only to later renege on its commitments. Only to later renege on its commitments. Authoritarian countries also exploit Interpol, an international organization that facilitates police cooperation among its 195 member nations, by issuing politically motivated red notices to target dissidents and critics abroad, often under the guise of legitimate law enforcement. Dr Tom Ginsburg, professor of international law at the University of Chicago Law School and author of the book Democracies and International Law, describes this.

Dr. Ginsburg:

Interpol is another example.

Dr. Ginsburg:

You know it's a major mechanism for transnational crime fighting and we have learned that it is subject to abuse.

Dr. Ginsburg:

So you mentioned the red notices, where you have a dissident and an authoritarian government says, oh, this person's wanted for murder or something like that, and a naive police force, responding to the red notice, might just say, oh yeah, let's go arrest this person and return them home through extradition.

Dr. Ginsburg:

We also see other techniques being used. So one thing that authoritarian governments are doing is telling Interpol that the passports have been lost. And so if I'm a dissident I don't know, let's say I'm a dissident in Russia and I'm traveling and I'm in you know someplace like the Philippines or something you know Russia will tell the Philippine government oh, this person is not allowed to travel, their passport's lost. They can, only, you know, they have to go to the Russian embassy to get a new passport, even though the person might be holding their passport, and that effectively strands the person wherever they are and gives them all kinds of troubles about being able to move, overstaying visas and things like this. So there's a lot of abuse of this. Now there's an election coming up this year in November for the next head of Interpol, and I think it's very important that democratic governments pay attention to that, because the potential abuse of this system, if it gets completely captured by authoritarians, would be very severe indeed.

Dr. Ginsburg:

So that's a. It's a good example of a very core concern about authoritarian international law. Most of the agreements, most of the action is in helping each other, helping states, helping each other to suppress their internal dissonance efforts, but also contributes to global instability as the international community grapples with the unpredictable and often dangerous actions of these authoritarian regimes.

Shawn:

Regional aggression and expansionism are also common strategies for authoritarian regimes, driven by the need to assert dominance, secure resources or distract from domestic issues. Russia's annexation of Crimea and its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 are stark examples of this approach. And since authoritarianism is rife with corruption, mismanagement and a focus on maintaining total control that supersedes efficiency and expertise in decision-making, what was supposed to be a swift military campaign to absorb Ukraine has instead turned into a protracted bloody conflict with no end in sight. This is Dr Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, professor of politics at New York University and co-author of the book the Dictator's Handbook why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics describing this. Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics describing this.

Dr. Bueno de Mesquita:

If you go back to the beginning of the Russian invasion in February of 22, the general belief in the West was that the Russian military would be in Kiev in five or six days. That was before there was significant military assistance from Europe and the United States, and they were not in Kiev. Why not? So one of the things people lose sight of, the selector theory, really emphasizes this distinction between public goods, public policy and corruption opportunities.

Dr. Bueno de Mesquita:

Russia has the fourth largest military budget in the world and yet they could not beat a country, a small fraction of their population size, because their military budget was not going to buy high quality equipment, to buy high quality training of soldiers, to buy a well-provisioned military. It was going to yachts and fancy homes for the senior military officers, that is, it was being used for corruption. The same is true for the third largest military budget in the world, the Saudi budget. The same is true for the second largest military budget in the world, the Chinese budget. Democracies Ukraine not a great democracy at the time, but much more democratic than Russia was spending what it could afford on its military and having trained soldiers and of course, they were highly motivated soldiers with quality equipment to defend the country and Russia was spending the money on corruption and Russia was spending the money on corruption.

Shawn:

The erosion of international norms and institutions is another significant impact of the rise of authoritarianism. These regimes often weaken frameworks established to promote peace, security and cooperation. Russia's use of hybrid warfare, which includes cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, destabilizes democracies and erodes trust in international institutions. Meanwhile, china has skillfully manipulated its role in the United Nations, particularly on the Security Council, to stymie any meaningful action that might threaten its interests. This manipulation of international organizations further subverts global governance and contributes to an environment where authoritarian regimes can act with impunity. Here's Dr Ginsburg again.

Dr. Ginsburg:

You know, the fear is that, as authoritarians, you know, increase their presence and their sophistication in dealing with international law their sophistication in dealing with international law they could actually change it in ways that undermine human rights and democracy, which are also norms of international law, to some degree. So there's a real tension and a real battle, I would say, between authoritarian countries and more democratic ones for the future of what international law and international organization is going to look like. And one bit of one area in which we see that competition is the United Nations, where, you know, China in particular, has been very good about getting its personnel into various UN institutions, whereas the Trump administration, you know, basically ran away from all of those things, and you know we might not like it, but it's still there and it's probably worth engaging with.

Shawn:

The rise of authoritarianism also erodes multilateralism, as these regimes prefer to act unilaterally or form exclusive alliances with other authoritarian states. This preference for unilateral action compromises global governance structures, increasing the likelihood of conflict as states pursue their interests without regard for collective security. The weakening of multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization is particularly concerning, as these organizations have long been the pillars of global stability. Organizations have long been the pillars of global stability. Authoritarian regimes challenge these institutions by blocking actions that threaten their interests, engaging in practices that distort global markets and seeking to weaken regional alliances that promote democratic governance and collective security.

Shawn:

In contrast to the deep and enduring alliances formed by democracies, authoritarian regimes typically forge relationships based on mutual benefit rather than shared values. These alliances are often transactional, driven by short-term strategic interests, such as regime survival, economic gain or geopolitical influence. The relationship between Russia and China is a prime example of such a pragmatic alliance, where immediate mutual benefits take precedence over long-term commitments. However, because these partnerships are based on mutual benefit rather than shared values, they tend to be unstable, shifting or dissolving quickly if the regime's interests change. This is, Dr Ginsburg quickly if the regime's interests change.

Dr. Ginsburg:

This is, Dr Ginsburg, Authoritarian international law I define as the use of international law to extend the reach of authoritarian governance across time and space. So that would be, for example, authoritarians cooperating with each other using international mechanisms, treaties and international organizations, and such to help repress each other's dissidence. Mechanisms, treaties and international organizations and such to help repress each other's dissidents. That's something we observe, for example, in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a China-based major international organization in the region of Eurasia. We observe a lot of this under Putin. Putin has these kind of structures under Putin. Putin has these kind of structures, something called the Eurasian Economic Union, which is designed to mimic the European Union, but, you know, with exclusive membership, and so it's a way of keeping control over his sphere of influence.

Shawn:

Authoritarian regimes also exploit these alliances to extend their influence and maintain power. They use economic aid, military support or political backing to create dependencies or expand their geopolitical reach. Russia's involvement in Venezuela exemplifies this strategy, as it has provided economic and military support to prop up the embattled Maduro regime, securing its influence in the region. Manipulation is at the heart of how authoritarian regimes maintain power and spread influence. They often manipulate foreign policy agreements and international relationships, using diplomacy, economic leverage and military intervention as tools to secure their positions and project power abroad. Diplomacy in the hands of an authoritarian regime is not about building trust or fostering cooperation. It is about manipulation. As mentioned earlier, north Korea's nuclear negotiations have often been a charade, with the regime entering talks with no intention of honoring any agreements, using the process to buy time or secure economic concessions. Dr Bueno de Mesquita describes how this works and why democracies participate in this game.

Dr. Bueno de Mesquita:

The job of a democratic leader is to keep his or her domestic constituents happy so that they can get reelected.

Dr. Bueno de Mesquita:

In foreign affairs, that turns out to mean often doing some rather unpleasant things. So, for example, if we look at foreign aid and how foreign aid really works, as opposed to how people would like to think it works, one of the things that people observe is democratic countries often give foreign aid to dictators. Well, why do they do that? Well, what the domestic constituents want at the margin, it's not a big thing. That's why foreign aid is very little money is they want other governments to follow policies that comply with the interests of the folks at home in the democracy. Giving them foreign aid, that might mean they want better trade relations, that might mean they want better security relations, they want to have foreign bases or whatever. So who can give you policy concessions? Most readily? Dictators can, because they don't stay in power by keeping their population happy, so they can make policy decisions, choices that their population doesn't like, in exchange for what they need to keep their coalition loyal, and that is money. So we give them money, we call it foreign aid, and they give us policy concessions.

Shawn:

Military interventions and proxy wars are yet another tactic employed by authoritarian regimes to manipulate international relationships and extend their influence. Russia's involvement in Syria is a clear example of this strategy, where military support for the Assad regime has not only secured Russia's foothold in the Middle East, but has also destabilized the region, contributing to a broader climate of global instability. In a world where authoritarianism is on the rise, the international community faces a profound challenge. The behavior of these regimes, driven by a need for power and control, is fundamentally reshaping global stability. As authoritarian leaders manipulate, exploit and sabotage international norms and institutions, the consequences are felt far beyond their borders. The erosion of multilateralism, the weakening of global governance structures and the increase in regional aggression all point to a world where conflict is more likely and stability is more fragile. And if some of the key bulwarks against the collapse of the global order and a rise of chaos that authoritarian regimes can exploit and manipulate to consolidate, even expand, their power and control begin to falter, begin to wane or deliberately shirk responsibility, this becomes not just a threat to individual nations, it's a threat to the very fabric of global peace and stability.

Shawn:

Try to imagine a world where the United States, once the beacon of democracy begins to drift toward authoritarianism, the nation that once championed human rights, the rule of law and democratic values on the global stage retreats into isolationism, self-interest and unilateral decision-making. This transformation would not only alter the US's role in the world, but could also unravel the delicate web of alliances, trade agreements and global stability that has been carefully woven over decades. The US has long been the cornerstone of a global order built on cooperation, multilateralism and shared values, but under an authoritarian regime, this could all change. Authoritarian leadership might prioritize America-first policies to an extreme, pulling out or weakening its participation in multilateral organizations like the United Nations, nato or the World Trade Organization. The pillars that have supported global stability for so long could begin to crumble as the US steps back from its responsibilities. Here's Dr Ginsburg again.

Dr. Ginsburg:

You know, just starting from the US perspective, you know we've always had, since the adoption, since the end of World War II and even before of course, a strong isolationist tendencies or a stream in American political discourse that's very isolationist. And so this, you know, it's always sort of a struggle between more internationalist, I'd say a center of American politics. Since World War II, both American and Republican, both Democratic and Republican presidents have generally seen international alliances being good, a need to engage with the rest of the world. You know that's brought us great gains as a kind of imperial force, one might say, and you know that's always run up against a minority view which is, hey, we should bring all the troops home, we should focus on ourselves, forget about the rest of the world. And of course, what the first half of the 20th century taught us, or should have taught us, is that you can't really forget about the rest of the world. There's no autarky anymore, we're ever more engaged with countries, and that means that you can't really run away. So my view is that that's, you know, not an option. And you know we just have to make that argument.

Dr. Ginsburg:

And you know, what should democratic countries do? They have to monitor the places where international law gets made and that turns out to be a whole bunch of like bureaucratic fora. You know organizations like, I don't know, the International Maritime Organization, which makes the rules for shipping, or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. You know these are really technocratic bodies and yet if you get things wrong it could really undermine.

Dr. Ginsburg:

You know democratic government's ability to produce public goods outside their, you know, with each other outside their borders and so paying attention to who's the personnel and making the arguments the isolationist tendency leads us to every once in a while, you know, run against the United Nations in a political campaign and certainly the Trump administration's disengagement, the Bush administration before that pulling. Not the Human Rights Council is going to go forward and is subject to massive abuse and, if you will, repurposing by authoritarian countries. China, of course, has a whole program of what they call human rights, with Chinese characteristics, which has a very pluralist approach to human rights. You know human rights might be different in your country than in my country to human rights.

Dr. Ginsburg:

You know human rights might be different in your country than in my country, and in our country we value economic development In yours, you value, you know, democracy and civil liberties, as if there's a trade-off between those two things, and so you know it's really important to engage and not to run away from these institutions, because they're going to go on without us and as American power declines in relative terms, which most people think is inevitable, always questions about how far and how fast. It's ever more important to be engaged with these international foreign, because there's no real substitute for them as generators of international legitimacy and our interests could be compromised in ways we can't even imagine.

Shawn:

This retreat would leave a power vacuum on the world stage, one that authoritarian regimes like China and Russia would be eager to fill.

Shawn:

With the US no longer acting as a counterbalance, these nations could assert themselves more aggressively, challenging international norms and destabilizing regions already on the brink. The global influence of the United States would wane, and with it, the sense of order that has largely kept the peace since the end of World War II. The impact on traditional US alliances would be profound. Nations that have relied on the US for security and diplomatic support might find themselves questioning the reliability of their once steadfast partner. The alliance with Europe, in particular, would be under immense strain. Nato, a cornerstone of Western collective security, could begin to fracture. This alliance is not just a military pact. It's a partnership based on shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If the US were to abandon these principles, european allies and neighbors closer to home would be left to wonder whether the US would truly stand by them in a time of crisis. Stephen Marche, journalist and author of the books the Next Civil War and, most recently, the Last Election, co-authored with Andrew Yang, explains how this impacts Canada.

Stephen Marche:

I assure you that every leader in this whole country, from like not just the federal leaders in the government, but like the leaders of companies, leaders of Air Canada, the leaders of cultural entities, think about this question all day, like all the time. I mean Pierre Trudeau, justin Trudeau's father, famously said that like living next to the United States was like sleeping beside an elephant, like it doesn't matter how kindly the beast is, its faintest movement resonates with you and I mean, I think, as a Canadian commentator on American life, like the stakes are extremely high for us, even though it's not our country, right, and so that kind of gives you a different perspective on how this works. But you know, donald Trump came in and ended NAFTA, right, like that was a catastrophic moment for Canada. No one in America, of course, would ever think about it. But like that was something around two and a half million jobs in Canada were directly tied to that agreement, in a country of 40 million.

Stephen Marche:

So, and then, of course, when Donald Trump you know, no one remembers this either but declared us a national security threat, you know that we increased defense spending the next day. You know that we increase defense spending the next day, right, you know it is very much on the minds of Canadians and, of course, it's already leaking across the border. Like our politics has become much more toxic because of your politics. I've compared it to living above being the upstairs neighbor of a meth addict Right Like you're going to like, horrible things are drifting up for sure.

Shawn:

Countries on NATO's eastern flank, those closest to an increasingly aggressive Russia, might feel particularly vulnerable. Faced with the prospect of a weakened NATO, these nations could seek alternative security arrangements, perhaps even forging new alliances or significantly increasing their defense spending to compensate for a potentially unreliable United States. The cohesion that has made NATO such a formidable force could begin to unravel, leaving the alliance less capable of responding to threats from authoritarian adversaries like Russia. It would also leave the United States isolated and alone, with no partners bound to defend us, if that moment ever materialized. And it's not hard to imagine bad actors like Russia, china, north Korea and Iran being incentivized to take action against a lonely United States. But the changes wouldn't stop at strained alliances. An isolated, authoritarian US might adopt a more aggressive foreign policy. The new regime could engage in military interventions or coercive actions without the need for international consensus, driven by a desire to assert dominance, secure resources or suppress perceived threats. This could lead to unilateral actions, such as preemptive strikes, regime change or the use of economic and military pressure to achieve strategic goals, all justified by nationalist rhetoric and a focus on enhancing the regime's power and prestige. Republicans like Senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham have already explicitly called for US military action inside Mexico, without permission from the Mexican government, against cartels. It's not difficult to imagine that, spiraling out of control, the consequences of such actions would be dire Beyond just Mexico. Regions like the Middle East or East Asia, already fraught with tension, could become flashpoints for conflict as the US destabilizes them further. Regions like the Middle East or East Asia, already fraught with tension, could become flashpoints for conflict as the US destabilizes them further. Meanwhile, adversaries like Russia or China, emboldened by the US's shift away from international leadership, might act more aggressively, knowing that the global watchdog is distracted or doesn't care. The world could find itself in a new Cold War, a period marked by intense rivalry, arms races and the ever-present threat of direct conflict.

Shawn:

On the economic front, the shift toward authoritarianism in the US could herald a new era of protectionism and unilateral trade policies. Trade agreements that have been the backbone of the global economy, like the USMCA or deals with the European Union, are built on principles of free trade, fairness and adherence to international norms. An authoritarian US might seek to renegotiate these agreements or abandon them altogether in favor of bilateral deals that prioritize immediate, self-serving interests. Protectionist measures like these could spark trade wars, leading to a more fragmented global economy, countries might turn to regional or bilateral deals that exclude the US, further diminishing its influence in global trade. The breakdown of these agreements could lead to economic instability, particularly in sectors heavily dependent on international markets. The repercussions would not be limited to the global stage. The domestic US economy would also suffer as industries that once thrived on international trade find themselves isolated and struggling. Dr James Robinson, professor of global conflict studies at the University of Chicago and co-author of the book why Nations Fail the Origins of Power, prosperity and Poverty, discusses this.

Dr. Robinson:

You know the globalization which has fueled an enormous amount of economic growth and wealth creation in the past 30, 40 years, is going into reverse. That's obvious, you know. Think about the amount you know American companies have like outsourced production to China. You know they created these global production chains. That's made enormous profits and wealth for lots of people in the United States. It makes you know cheap stuff like your iPhone is going to get more expensive and you know so. So I think I think that's, I would say that's inevitable. You know, if I think about, you know, my own country, britain, it's just obvious that Britain now is going to go into a period of much lower economic growth than it would have done otherwise if it had stayed engaged with the European Union. It's lost markets, you know. It's going to lose all the benefits of these Europeans.

Shawn:

You know working bringing their talent and energies to work in Britain. So I think that's going to happen on a global scale. As the US retreats into authoritarianism, the world it leaves in that wake would be one of uncertainty and instability. The carefully maintained balance of power would begin to tip instability the carefully maintained balance of power would begin to tip and with it the likelihood of conflict would rise. Democracies around the world would face a stark choice band together in the absence of US leadership or risk being picked apart by authoritarian regimes eager to expand their influence. Dr Ginsberg describes this.

Dr. Ginsburg:

What would happen to these structures if the US permanently, if you will takes its marbles and goes home? Well then I think we would, you know, obviously see greater pressure on the Europeans, on countries like South Korea and Japan, wealthy, powerful, democratic countries, to come up with new structures to cooperate with each other. But that's always been very hard because of America's position as the hub and spokes of the hub with the spokes of the global security system, you know, the largest economy in the world and such, and so the leader of the liberal order, I think it would be much weaker and it's much more subject to individual countries being peeled off in particular areas by deals with authoritarian neighbors and such. So I think it'd be very, very hard without United States engagement. Obviously, those countries should be prepared for it and should be starting to think about the multipolar world. But I think it's our job, of our leaders to postpone that as much as possible for our own national interests.

Dr. Ginsburg:

But call me naive, and maybe I'm just reflecting the fact that I grew up in the Cold War era. Still, I don't think we can assume that a multipolar world is going to be made up of multipolar benevolent countries. And let me just say one other thing, which is as a matter of foreign policy. I do like the idea that there's some checks on American power because, unchecked, we're able to make massive mistakes, like the second Iraqaq war right that was just pursued by, you know, with with bad evidence on the basis of fake information, uh, because there was no meaningful check. So in international society it's always good to have some checks, but I don't want to be naive to say that you know that the citizens of those other countries are always going to be better off because some of those checks, some of the people engaged in those checks, are fairly abusive of their own citizenry.

Shawn:

In this new world order, the principles that have long underpinned international relations cooperation, respect for international law and the pursuit of collective security would be under siege. The US, once a leader in promoting these values, would now be a shadow of its former self its influence diminished, its alliances frayed and its moral authority eroded. This picture of the United States' descent into authoritarianism is not just one of a nation turning inward. It's a story of how the ripple effects of such a shift could upend the entire global order. As the US withdraws from the world stage, the forces of authoritarianism would rise, economies domestic and international would tank, and the world would become a far more dangerous place. If Donald Trump were to reclaim the presidency in 2024, the world could be thrust into an era of uncertainty and turbulence unlike any we've seen in modern times. Under Trump's renewed leadership, fortified by the sweeping changes of Project 2025, the United States would retreat from its long-held role as the anchor of global stability, opting instead for a path of isolation and unilateral action. Dr Bueno de Mesquita paints the picture.

Dr. Bueno de Mesquita:

I personally think we would have a global economic disaster. He would pursue tariff policies sort of reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs that preceded the Depression and World War II and took global trade from a very high level to near near zero. That would be disastrous. We would see a weakened United States and, I would imagine, a strengthened Western Europe. I think NATO would look very different. The United States would either become a smaller partner or would leave it, but I don't think NATO would cease to exist or would leave it, but I don't think NATO would cease to exist. We would see the rise of greater dominance in the Asian Pacific by China. We would see a major shift in what global values look like, what global rules and norms look like. I think it would be personally. My personal opinion is it'd be an economic and security disaster if Trump were to win.

Shawn:

So picture this the US pulls back from global institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, its voice silent in the chambers where, once it led, commitments to international agreements, whether on climate change, human rights or global security, would be scaled back, leaving allies to fend for themselves. As America withdraws, a power vacuum emerges, eagerly filled by authoritarian giants like Russia and China, their influence spreading across continents unchecked.

Trump:

I said you got to pay up. They asked me that question. One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said you didn't pay, you're delinquent. He said yes, let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.

Shawn:

Nato, the bedrock of Western defense, would begin to fracture. European allies, no longer confident in US support, might scramble to forge new security packs or bolster their defenses, wary of a future where American leadership is no longer guaranteed. The Western alliance, once a bulwark against tyranny, could become a patchwork of self-reliant states, each wary of the next move from Washington, which itself would be isolated and could become a sitting duck. On the economic front, the ripple effects would be just as severe. Trade agreements might be torn apart, replaced by protectionist measures that spark global trade wars. The once mighty global economy could begin to fragment, with new alliances forming that deliberately sideline the United States.

Shawn:

In this world, us influence wanes, its markets shrink and the very idea of American exceptionalism fades away. A second Trump presidency would not just alter US policy. It could reshape the entire global order, plunging the world into an era of instability and unpredictability where the familiar rules no longer apply. The future is anything but certain, and the order, peace and security that we, the United States, helped to build and maintain would devolve into chaos, instability and aggression. Check back next week for another episode of After America.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host