Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

After America Series Finale: When Tyranny Ends – Rebuilding America After Authoritarianism

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

How does a nation rebuild itself after falling under authoritarian rule? In the series finale of After America, we take you through the harrowing aftermath of an imagined Trump's second presidential term, where democratic institutions were eroded, civil liberties dismantled, and marginalized communities oppressed. We examine the monumental task of transitioning back to democracy and preventing future authoritarian takeovers.

We imagine the dramatic events of a potential January 6, 2025—when Trump's return to power is marked by a controversial certification of the electoral vote, igniting widespread protests and unrest. We imagine how this era of expanded executive control would eventually collapse under its own corruption and the public’s rising discontent. And, we shed light on how transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions and criminal trials, can pave the way for a reconciled and democratic future.

But history has its lessons, and so we remember the failures of post-Civil War America, where the lack of transitional justice led to systemic racism and political polarization we're still grappling with today. So, we discuss the necessity of truth-seeking, reparations, and institutional reforms to transitional justice and the establishment of an enduring and healthy democracy. And, we close by emphasizing the importance of vigilance and proactive efforts to safeguard democracy against erosion, underscoring the need for systemic reforms and citizen engagement to ensure a resilient democratic future.

Guests: Dr. David Faris, Dr. Monika Nalepa, Dr. Alastair Smith, and Stephen Marche. 

Counterpoint Podcast

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

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Shawn:

Imagine this America. The streets are quiet, with the eerie stillness of a country that has just emerged from years of authoritarian rule. It's a country exhausted by repression, where neighbors eye each other with suspicion, unsure who had supported the regime and who had resisted, unsure who had supported the regime and who had resisted. Trump's second presidential term marked the beginning of America's descent into authoritarianism. The regime, propped up by loyalists, rigged elections and relentless propaganda, maintained control by sabotaging democratic institutions, instilling fear and crushing dissent. Under this regime, entire communities were torn apart. Immigrants, racial minorities and LGBTQ plus citizens were scapegoated and subjected to discriminatory laws and policies. People lived under constant surveillance, with militarized police patrolling the streets, arresting anyone who dared challenge the state. Neighbors were encouraged to report on each other. Civil liberties were eviscerated. But now the authoritarian regime has fallen, the dictator is gone and the scars of those years are not just emotional but institutional. Democratic structures were hollowed out, courts packed with loyalists and laws rewritten to benefit the few at the expense of the many. But now, after years of hopelessness, this moment presents an opportunity, an opening to rebuild democracy stronger and more resilient than before, to remake and reconstruct the institutions that were dismantled, to restore the rule of law and to create systems that protect against future authoritarianism. The country must also grapple with the need for accountability how to confront those who perpetuated the regime's abuses while fostering reconciliation. The challenge is monumental. What does this even look like and how, after years of democratic dismantling of institutions and trust and the corrosive effects of authoritarianism under Trumpist republicanism, do we rebuild a more resilient, democratic United States?

Shawn:

Welcome to this final episode of 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.

Dr. Faris:

You know I have. For many years now I have been on the more alarmist side of how much danger we're in. I think that the events that followed the 2020 election were a very stark reminder of how contemporary Republicans view our democracy, the kinds of things that they're willing to do to maintain control of it. And there is a party leader who led the insurrection, who essentially sent a mob of his supporters to sack Congress and presumably murder members of the United States Congress, who was engaged in conspiracy to create fake electors for the Electoral College and was scheming to have martial law declared so that he could stay in power, and then did not even attend Biden's inauguration. That was a stress test of the system that we passed like barely. And the alarming thing, the thing that makes this election feel much more existential than even in 2020 to me, is that everybody saw that right. Everybody saw it happen. It happened in broad daylight, like a lot of it on national television. And yet the voters of the Republican Party have forwarded to us the same person who made every effort to destroy American democracy four years ago. Their position is like we're going to give this guy another chance. I mean, I think that's just like intrinsically very dangerous, you know, and so, in that sense, the stakes of this election are, I think, extremely, extremely high, not just in terms of like what Trump and the Republicans could do with their power, but the message that it sends, I think, to everyone in the political system Like you can literally try to perpetrate a coup and the voters will give you another chance.

Dr. Faris:

It suggests a sort of a widespread lack of understanding about the seriousness of January 6th and the seriousness of the post-2020 election coup attempt.

Dr. Faris:

It suggests to me that, you know, these are findings in American political science.

Dr. Faris:

Right, like memories are short, presidents tend to get more popular the longer they've been out of office, you know their approval rating will tick right back up, no matter how bad it was when they left.

Dr. Faris:

So there are some elements of this that are just sort of like oh well, this is American politics. You know this isn't anything to be alarmed about, but with Trump himself sometimes using rhetoric that makes it seem like he has authoritarian plans, authoritarian tendencies, if nothing else, a highly, highly authoritarian outlook about his position and about the kinds of things that you can and can't do, I think it's very, it's very concerning that this man is like once again on the precipice of power that the remaining opposition to him within the Republican party has, like, mostly been liquidated. You know what? What remains unclear is like, well, what exactly would be the shape of of the democratic rupture here Right? In other words, even with the most sinister or sort of diabolical plans like, what could Donald Trump and his allies actually accomplish in power that would make it functionally impossible for Democrats to ever win another election or for any kind of opposition party to ever get them out of power?

Shawn:

That was Dr David Faris, political scientist and professor at Roosevelt University, expert on democratic reform and strategies to strengthen democratic institutions in the face of rising authoritarianism, and author of the book it's Time to Fight Dirty how Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics, explaining his concerns about a second Trump presidency On this final episode of After America. We imagine what it might look like in Donald Trump's America if he, along with the assistance of the acquiescent authoritarian Republican Party, were to win another term to the presidency and act on his worst impulses and implement the policies he supports. We imagine what this does to American democracy and, more importantly, we examine how to transition back into democracy after a collapse into some form of authoritarianism.

Shawn:

He says you're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said no. No, no other than day one, donald Trump has called for the cancellation of the Constitution to install him as president outside of an election. Extrajudicial and extralegal mass roundups and deportations of immigrants, nullification of court decisions with which he disagrees, military tribunals and death sentences for political opponents, summoned a mob to the Capitol to overturn an election that he lost in an attempt to stay in power extra-constitutionally. We call this a coup and, as you just heard, stated that if elected again, he would be a dictator for at least day one. If Trump gets his way, does the things he says he'll do, implements the policies that he supports, many outlined in Project 2025, american history may take a sharp and dark turn. Imagine this date, but 20 years from now, it's 2044, and this is what American schoolchildren are learning.

Shawn:

The 2024 election was unlike any other in American history. On November 6, the morning after Election Day, the country found itself in uncharted territory. The Democratic candidate, kamala Harris, had narrowly won the popular vote and had secured a majority in the Electoral College, but the Republican-controlled House of Representatives had other plans. The drama began on election night, when the results from several key swing states Pennsylvania, georgia, arizona and Michigan, despite showing wins for Harris, were delayed due to recounts, legal challenges and accusations of irregularities. By mid-November, it became clear that, despite Harris' edge in both the popular and electoral vote, republican leaders were already laying the groundwork for a political coup. In the weeks that followed, the focus shifted to a little-known provision in the Constitution, the 12th Amendment. Under this amendment, if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives can decide the election. Each state delegation would have just one vote, regardless of the state's population. Each state delegation would have just one vote, regardless of the state's population.

Shawn:

The Republicans, having secured control of more state delegations during the 2022 midterms and narrowly retaining that control in the 2024 election, began a coordinated effort to challenge the legitimacy of the electoral results in Pennsylvania, georgia, arizona and Michigan. They argued that the widespread voter fraud, though unproven and repeatedly debunked in court, had tainted the results. The Republican strategy relied on the complex process of certifying the election. Electors from the contested states were pressured not to certify their results or to send conflicting slates of electors to Washington. In some cases, republican-controlled state legislatures stepped in overriding the popular vote in their state to select pro-Trump electors. By early December, the situation was complete chaos. Multiple states had sent competing slates of electors to Congress. Multiple states had sent competing slates of electors to Congress and the Electoral College vote typically a formality seemed uncertain.

Shawn:

The decisive moment came on January 6, 2025, when Congress met to certify the electoral vote. As expected, disputes over the competing slates of electors from key states erupted. The country watched in disbelief as the House of Representatives, with the majority of Republican state delegations on Trump's side, refused to recognize the Democratic electors in Pennsylvania, georgia, arizona and Michigan, forcing the election into the House under the 12th Amendment, with each state delegation casting a single vote. The Republicans had a slight advantage States like Wyoming and Alaska, with small populations but one vote each held the same weight as California and New York. As the final tally was counted, it became clear Donald Trump had been awarded the presidency, despite losing both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Shawn:

The aftermath was explosive. Protests erupted in major cities, most notably in New York, seattle, dc, chicago and San Francisco, with many Americans believing the election had been stolen. Courts had ruled that the House's actions were technically legal under the Constitution. Courts had ruled that the House's actions were technically legal under the Constitution, but the legitimacy of the process was widely questioned. The Democratic Party refused to accept the results and for weeks, the country teetered on the edge of complete breakdown. Trump, back in power, claimed his victory.

Shawn:

Trump vowed in his inauguration speech to overhaul election systems, promising new laws that would secure future elections. No longer constrained by the need to appease voters, he moved swiftly and with precision. Some of his first acts were to dismantle the remaining barriers to unchecked power. The courts were already stocked with loyalists from his first term, but now he had a mandate to complete his takeover, and his hand-picked judges were quick to strike down challenges to his authority, rendering them meaningless. The Supreme Court, once the gold standard of judicial independence, became a puppet of the regime. The rulings that followed were swift and brutal. Expanded executive powers limited protest rights and decisions that allowed for broad surveillance of American citizens Dissent, an essential component of democracy, became a dangerous game.

Shawn:

The Department of Justice, now nothing more than a political weapon, began prosecuting Trump's critics, political opponents, including Kamala Harris, joe Biden, nancy Pelosi and even people that had disagreed with Trump from within his own party. Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney found themselves facing trumped up charges of treason, their reputations destroyed by a media machine that had fallen under complete state control. Investigative journalists were discredited, harassed or, worse, disappeared. Independent media was squeezed out, their voices drowned in a sea of pro-regime propaganda, and those who dared to speak out were labeled as traitors. The crackdown wasn't just confined to political figures Ordinary citizens, too, became targets.

Shawn:

In the early days of Trump's second term, protesters across the country were met with overwhelming force. Trump deployed the military across the country and armored vehicles rolled down once-peaceful boulevards, and militarized police units arrested thousands. Crowded jails became holding pens for those who dared to oppose the new order, many of them never seeing a courtroom. Protests were declared acts of insurrection, and those who participated faced long sentences or, worse, indefinite detention. A new normal quickly settled in, where fear was a regular component of daily life. Social media, once a space for free expression, was now a vast network of surveillance. Trump tapped Elon Musk, the owner of X, to develop and oversee implementation of surveillance technology onto all social media platforms. The government's eye was everywhere tracking dissenters, monitoring bank accounts, listening in on phone calls. People grew cautious of their neighbors, unsure of who might report them for a simple misstep. The rule of law had been replaced by the rule of power, and the power was absolute.

Shawn:

Under the Trump regime, marginalized communities suffered the most. Immigrants, lgbtq plus individuals and racial minorities became convenient scapegoats for the regime's failings. New laws targeting these groups were passed under the guise of protecting traditional American values. Families were torn apart as immigration raids escalated. Anyone even suspected of being an immigrant, regardless of legal status, were rounded up, placed in hastily built concentration camps. Anyone even suspected of being an immigrant, regardless of legal status, were rounded up, placed in hastily built concentration camps and extrajudicially deported, often having been separated from their families. Lgbtq plus rights were rolled back with alarming speed. Transgender individuals were banned from public spaces and same-sex marriages were dissolved by the courts. And for Black and Latino communities, the war on civil rights intensified, surveillance in these neighborhoods became suffocating and arrests skyrocketed. Elections, once the cornerstone of democracy, became mere formalities. Gerrymandering, voter ID laws and outright disenfranchisement ensured that Trump's political opponents never stood a chance. Every election that followed his second term was nothing more than a coronation. The illusion of choice was maintained, but the outcome was preordained it was a system designed to perpetuate itself.

Shawn:

As the years passed, the American people adapted to their new reality. Some, particularly those who had benefited from the regime's policies, supported the authoritarian order. Others lived in quiet submission, too fearful or apathetic to resist. But authoritarianism is a fragile beast. The system built on lies and oppression began to crumble from within. Corruption within Trump's inner circle grew rampant and the cracks in the regime became impossible to ignore. Meanwhile, the American people, facing economic decline and constant repression, began to agitate. Protests, having been banned years earlier, once again erupted, this time larger and angrier than even those protests that occurred immediately following the 2024 election. International pressure, which had been mounting for years, reached a tipping point and the regime, so seemingly unshakable, collapsed almost overnight.

Shawn:

Now, as the dust settles and America stands on the precipice of rebuilding, the wounds left by authoritarian rule are visible. Trust in government and institutions is shattered. The courts, the press and civil society show the strain of years of abuse. Communities are divided, left grappling with resentment and fear that was sown during the darkest days of authoritarianism. So the future is uncertain, but the opportunity to rebuild is within reach.

Shawn:

In this critical phase, one concept becomes essential transitional justice. Transitional justice refers to the set of practices and mechanisms that societies use to address the legacies of human rights abuses and authoritarianism as they transition back to democracy. It's a multifaceted approach that includes holding perpetrators accountable, acknowledging and redressing the suffering of victims, and reforming institutions so that they never again serve as instruments of oppression. But transitional justice is more than just a legal process. It's about healing a society that has been fractured and rebuilding trust between the government and its citizens. This is Dr Monika Nalepa, political scientist and professor at the University of Chicago and leading expert in the study of transitional justice, authoritarian regimes and democratization, and the author of the book After Authoritarianism, transitional Justice and Democratic Stability, explaining the concept and the process.

Dr. Nalepa:

So transitioning justice is the whole set of mechanisms and institutions that are designed to hold accountable members and collaborators of former authoritarian regimes after that authoritarian regime has fallen or has been displaced, and so that's a very important condition, that it's all kinds of ways of reckoning with people who upheld or helped to uphold authoritarian systems, but not while that authoritarian regime is still in place, but actually when a democratic regime has displaced it and transitional justice mechanisms are established through formal institutions. So legislatures, governments pass special procedures that basically determine whether criminal trials can be held against people who committed human rights violations on behalf of the regime, so arguably in accordance to the authoritarian law at that time, but against natural law or natural senses of justice that we might have. So can they be now tried for those human rights violations under the new democracy? And that creates all kinds of problems with rule of law, with non-retractivity, so justice not applying to cases in the past that were legal at that time. But it also encompasses a set of extrajudicial institutions, such as bans on running for office by politicians who participated in the previous authoritarian regime or the collaborators or secret police informers. It also includes purges, whether those purges are individual or purges of entire agencies that were tasked with supporting or maintaining the authoritarian regime. It also includes truth commissions, so very extrajudicial bodies that conduct hearings with victims, with perpetrators Often they don't have any policy making authority but simply disclose the truth about what happened. And finally, also opening institutes of national remembrance, memorialization of things that happened in the authoritarian regime.

Dr. Nalepa:

So transitional justice really encompasses a spectrum of institutions, from sort of the most harshest, the most formal forms of accountability, such as through courts, all the way to very symbolic measures such as museums and memorializations.

Dr. Nalepa:

But the thing that has to be stressed here is that there needs to be this moment of the authoritarian regime actually ending and that these institutions themselves have to be sanctioned by democratic bodies. So what is not an example of transitional justice? Well, any form of victor's justice or any vendetta that one might want to, you know, organize or participate in towards the end of an authoritarian regime. So I would, for instance, say, drawing on my experience, my expertise in Eastern Europe, that the summary trial of Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena in Romania, during that remarkable 10-hour period when the dictator was deposed, and so the summary trial that sentenced him to death and performed that death sentence on the same day would not be an example of transitional justice, even though one could make the argument that Ceausescu got what he deserved right. He was one of the most feared and ruthless dictators of the communist period in Eastern Europe.

Shawn:

At its core, transitional justice is the process of confronting and rectifying the wrongs committed during an authoritarian regime as a society transitions back to democracy, involving more than just legal punishment for those responsible for human rights abuses. It's a holistic approach that seeks to restore justice, uncover the truth, hold perpetrators accountable, compensate victims, reform institutions and foster reconciliation. In a post-authoritarian US, these pillars would be critical to restoring democracy. Here's Dr Nalepa explaining the importance of transparency in transitional justice.

Dr. Nalepa:

I'm going to say transparency mechanism. They can be referred to differently, so John Elster, for instance, called them forward-looking and backward-looking transitional justice mechanisms. So backward-looking would be the ones where you punish people for things that everybody knows that they did. They happened in the past, and the punishment or sanction is to you know, to make things whole by making the punishment match the crime.

Dr. Nalepa:

Forward-looking transitional justice, on the other hand, is not so much a correction to an offense that happened, but it's supposed to make the democratic future better. So transparency mechanisms fulfill that, because they reveal information that potentially could be used as blackmail and so make, for instance, for more honest politicians. So if all politicians that are running for office, if the truth about the nature of their collaboration with the former regime has been disclosed, then there are no politicians that can be blackmailed with that information, because that information is out in the open. One could make a similar argument actually about truth commissions, that they fulfill a similar role, except that they actually reach a much broader spectrum of society, because they don't only reveal the truth about politicians, but about people in various walks of life. If I were to choose, you know, between the backward-looking and forward-looking transitional justice mechanisms, I would place my bets on forward-looking transitional justice mechanisms and, just in general, transparency regimes.

Shawn:

Formalized truth-seeking is another critical step in transitional justice. After years of authoritarian rule where abuses were hidden or justified by the state, it's vital to document the full extent of those crimes. A truth commission, similar to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid, would be an essential tool in this process. Truth commissions provide a platform for victims to share their experiences and for society to confront its past. In South Africa, the commission was instrumental in revealing the atrocities of apartheid while promoting national healing through public acknowledgement of wrongs. In a post-authoritarian US, a truth commission could document the widespread human rights violations, corruption and suppression of dissent under the Trump regime. It would provide a forum for victims, particularly marginalized groups such as immigrants, lgbtq plus individuals and racial minorities who suffered disproportionately, to tell their stories. This process could help foster transparency and understanding, bringing the truth of what happened into the light and beginning the process of social healing. Beyond uncovering the truth, there's also the question of criminal accountability. Should the US hold high-profile trials for former leaders who are responsible for orchestrating the abuses? The answer in many ways depends on the balance between justice and social stability. In previous transitional justice efforts, such as the Nuremberg trials after World War II, criminal prosecution played a critical role in holding Nazi leaders accountable for crimes against humanity. Similarly, in Argentina, military leaders were tried for the thousands of disappearances during the country's dirty war. In a post-authoritarian US, criminal trials would likely focus on prosecuting those responsible for the gravest offenses, whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or widespread corruption. These trials would serve as a clear statement that no one is above the law and that abuses of power will be met with justice. However, there are risks. Abuses of power will be met with justice. However, there are risks. Overly punitive measures could deepen social divisions, especially if supporters of the former regime see these trials as politically motivated. As a result, balancing accountability with reconciliation is essential. In addition to criminal accountability, reparations could be offered to victims of the regime. Reparations can take many forms monetary compensation, symbolic acts or restorative measures. In the US, marginalized communities that were specifically targeted under the authoritarian regime, such as immigrants, people of color and LGBTQ plus individuals, would need some acknowledgement and perhaps reparations.

Shawn:

For transitional justice to be effective, institutional reforms are also critical. The very institutions that enabled authoritarianism courts, law enforcement, the media must be reformed to prevent a return to such abuses Strengthening checks and balances, ensuring the independence of the judiciary and reforming the electoral system to make it more transparent and inclusive are essential steps in rebuilding trust In a post-authoritarian US. The Supreme Court and lower courts, many of which had been stacked with Trump loyalists, would need reform to restore impartiality. Electoral reforms might include ending gerrymandering, creating stronger voter protections and introducing more transparent election monitoring. Finally, there's the critical task of reconciliation. The authoritarian period would likely have left the US deeply divided, with some citizens staunchly supporting the regime and others having resisted. A national reconciliation process would aim to bridge this divide, fostering dialogue and understanding between opposing sides. This could involve community forums where citizens from different political backgrounds can share their perspectives in a constructive manner, or national initiatives that focus on rebuilding social cohesion. Reconciliation doesn't mean erasing accountability, but it does mean finding ways to coexist peacefully in a pluralistic democracy.

Shawn:

Ultimately, transitional justice is about more than punishment. Ultimately, transitional justice is about more than punishment. It's about rebuilding a society on principles of fairness, transparency and human rights. It's important to note that transitional justice, when misapplied or applied without true commitment, can also fail. A clear failure of transitional justice can be found right here in the United States, in the aftermath of the Civil War. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive justice process, the Reconstruction period was marked by incomplete reforms, missed opportunities for racial reconciliation and, ultimately, a retreat from accountability. Former Confederate leaders were not held to account in any meaningful way and the South was allowed to implement laws and policies that reinforced white supremacy and oppression, including Jim Crow laws. The failure to punish Confederate leaders and the quick reintegration of Southern states without significant institutional reform left the legacy of slavery and racism largely unaddressed. This is Dr Nalepa again explaining this failure.

Dr. Nalepa:

I like the example of the United States, because for many years it's been very hard for me to convince American political scientists that transitional justice is a legitimate subfield and that we should be talking about dealing with regimes and this is an important question, not just for now but new democracies, such as the ones that emerged in the third wave, but also ones like you said yourself, the very sort of gradual transitions. But the lack of this clear demarcation point, right, that makes it hard to figure out. Ok, so when is the right moment for transitioning justice? To figure out? Okay, so when is the right moment for transitioning justice? And so, yeah, so clearly, at some point between the late 18th century and now the United States democratized, we basically have universal voting rights and universal right to contest the elections. Anybody can run for office, of course, having secured enough funding for campaigns. But you know, when you include local office it's actually, I wouldn't say fairly easy, but it's fairly possible to run for elections. But because of it seems that, because of the most atrocious undermining of rights happened so far in the past, the opportunities for transitional justice are now very limited, right, so you very correctly identified, you know, the end of the Civil War as the right moment.

Dr. Nalepa:

But I think what the United States went through, you know, in the period of Reconstruction and then Jim Crow, was something that's actually very familiar to a lot of new democracies, right Like there's this tension between accountability for what happened in the past and this sort of like orientation to the future, so that we don't miss this moment when, you know, we're building new institutions and the most important thing is to organize our democratic procedures in a way that you know that will set us up for success.

Dr. Nalepa:

So this is a very, very familiar tension and you know we saw it in various third wave transitions to democracy. You know, from Spain. In Spain, actually, there was a formal institution, the Pact of Forgetting, where elites made these mutual promises that you know we won't investigate what happened during the Civil War, you won't investigate what happened under Franco and we'll all just focus on, you know, building a new Spain and it lasted until it didn't. You know Poland, hungary, went through similar, similar dilemmas and I have a sense that this must have been also something that happened in the United States, right where, well, you know we can, we can spend a lot of time like fixing and, you know, holding accountable, you know, the members of the Confederacy and their collaborators for all kinds of things that happened in the past, or we can actually start working towards a new union.

Shawn:

This failure of transitional justice allowed for the reestablishment of white dominance in the South, the disenfranchisement of African Americans and the perpetuation of racial violence, including lynching and segregation. The country failed to reconcile the deep divisions between North and South, and the consequences of this are still felt today in the form of systemic racism and political polarization. This failure can have disastrous consequences.

Dr. Nalepa:

Dr Nalepa explains why failure can have disastrous consequences.

Dr. Nalepa:

Dr Nalepa explains why, but clearly there are lots of grievances that were not dealt with and now, well, those who are directly responsible for those grievances have died, those who are victims of those grievances have also died, and it seems that all that is left is basically compensating victims, their descendants, and telling the truth, right?

Dr. Nalepa:

So so it's not that you know that transitional justice options, such a long time after the transition actually happened, are impossible.

Dr. Nalepa:

There are just fewer of them, and you know, and they might not be fully satisfactory, might not be fully satisfactory, and you know, and even in those cases, what we see right now, the backlash against, you know, teaching critical race theory, you know the whole banned books movement. It just shows how, even in those, I want to say, low cost transitional justice institutions, right, like, nobody's throwing anybody in jail, nobody is, you know, taking property away from I don't know those who inherited wealth because of unjust institutions and giving them to victims. But there's still a lot of backlash. So just the fact that transitional justice institutions were not implemented and that transitional justice did not take place doesn't mean it doesn't come to haunt us later in the future, because in this country there clearly is a demand for transitional justice. Often it's called, you know, demands for racial justice, but I see this, as you know, part and parcel of the same set of institutions, as part and parcel of the same set of institutions.

Shawn:

The successes of transitional justice show that accountability, truth and reconciliation can help rebuild societies and prevent future authoritarianism or conflict.

Shawn:

However, failures like those after the American Civil War highlight the dangers of prioritizing unity over justice, allowing deep societal wounds to fester.

Shawn:

A thorough, honest reckoning with the past is crucial to creating a just and lasting peace.

Shawn:

Should the United States experience a slide into authoritarianism under Donald Trump and the Republican Party, it's clear that transitional justice holds the key to eventually rebuilding a nation that will have been scarred by repression, division and fear. Years of unchecked power, the silencing of dissent and the erosion of civil liberties will have culminated in a fractured society, with trust in democratic institutions at an all-time low. But transitional justice offers a roadmap for healing. Truth-seeking, criminal accountability, reparations, institutional reform and reconciliation are the pillars that will allow the United States to confront its past and build a stronger future. There are also some concrete mechanisms that future builders of a newer, better American democracy will have to consider in crafting a new political system, a new constitution, and in doing so, they can certainly learn from some of the weaknesses and the vulnerabilities that have contributed, even been exploited, to dismantling democracy in the United States. Dr Alastair Smith, political scientist and professor at New York University, expert on political leadership, authoritarian regimes and the intersection of politics and economics, and co-author of the Dictator's Handbook, describes some of these vulnerabilities.

Dr. Smith:

I find the concerns we should have in the United States at the moment are a lot more about packing judiciary and allowing votes to be counted and discounted the need for ID that is designed purely to keep people who have a legitimate right from voting. I think those are much more serious concerns than some of these sort of global issues and we should be very attentive to those, but I think that very few people want to go along with eroding political rights.

Dr. Smith:

There's, of course, very simple ways to increase the accountability of the US government getting rid of the Electoral College would massively improve the incentive of the president to work for the United States people instead of appealing to the middle-of-the-road voters in a handful of states, which is the current situation we have. But getting such rules to pass is extremely difficult given the constitutional rules. There's a lot of pushback at the moment against party gerrymandering and I think that's a phenomenal way to improve accountability. We could change primary rules. That would actually greatly improve the ability of voters to speak their mind and make political leaders much more accountable to the voters, leaders much more accountable to the voters. I'm not going to say it can't be improved, and it could be. It's been a phenomenal political system. We just have to look at the level of economic growth and enfranchisement improvements over the years. But we're still easy. There are easy fixes.

Dr. Smith:

Of course, always with these things, it's not that we don't know a better solution, it's how do we get better solutions in place? I think a lot of these things is we should in some sense grandfather in rules. We want to get rid of the Electoral College, but let's have a constitutional rule to get rid of it in 30 years, because states don't know if they're going to be the marginal ones that the president's going to want to kiss up to in 30 years time. So getting rid of a rule that privileges a few states is not something those few states will want to veto now, but the current politicians have much less interest in vetoing that in the future. Have much less interest in vetoing that in the future so we can improve the US system of government. The question is finding ways to get it done that is in the interest of the current politicians through whom the system needs to be changed.

Shawn:

Democracy is fragile and this authoritarian period in America reminds us how quickly freedoms can be stripped away. This is Stephen Marche, novelist, essayist and cultural commentator known for his works on politics and culture, including the Future of Democracy and the Decline of American Political Stability, and author of the book the Next Civil War, discussing how our first American president feared this current political environment.

Stephen Marche:

Well, the most extraordinary document that I read during the entire process of writing the Next Civil War was George Washington's farewell letter, which used to be read out loud in school. Children memorized it like they memorized the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence and so on. It's a truly extraordinary document because Washington predicted exactly what just happened. I mean like he spelled it out so clearly what the danger was. That it's almost like well, you should have taken, like you knew there was a flaw in your system, right, like you should have worked out some way out of this. But I mean the. It's an extraordinary work of prediction to get to get the fall of your own country right 240 years after you wrote it. It's regional disputes, it's partisanship over country. I mean, the truth is there are many, many american politicians who believe that their party is the country right and therefore the only country, the only America that matters is the America of their party. This is kind of the core thing of American politics and the core disaster.

Shawn:

Protecting democracy requires constant effort, not just from leaders, but from us, the citizens. It means staying informed, speaking out against injustice and holding power to account and voting for democracy. Every time, including this November. As we conclude this After America series, it's clear that the story of democratic backsliding, even a rise of authoritarianism, in the United States is not just a distant possibility. Leadership to right-wing media, echo chambers that encourage and promote polarization, to the erosion of democratic norms, to the weaponization of misinformation, to how evangelicals have abandoned Christian values to become soldiers for Trump, to the ways in which Republicans have stacked the courts with right-wing ideologues, to the empowerment of far-right militia groups and the rise of political violence in American politics, to Donald Trump's coup attempt in January of 2021, this series has painted a picture of a country on the brink, but, more importantly, it has shown us how a nation might fall warning signs to look for and, in today's episode, how it could rise again. We've looked into the history of authoritarian regimes across the globe, using the lens of countries like Hungary, russia, germany and the Roman Empire, to understand the patterns that lead to democratic collapse and, more critically, the efforts required to rebuild. We've explored how institutions, once the protectors of freedom can be hollowed out and transformed into tools of repression. But we've also seen that authoritarianism, while deeply destructive, is not invincible. Power struggles, corruption and popular unrest can topple even the strongest regimes, and today we've examined the concept of transitional justice that is central to understanding how a post-authoritarian America could begin to heal. Truth-seeking, accountability and institutional reform are not just buzzwords. They're essential pillars for a nation that has endured authoritarian rule and seeks to restore democracy.

Shawn:

The future of America will depend on its ability to learn from its past, and while this series has imagined the collapse of democracy, it is a reminder of the resilience of democratic ideals. The road to recovery, whether that begins now or out of the ashes of a burned-out democracy sometime in the future, will be long and it will be difficult. But with dedication to justice and transparency and unity, america can emerge stronger than before. It is our shared responsibility to ensure that the next chapter in this story is one of renewal and hope. So vote to save democracy in the United States this November 5th and join us next week as our flagship series, deep Dive, returns with a special episode, with all of the contributors to After America over these past 12 weeks discussing how much hope, if any, they have in the resilience, in fact the continued existence of American democracy. And as a final scrap of food for thought, a final warning really, I'm going to leave you with Dr Faris' thoughts on the American capacity to sleepwalk into authoritarianism.

Dr. Faris:

I think that there will be multiple inflection points where Trump and the Republicans will do things to consolidate their power, to expand their power, to weaken the architecture of democracy, but the effects of those acts might not be felt right away. I'm thinking of the Project 2025 that Trump's right-wing allies have put together. It's available on the internet if you want to read it. Part of that plan is to have tens of thousands of positions inside the federal bureaucracy stripped of their protection. In other words, these would be made like 50,000 new political appointees, where Trump can go in, clear out lifelong civil servants and then replace them with, like Heritage Foundation ideologues or wherever he's going to pull from. That's really dangerous, Right, but it's also, you know you're going to wake up the next morning and like the world will keep turning and I think some people will conclude like well, you know 50,000 out of 2 million. Like what's the big deal? Like ultimately, we survive.

Dr. Faris:

You can see like a series of those things happening where Trump and the Republicans put their plans into motion, like they passed this law that's been introduced in the House what they call the Election Integrity Act, but that would have the effect of making voting a lot harder for a lot of different people, among many other things it's like again, you have to think of it as one piece of a puzzle designed to make it all but impossible to get Republicans out of power at the federal level, and to the extent that they still leave enough openings where opposition can claim victories here and there, my fear is that people will not recognize what has happened until it is too late, in other words, until enough of these little inflection points have been manipulated by Republicans and you lose rights and you lose procedures and you lose pathways to change and reform years, and that we're going to wake up in like 2027 or 2029 and realize, like the way that we used to defeat a political party, the way that we used to defeat presidents, is no longer available to us, like precisely the same way that it used to be, because these, these efforts to undermine the basic guardrails and the basic underpinnings of american democracy have actually been quite successful and we just won't notice until it's too late, when you clear out civil servants and then you can just sort of use the federal government as a campaign arm.

Dr. Faris:

Right, that's not a tanks in the street moment, but it is something that makes the political system much, much less fair to people who are out of power hour.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host