Event Post: The Trump Administration's Challenges to Constitutional Democracy, Presented by Dr. Edelson

For this assignment, I chose to attend a seminar discussion with Dr. Chris Edelson from the School of Public Affairs here at AU. Dr. Edelson led a conversation about the Trump administration and the American standard of constitutional democracy—a democracy that was created as a republic, complete with certain rights and liberties that are arguably in danger under the current administration and its authoritarian tendencies.

In an effort to provide some context, Dr. Edelson is a professor in the Government Department who specializes in presidential power studies as well as constitutional and public law. He earned a BA from Brandeis University, and went on to get a JD from Harvard Law School (you can check out his faculty profile here). He spoke a little about his recent research and then led participants in a discussion that centered around the recently published work of two Harvard scholars, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt entitled How Democracies Die. In the book, the authors discuss the concept of authoritarianism in relation to the Trump administration specifically. They outline four characteristics that distinguish authoritarian leaders as such:

·      Authoritarian leaders condone/support the use of violence

-       During his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly encouraged or incited violent incidents at a number of his rallies. For video and commentary on a few of these scenarios, click here.

·      Authoritarian leaders do not accept the political legitimacies of their opponents

-       On multiple occasions, Donald Trump questioned the legitimacy of statements or opposing arguments made by his Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton. At one point in a debate, Trump remarked to Clinton that should he be elected, she “would be in jail.” See a video here.

·      Authoritarian leaders do not accept democratic rules

-       At a campaign rally in Delaware, Ohio, Donald Trump pledged that he would “totally accept” the results of the 2016 election if they ruled in his favor, insinuating that he would contest an outcome that did not see him as the victor. See footage here.

·      Authoritarians do not accept civil liberties for their opponents

-       During (and after) his campaign for president, Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to sue Hillary Clinton, the press, and many other individuals and organizations that pushed back on his personal and/or public agenda.

Think about these characteristics analytically for a moment. Despite the nature of this subject and the tone of this blog post, the discussion surrounding Donald Trump, his administration, and the characteristics of authoritarian leadership is not necessarily meant to be another means to criticize our current president. Rather, it is an analytical look at the potential dangers posed by the administration and the president. During our discussion, Dr. Edelson posited the idea that the divide in American is not necessarily liberal vs. conservative or Republican vs. Democrat. Rather, our polarization trends toward constitutional democracy vs. authoritarianism. The argument is not whether authoritarians are good or bad; the point being made is that America was not founded on authoritarian ideals, and as such, some of the behaviors exhibited by the president and his administration are unprecedented and potentially dangerous.

Of course, this topic has many connections to and implications for the material we have covered thus far in this course. What do these new, precedent-breaking behaviors and norms say about our communications trends? Are we setting new standards within the media as well? What are the facets of our communication landscape—the media, the political elites, and the general public—doing to push back against potentially threatening actions? How do we use the current political reality to mobilize groups and organizations in an effective way, like we have been discussing in class? Donald Trump and his unique style of governance, as well as the campaign that got him elected, are extraordinarily important subjects in our continued debate and deliberation of advocacy trends, mobilization techniques, and media relations. In the wake of a non-democratic leader, we arguably have a duty as American citizens to fight back in order to protect our republican ideals—and that’s a thought process that has already inspired thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations to act.

Additional resources:

·      Interview with Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt about their research and their new book, How Democracies Die: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/22/579670528/how-democracies-die-authors-say-trump-is-a-symptom-of-deeper-problems

·      Recommended books for further reading on this and related subject matters:

-       The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412

-       It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the Politics of Extremism by Thomas Mann: https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Mann-American-Constitutional-Extremism/dp/B00HTJNHQE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517976621&sr=1-2&keywords=it%27s+even+worse+than+it+looks&dpID=41aIlUozzML&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch