Notes 📍

Partisan politics lately seems to be dominating our political discussion, with political leaders often fighting for what they believe is best for their political party, then what is right for a country. Some people have gone as far as to suggest the current incumbent in the White House, President Trump is taking it to it’s extreme, hypercharging partisanship, weaponing the rules of democracy and law to benefit his most loyal supporters and his party. The term people use to describe such things is Competitive Authoritarianism.

Competitive Authoritarianism is a hybrid regime type where formal democratic institutions—such as multiparty elections—are the primary means of gaining political power, but systematic government abuse skews the playing field so heavily against the opposition that the system cannot be labeled a true democracy. 

Coined by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, the concept emphasizes that competition in these regimes is real but deeply unfair. Unlike full dictatorships, opposition parties are legal, compete vigorously, and can occasionally win, because the incumbent lacks the absolute capacity or legitimacy to ban elections entirely. However, the ruling party tilts the scales by using state resources as a weapon against critics, violating civil liberties, and co-opting independent arbiters like the judiciary and the press. 

Prominent political scientists—including Levitsky, Way, and Daniel Ziblatt—have increasingly argued that the United States under President Donald Trump has descended into a form of competitive authoritarianism. Commentators and scholars point to specific actions to justify this diagnosis: 

• Weaponizing State Machinery: Critics argue that the administration uses federal regulatory and legal tools to target political opponents and civil society. Examples include DOJ investigations into adversaries, pressure and investigations via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against establishment media outlets, and the freezing of congressionally approved research funds to investigate universities.
• Purging and Packing Institutions: Scholars point to the systematic replacing of career, non-partisan civil servants and prosecutors with political loyalists to eliminate structural checks on executive power.
• Undermining “Referees”: Trump’s rhetoric and behavior are viewed as an effort to erode the independence of neutral arbiters. This includes public attacks on judges who rule against his administration, and the use of presidential pardons to shield allies or participants of the January 6 Capitol riot, sending a signal of institutional impunity.
• Chilling Effects on Dissent: By broadening labels like “radical left” or “extremist” to encapsulate mainstream political critics and media organizations, observers argue the administration deliberately raises the social and legal costs of public opposition. 

Others reject this characterization, arguing that applying the label to Trump is inaccurate and mere alarmist rhetoric for partisan gain: 

• Exercise of Legitimate Executive Power: Counter-arguments maintain that Trump’s policies—such as implementing aggressive tariffs, tightening borders, or demanding reforms from universities—represent the fulfillment of a democratic mandate and the deployment of lawful presidential authority, rather than systemic autocracy.
• Resilience of American Democratic Vibrancy: Skeptics point out that the fundamental architecture of U.S. democracy remains functional. Media organizations and late-night hosts fiercely criticize the president daily without being shut down, citizens routinely organize mass protests, and independent courts regularly block executive actions.
• Lack of Hegemonic Control: Unlike leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary or Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Trump operates within a deeply decentralized federalist system. The U.S. president lacks the structural power to unilaterally rewrite the Constitution, abolish local elections, or fully subdue state-level governments.
• Accusations of Political Bias: Critics of the label argue that framing policy disagreements or aggressive political rhetoric as “competitive authoritarianism” amounts to partisan fear-casting by academic elites who simply oppose Trump’s populist agenda. 

Ultimately hindsight is twenty-twenty. We really won’t know what comes of the actions of President Trump’s administration until it’s well in the rear view mirror. Many will prove to be overblown rhetoric, but other changes might stick. Certainly Trump isn’t afraid to use the lever of power that he has access to today.