America On the Precipice II

The Admonitions of Recent European History by Richard North Patterson

II. The Admonitions of Recent European History

A. The Fall of Weimar Germany

Modern Europe has much to teach us - beginning with Germany after World War I.

Glib analogies to Nazi Germany are morally irresponsible, and the term “fascist" is too often carelessly invoked. But one need not presuppose a holocaust to contemplate European fascism as an exemplar of authoritarianism.

As in post-war Germany, authoritarianism often does not supplant democracy overnight. Rather, it advances step-by-step, nourished by denial and disbelief, until it overrides the all-too human safeguards presumptively protecting civic freedom.

As compared with fascism's historic cradle - Europe in the 1920s and 30s - the institutions of American democracy are far more deeply rooted. But like any mode of governance dependent on the will of its guardians and the commitment of its citizens, it is not impregnable. Many intelligent Germans dismissed the tide of unreason which threatened their nascent democracy - their society was too civilized, too humane, to yield to the call of Nazism. Until it did.

Here it is well to read Benjamin Hett’s “The Death of Democracy”, a penetrating study of how authoritarianism overtook the Weimar Republic. Hitler did not spring from nowhere or arbitrarily inflict himself on Germany. Rather, over a decade he exploited conditions which, in some critical respects, present disturbing parallels in the present.

The German people were profoundly divided by class, region, religion, income inequality, and economic insecurity stoked by inflation. Many despised the cosmopolites, global elites and politicians they associated with democracy. Critical to Hitler's rise was his appeal to believers in a primal “volk” – purged of “foreign” elements, dedicated to the purification of German culture, and bent on the erasure of degenerate ideas. He gave restive Germans an internal enemy – the Jews – cast as “vermin” who threatened their way of life. Critically, he spoke to a craving for a strong leader who would banish the difficulties besetting ordinary Germans while restoring Germany to its greatness.

The warning signs for civil society were klieg-lit. From his premature attempt at a coup, Hitler exuded contempt for democracy, all but promising its termination. He cultivated a sense of victimhood among his followers. He insisted that the media serve "the general good" and promised "legal warfare" against critics. He stoked disdain for governmental institutions,and encouraged political violence by his followers.

Particularly insidious, he saw Germans as a racial tribe - intellectually unequipped for critical thinking - susceptible to his claim of near-mystical powers. Relentlessly, he galvanized their anger and anxieties through rudimentary language that was fragrantly mendacious. The greater the lie, Hitler believed, the easier to popularize: "I reduced [our political problems] to the simplest terms. The masses realize this and follow me."

In tandem, critical German business leaders perceived him as a profit center, and a bulwark against the German left with whom they could curry favor. Other elements of the upper classesseized on this blatant authoritarian as a stabilizing force. Despite Hitler's obvious megalomania, crucial segments of the conservative political elite imagined they could control him for their own ends – a tragic miscalculation that resonates beyond its time.

With the complicity of these insiders, Hitler became chancellor through the trappings of democracy. Thereupon, with ruthless celerity, he acted out his rhetoric by destroying them altogether - beginning, ominously, when a presumptively independent parliament ceded him the power to rule by decree.

In theory, America's tripartite dispersion of governmental power presents a sturdier bulwark against authoritarianism. But Germany's lessons for America do not lie in the timetable whereby democracy evanesces. What matters are the conditions which make evanescence possible.

B. Hungary’s Cautionary “Illiberal Democracy”

In contrast to the convulsions of Nazi Germany, contemporary Hungary exemplifies the systematic transformation of democratic institutions into tools of autocracy. Its cautionary relevance to America is readily apparent.

An October 2024 essay by Jeremy Shapiro and Zsuzsanna Vegh of the European Council On Foreign Relations is aptly titled"The Orbanization of America: Hungary's lessons for Donald Trump.” They begin by quoting Trump himself: “There is a great man… in Europe - Viktor Orban… he is the Prime Minister of Hungary. He is a very great leader, a very strong man.”

This is hardly random persiflage. The head of the Heritage Foundation, seedbed of Project 2025, states:” Modern Hungary is not just a model for conservative statecraft but the model”.That model is hardly democratic; the European Union calls Hungary an "electoral autocracy."

Writing in The Atlantic, Ann Applebaum asks:

“What is this Hungarian model [MAGA conservatives] so admire? Mostly, it has nothing to do with modern statecraft. Instead it's a very old, very familiar blueprint for autocratic takeover… [A]fter being elected to a second term in 2010, Orban slowly replaced civil service with loyalists; usedeconomic pressure and regulation to destroy the free press; robbed universities of their independence; politicized the court system; and repeatedly changed the constitution to give himself electoral advantages... He has aligned himself openly with Russia and China, serving as a mouthpiece for Russian foreign policy…”

The techniques of communication which Shapiro and Vegh ascribe to Orban are depressingly portable: “[Orban] adopted a populist and nativist rhetoric that targets various external and internal groups - including critics of the government as well as various minorities and vulnerable groups - as potential threats to the country, its population and its culture. In doing so, the government engineered a permanent sense of crisis in its public communication. This type of threat inflation has fueled polarization, and served as a reason to adopt various 'emergency’ measures.”

As with Trump, the presumptive threats to Hungary’s security and character include "Illegal immigrants”; "liberal elites”; and sinister proponents of gender reassignment. And though Orban's means of political and societal transformation were sometimes even cruder and more immediate, crucial accelerants are familiar.

A judiciary which is increasingly politicized. Governmental departments infused with loyalists bent on enacting his will. An electoral map rigged to favor Orban's candidates. A media effectively muzzled or too fearful of provoking his displeasure. Emergency decrees contrived to override checks on executive authority. Endemic corruption to cement his power. Intimidation of educational institutions. Erosion of the rule of law. All the while Orban’s arbitrary rule is sinking Hungary’s economy –just as Trump’s economic caprice is sinking ours.

In an interview with NPR's Leila Fadel, retiring American ambassador to Hungary David Pressman described Orban’s use of intimidation and corruption to stifle democracy:

“The first tool was essentially constructing a system where institutions are captured and then creating an architecture of rewarding and punishing. It's a clear message to anyone,the cost of disagreeing… is so high. And as a result of that, a lot of people chose just not to.”

At the same time, Orban used the power of government to create a kleptocracy that benefits his family and political friends and punishes those who fail to serve his interest. Orban, Pressman says, converted governance into "a system that designed to enrich a clique of elites… while talking about standing up for conservative values,” thereby enabling "a massive transfer of public assets to an oligarch class." If you were outside his orbit, Pressman further observes, “it became existentially challenging to exist…”

Asked by Lulu Garcia–Navarro of the New York Times why Americans should care, Pressman answered: "Hungary is a living example of how vulnerable democratic institutions actually are and how easy it is for ill-intentioned leaders to exercise control over citizens.… And the moment you stop engaging ... the capture of state institutions advances very quickly.”"

So how strong, truly, are the vaunted guardrails which presumably protected American democracy from a man like Donald Trump?

We are in the process of finding out - which, among other things, means acknowledging that we are not immune to the forces which have consumed other democracies. Only then can we find our way back.

Charting that redemptive course requires, as a predicate,understanding the root causes of Trump’s encroaching American authoritarianism - the subject of the next six sections.