S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. Many political scientists are expressing concern over an authoritarian regime. But are we there yet ? I'm Jade Hyndman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired and make you think. A panel of political scholars compare current Trump administration actions against the textbook definition of an authoritarian government.
S2: With that sort of authoritarian behavior happening at the top of the executive branch. It's very , very concerning for me in terms of what will sort of stop it.
S1: Then we'll discuss far right U.S. politics in the context of global politics and what happens next. That's ahead on Midday Edition. The vast majority of political scientists in this country think the U.S. is swiftly moving towards authoritarianism. And that's according to the more than 500 political scientists surveyed by Bright Line Watch , which is an initiative by several universities to monitor democracy. The survey specifically asked how our democracy is doing. The consensus ? We're moving in the wrong direction. Well , we wanted to talk about this with political experts right here in San Diego. Joining me now is Casey Dominguez , professor of political science and international relations at the University of San Diego. Professor , welcome.
S2: Thank you.
S1: Also Lyndsey Lupo. She's a professor of political science and dean of the School of Humanities , Arts and Public engagement at Point Loma Nazarene University. Professor , welcome to you.
S2: Thank you.
S1: And Bryan Adams , professor of political science at San Diego State University. Thanks for being here.
S3: Good to be here.
S1: All right , you all. So where do you think the US stands right now ? Is our democracy still intact , or is this authoritarianism ? Casey , I'll start with you.
S4: Well , that the the answer is complicated because American government is complicated. We live in states , and our state governments are operating as they normally do , at least certainly in many of the states. Anyway , um , but you're correct that political scientists are very concerned , given our definitions of democracy and the way we define democracy as a spectrum , um , that the current administration is taking actions that would put us in the category of no longer democratic government , but what would what we would call competitive authoritarianism ? And competitive authoritarianism can look like democracy in that you can still have elections and the other party can still win. But it's it's the ruling party is , uh , using the instruments of government to try to silence its critics and therefore make elections uncompetitive. Mm.
S1: Mm.
S2: I would also use the phrase competitive authoritarianism. Sometimes we refer to it as a liberal democracy or what people might recall , uh , democracy without liberty or elections without liberty. I think that I am pessimistic in terms of every day. We just seem to be ratcheting up more and more sort of check marks on the side of authoritarian behavior. And so I feel like we are rapidly moving toward a place where it's not even competitive authoritarianism , but just straight up Authoritarianism. And the speed , I think , is what's concerning me. Brian.
S1: Brian.
S3: Yeah , there's definitely an attempt by the Trump administration to move in a more authoritarian direction. So I don't think there's any question about the intent of of some of the actions that have been taken over the past few months. Um , I think there's we're not I don't think we're quite there yet in the sense of where a lot of the efforts to undermine democratic institutions have been successful. Right. I mean , there's certainly there's an assault on the democratic institutions , whether , in fact , that assault will ultimately prove to be successful is still an open question. And it could be. But there's no there's it hasn't yet happened. The walls haven't yet been breached. Well , that maybe isn't quite the way to put it. The walls have been breached. Partially. They haven't been fully breached yet.
S1: Okay , so at this point , there's an opportunity to repair or to knock it down. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. Yeah , absolutely.
S1: All right. Well , Lindsey , I mean , you mentioned speed. When comparing the US to other countries that have have slid into authoritarianism.
S2: But I would say that the country that I would point to that has been essentially the playbook for the Trump administration is hungry , where that's a country that transitioned more recently to democracy with the end of the Cold War , but by the early 2000 was already starting to show signs of reversing on some of those Democratic advancements. By 2014 , Viktor Orban in Hungary was giving a speech which is pretty well known now , where he celebrated illiberal democracy. And then he pretty quickly moved on that by capturing the media in a pretty strategic manner. Back to what Casey said , using all kinds of legal ways of making sure that they controlled the media and then concentrating power in the executive , the judiciary and the legislature , instituting pretty discriminatory legislation against minority groups. So I don't think Hungary necessarily had the speed that we're seeing with this particular administration , but certainly a lot of the tactics. And given that the Trump administration has sort of turned to Auburn and Auburn's administration for sort of tactics and strategies , I think it's not surprising to me that they were able to move as quickly as they were because they , again , sort of had this playbook handed to them.
S1: And , Casey , this is for you and Lindsay. I mean , you both talked about this notion of competitive authoritarianism , but I mean , between gerrymandering and voter suppression laws , haven't we been in that type of system , or at least have some populations of Americans been in that type of system.
S4: That is a great point. Um , you know , I think I think the answer is we have been in that place , but I don't think it's necessarily just gerrymandering , right ? I mean , I think the Jim Crow era was competitive authoritarianism , right ? It was legal to vote as a for a Republican in the South during the one party rule in the South. But people didn't because there were because the system had been rigged against the Republican Party. Um , and it was technically legal , you know , for African American males and , you know , to vote throughout that period. Um , but a lot of people didn't because they were afraid they would face economic consequences or terrorist violence if they did. Um , and so that's actually our , our , our domestic example of competitive authoritarianism. Um , certainly our democracy is not perfect and has not been perfect , but , um , I think most people would still say that since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. We have had free and fair competitive elections throughout the United States. What we want to watch out for is , is refusing to acknowledge the free , the results of free and fair elections. Right. The kind of thing that is going on in North Carolina , where there's an effort to overturn the supreme the election of a Supreme Court justice from last year. The kinds of things that we saw on January 6th that's not honoring election results in ways that are distinctly authoritarian. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. And I would add that I would agree , first of all , and I would add that with competitive authoritarianism , political scientists typically define that as a particular person or a party using their power to hold on to that power. So we certainly have times in U.S. history where we have disenfranchised voters , where we have passed discriminatory legislation. What is unique about this moment , I would say , is that it's pretty party based and sort of cult of personality based. So making sure that it is one particular party and one particular person that is holding on to that power. I would also say that it , I think , is unlike anything we've seen in recent US history in terms of attacks on institutions like freedom of expression. And like recently , President Trump threatened to send any protesters outside of Tesla dealerships to the prison that has been so talked about in El Salvador because they would be considered terrorists and they would be imprisoned there for 20 years. That that is an extraordinary level at which the president of the United States is threatening anyone who is not loyal to him. And I think that's something that we haven't quite seen here in this country.
S1: Brian , you look like you want to add something.
S3: Yeah , just , you know , one of the things that makes this point in time unique is that there are certain democratic norms that have been honored for decades and decades and decades in this country that have been quickly swept aside. So , for example , following court orders , I mean , there's there's never been a time in recent American history where a presidential , a president has said , I'm not going to follow what the court rules , and that's just a basic democratic norm that is being violated. And that's where I think what makes us different than where we were before. I guess it really the first instance of that would be January 6th in 2021 , of where you actually had a basic norm of a basic democratic principle being violated. I mean , we've seen that repeatedly over the past few months , and that's really what has shifted in thinking about this idea of authoritarianism.
S1: Lindsey , what are some things happening now that make you say we're here. We are. We are now under an authoritarian government.
S2: So Levitsky and I wrote a book a few years ago. Now I'm looking at Cassie , nodding your head. I think it was like 2018 , um , where they offered in their book How Democracies Die for behavioral signs. To know that authoritarian behavior is in play is being practiced. And those four things are rejection of or weak commitment to democratic rules of the game , denial of the legitimacy of political opponents , toleration of or encouragement of violence. And the fourth is readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents , including the media. I think we have seen all of those things at work , um , just this weekend , in terms of rejection of Democratic rules of the game. Um , when the president says that he doesn't know if he has to follow the Constitution , that's concerning , um , denial of the legitimacy of political opponents. Do they describe their partisan rivals as criminals ? We've certainly heard that rhetoric over and over. Toleration or encouragement of violence ? Do they encourage mob attacks on opponents ? Brian just mentioned January 6th and then readiness to curtail the civil liberties , civil liberties of opponents , that includes the media. So removing funding , for instance , from public media or removing certain news outlets from the press pool. These are all things that make me think , with that sort of authoritarian behavior happening at the top of the executive branch , it's very , very concerning for me in terms of what will sort of stop it from here. And I guess back to Brian's point , I continue to wonder how much those guardrails will stay in place , how much the courts will be able to successfully push back against some of this behavior. And that's where I feel like I'm a little bit less optimistic.
S3: Yeah , I would. And I think Lindsay's right. All those things the Trump administration has tried to do all of those things , but the guardrails are still there to a large extent. And how this plays out is , is very uncertain at this point. Right. I mean , there is obviously has been a lot of pushback to a lot of these efforts , and it could very well be that the Trump administration could not succeed in in their threats against the media or the other things they're trying to do. So it's clearly there's an effort to break down those democratic norms to , to , to violate the rules of the game that we've been playing by for so many decades. But for me , it's still an open question about how successful the effort will be. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Casey , you know , what is the key , trigger or event that would have to happen when it would be clear that the U.S. has become an authoritarian government.
S4: I mean , I would say I would go back to the idea that election results are not honored , Nerd that it's clear that the votes have been counted and somebody has won , and that person is not allowed to take office by force or through other kinds of machinations. So I would say that's where I would draw the line personally. And I think , I think that's a generally accepted way to do it.
S1:
S4: So there are elections all the time , and they're proceeding mostly normally at the local level , and we're going to have more elections in the fall , and there will be midterm elections next year. Um , and the question is , uh , are those elections free and fair ? And there's a lot that goes into having free and fair elections. People have to be able to register and vote and be able to vote freely and have , you know , the same opportunities to vote across groups and not be discriminated against. And we've already had lots of problems with those issues. Um , but , you know , if there are ways in which , um , people's right to vote can be further restricted. Um , so we could see those kinds of efforts. We can also see just , you know , problems with the accounting problems with election administration. Um , you know , we've had concerns about that beginning since the 2016 election , and there have been a lot of efforts to beef up security and to have more transparency around elections. And there's a lot of people at the local level all over the country that do that administration and do it very well. But , you know , changes to the way elections are run and changes to the information that people are allowed to have are things to really watch out for when we're talking about free and fair elections.
S1:
S3: And I can imagine a plausible scenario where we really get to that place where a person gets fairly elected and they aren't allowed to take office , or we don't have free and fair elections. I think I personally think that's very unlikely we're going to actually end up in that place. I think the Trump administration will try. I think that's a pretty. I think that's likely to happen , that there will be an effort to do that. But it's a really heavy lift politically to actually bring that about. It is not easy to undermine elections in the United States. And you can try. I mean , he did try it in in January 6th , right ? It didn't work. And nor did he even really come close to working. So I think that it's it's a possibility. And certainly there needs to be efforts to try to prevent that from happening. But I don't see that as imminent. I don't think it's going to happen in the midterms. And I , I have difficulty imagining a scenario where Trump doesn't leave office in 2028. It just doesn't. It seems hard to imagine how he's going to make that happen politically , even though I wouldn't be surprised if he tried.
S1: Coming up , our conversation dives into how we got here and the far right trend around the globe. KPBS Midday Edition is back after the break. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. Just after President Trump's 100th day in office , U.S. political scientists are sounding the alarm about the state of our democracy. Many are concerned were swiftly approaching authoritarianism or that we're already there. I'm joined now by a panel of local experts to help me make sense of this. Casey Dominguez , professor of political science and international relations at the University of San Diego. Also Lindsey Lupo. She's a professor of political science and dean of the School of Humanities , Arts and Public Engagement at Point Loma Nazarene University. Also , Bryan Adams , professor of political science at San Diego State University. So I want to start by asking this question because we kind of left off on it. And that question is , Lindsey , how did we get here ? Was this really about economics ? Um , given our current position.
S2: We do have evidence of declining public confidence , particularly around areas of economic disparity. So as economic opportunity feels sort of out of reach for a large percentage of the population , then that does , I think , lead to dissatisfaction with democracy. I think we're also seeing a bit of a cultural backlash. So as we saw the rise of what some might term identity politics , although I think that's a pretty reductionist term , um , some more liberalization around issues of immigration , but also in terms of issues of racial and ethnic diversity. We've seen a backlash against some of that narrative. And another thing I would point to is that increasingly , we're seeing that the China model is a model for government that seems to be gaining popularity around the world. And I think we thought it would never arrive in the United States. But I would say that it has. So with the China model , we often hear it referred to as market Leninism , where there is an open economy but a very closed off political system. And as long as they're performing well , then it's a system that can sort of sustain itself. And when they get into problems with performance , they just control the narrative and they control the media. And so I really desperately want to be as optimistic as Brian. Um , and I want to sort of hold on to that optimism , but I just keep thinking that as soon as performance starts to slip , there will just be control of the narrative , control of the messaging. And that's where I fear that the dissatisfaction with democracy will just lead to low levels of political efficacy , and people will just opt out and not even notice when their rights are being eroded.
S1:
S4: I will totally agree , though , that , um , the the how did we get here is a question that , you know , has short term influences of the economy. Elections often depend on , uh , how the how the how , how many jobs are being created and what the unemployment rate is and what the GDP growth is. We can we can do a pretty good job predicting election outcomes on just on those kinds of numbers. Um , but it's not just those numbers that has enabled Trump's MAGA Republicans to be successful. It's a racialized narrative around those , um , around those economic hardships. Right ? It's immigrants are stealing your jobs and eating pets and all of the kinds of things that that they've been saying over the last several years that has that has resonance with people that have some of those share some of those attitudes. And we I think it's it's a mistake to ignore that influence on our politics because for , for for politicians to reach out and tap into people's , um , using sort of populist , anti elitist kind of appeals , but to tap into people's , um , underlying racial attitudes. And obviously this isn't everybody who votes who voted for Trump , but there is a segment of people that could flip back and forth and who are attracted to that kind of rhetoric. And it's always tempting for politicians to use those kinds of tropes. Um , and most of them resist doing so. And that's what's different about Donald Trump. And that that is part of how we got here , Brian.
S3: Since the 1950s , they've been asking surveys to Americans about their belief in democratic principles. And people on paper anyway say they support democracy. You asked them about your rule of law , about due process , about free and fair elections , or like , oh , that's great. I like democracy , but also people are willing to give up on those democratic principles to get substantive outcomes they want. Right. And they're more than they. They give a lot of lip service to their principles when it actually comes down to it , they're happy to abandon them if if they want a particular person elected or if they want a particular policy outcome and so forth. And that's always been the case. I don't think that's actually changed. What's different is that you actually have a politician like Donald Trump who's willing to push that envelope , who's willing to actually , you know , go all out against democracy and willing to go down that path. Whereas in the past. Politicians were always hesitant to do that because they believed that it would ultimately. Backfire. Um.
S1: But , you know , and it seems like he's willing to do that , um , in the name of white supremacy in many cases. I mean , if you look at some of his policies on , gosh , encouraging certain people to have more children and it's all it all has that stench , right ? Of white supremacy. Uh , Lindsay.
S2: This is where I would point again to Viktor Orban in Hungary. Um , and the ways in which we see this administration in the US borrowing a lot of that rhetoric. So in that 2014 speech that I mentioned that Orban gave , where he proudly said that he wanted Hungary to be an illiberal democracy. He said that the country should balance personal autonomy with the collective good. Personal autonomy for him meant that they should reduce levels of individualism. He felt like they'd been corrupted by too much sex , too much violence , too much corruption. And to him , the collective good was clearly white Christian nationalism. And so he continued to make this strong push for an increase in that collective good , which again , he wrapped up in white Christian nationalism , while at the same time reducing levels of individuality and any kind of political rights or civil liberties that supported individualism. And I think that the Trump administration has done much of the same work here , and sort of framed a lot of what they're doing as protection and safety. And that , again , makes it , um , appealing , perhaps to a particular group that can't sort of see through the way that their rights are being eroded.
S1: So , I mean , for many reasons , it sounds like , um , America is headed in this direction of authoritarianism. Um , and much of it is because I guess from what you're saying is that America has not confronted its own issues with racism. But I want to talk about the trend towards authoritarianism across the globe , because many countries are trending away from democracy in general.
S2: Interestingly , some of the surveys that Brian mentioned , particularly with younger voters , they find that they are willing to support more authoritarian principles from leaders on either the left or the right , depending on whether or not they espouse beliefs that would be in line with populism. So generally speaking , it's it's not necessarily a right or a left issue , not necessarily an ideological issue , but more that that sort of sweeping around the world of support for populism generally , the anti elite kind of push that we're seeing.
S1: Brian , I want to talk about the strength of democratic institutions right now.
S3: Congress courts , divides power between federal government , state government , local governments. I mean , that's hard baked into how we've designed our political system. Those divisions can be overcome. It is possible for a party or a president to form coalitions across those different institutions. You know , between the President and Congress and courts and state governments and so forth. And there is a way in which you could overcome those divisions , divisions and basically nullify the checks and balances that are supposed to be there. But that's hard to do. It is not an easy lift. It would take a very , very skilled politician to form those types of of that type of coalition to do that. And I just don't think that Donald Trump is a skilled enough politician to actually pull that off. It is it requires the type of , of of loyalty to him that from other political actors , it would require a give and take to make sure those other political actors are willing to do the hard political work for him. And I'm just I'm just not seeing that. I mean , within certainly between the presidency and Congress that has happened. We actually have seen where Republicans in Congress are basically willing to defer to what President Trump wants. It's not clear to me that's going to happen with other political actors who have power , whether it be state governments or courts or local governments. And so it would require a lot for that to sort of overcome all those divisions of power. And it seems like I'm having difficulty imagining what the strategy would be to actually do that.
S1: I mean , Casey , at the end of the day , I mean , given the legislative branch doesn't seem to be as effective as it could be.
S4: Um , in the Trump versus US case. Uh , they they basically said the president cannot commit a crime , um , including using the pardon power for , uh , basically criminal acts. Right. Or , you know , for for mal intent. Um , which means that anybody who wanted to commit a crime on his behalf could be pardoned. So the courts have empowered the president in some cases. But on the other hand , we do see lots of low and higher level judges , Um , telling the the executive branch that they have to stop doing what they're doing , including the Supreme Court. You know , saying that they have to facilitate the return of , uh , Abrego. Garcia. Um , so I think I think the courts can and they have they probably have public opinion on their side. Vast majority of Americans want the courts , uh , court orders to be followed. Um , but we actually have to see what the justices say. In particular case is before we know whether those checks are going to take place.
S1:
S3: And courts don't want to give up their power to the other branches of government. And I think that's where we're going to see this tension coming up of where the Trump administration is basically trying to weaken the courts as well , so they can concentrate power in the executive branch. And I think the courts are going to push back on that now. Whether they're going to be successful or not is questionable. I mean , the courts can't force people to follow their rulings , right ? I mean , they can't actually like force presidents to do things. So if a president is really determined to ignore the courts , a president can do that. But as Casey suggested , that the public opinion probably is on the side of the courts here. And so I think there will be some type of pushback. Um , what how successful that is , I think remains to be seen. Okay.
S1: Okay.
S3: Andrew Jackson basically ignored a court , very famously ignored a court order. Um , and so what's always made it work is that the courts have legitimacy. Right ? And the politicians have been very hesitant to basically ignore the court , say , for fear of a public backlash. Now , if we get to a place to where the public is willing to accept politicians ignoring court orders. Then ? Yeah. I mean , the politicians would be able to do that. And they're really I mean. So that again , for me , that remains to be seen about how successful the courts will actually be in asserting their autonomy and asserting their power when it comes to conflict with the executive branch.
S1: Still to come. Our panel of political scholars discusses what could be on the horizon for democracy. KPBS Midday Edition returns after the break. Welcome back to KPBS midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. This hour , we're discussing the state of democracy in the U.S. and where we stand on the road to authoritarianism. So where do we go from here ? I mean , let's continue the conversation with Casey Dominguez , professor of political science and international relations at the University of San Diego , also Lindsey Lupo. She's a professor of political science and dean of the School of Humanities , Arts and Public Engagement at Point Loma Nazarene University. Along with Bryan Adams , professor of political science at San Diego State University.
S3: But collectively , there's a lot of influence that the public has , right ? I mean , public opinion really , politicians do pay attention to public opinion. We tend to assume that they don't , but they really do care , right ? They do. They do pay attention to public opinion polls. And you know , whether you know what you think about what's going , what the public thinks about what's going on matters. And they do pay attention to people showing up to congressional town halls and those sorts of things. We've seen some instances of that of where some Republicans now are refusing to do town halls because they don't want to be yelled at by their constituents. Right. Um , politicians take notice of those things. So I think that collectively , if the public were to pay a lot of attention and were to push back on the things that the Trump administration is doing that are not politically popular , that that would have an effect. Um , but again , it requires more than just a handful of people or a to actually take action. It requires a more collective approach.
S1: Well , you know , like historically , public protests have influenced policy , such as they did during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War.
S2: I think that we tend to judge protests and social movements based on policies that come out of them. And I think that that's not how we should be judging them. Protest social movements have a great ability to change rhetoric and to change attitudes. So we've mentioned democratic norms here a few times today. To the extent that the guardrails stay up because democratic norms are forcing them to stay up , I think protests and social movements can help to reinforce those democratic norms.
S1: Do you think mass protests right now would be met with the same kind of state violence , um , as they were met with during the civil rights movement ? Um , and even in some cases during recent protests , social justice movements.
S2: Very high levels of repression will mean that they will squash the particular protest or the whole social movement , but too much repression , too much force , um , reduces their legitimacy. So they're sort of engaging in this game , and they're trying to constantly assess what is going to put them on the winning side. In the case of the United States , um , I think that they could engage in some violence that is as high as the levels that we saw with the civil rights movement. I think that that would be pretty risky. Um , given the amount of access that we have now to cameras and to video. Um , but again , that's where I worry about the messaging around a protest or a social movement in terms of how they could frame it. As , you know , a group of terrorists , outside agitators is the phrase that's been used for over 100 years now. So there's a way in which they could discredit the people that are involved in the protest and in the social movement.
S3: And just to add to that , I think it it depends on what the protest is about and who the protesters are , right. I think in certain contexts , you can imagine on certain issues with certain types of protesters , I could plausibly see a violent reaction to that. I think in a lot of other cases , it'd just be all sorts of political incentives not to do that. But I think the suppression of protest nowadays isn't so much through sort of brute force that you maybe saw during the civil rights movement , but more subtle efforts to limit protests by limiting where they can be , um , how , you know , the requiring them to get permits and other sorts of things along those lines. I think those types of strategies. Are very likely to be deployed to try to limit either the amount of protesting or the effects of the protests.
S1: Is the threat of deportation. You think on a lot of folks minds in terms of of protest and and joining a movement for democracy.
S3: For people who aren't citizens ? Absolutely. I think that definitely is. And that's the intent , right ? I mean , the intent is actually to I mean , one of the intents of that policy is to silence non-citizens in expressing their voice.
S1:
S2: So we see this in other countries where , again , you might not have that brute force. You might not be at risk of deportation. But there are small ways that they can make your life difficult , like losing your job or harassing your family. Um , those are the ways that , again , they could sort of chip away at that willingness to participate in in a protest. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Well , Casey , I Casey also wanted to talk about the role of state and local governments.
S4: And so local governments have a lot of say over how , you know , how people get to express their voice. Um , in terms of resistance. Depends on what it depends on what's going on. Because , you know , local governments in various ways are dependent on the federal government for funding. But on the other hand , the executive branch shouldn't have the ability to cut funding for reasons that are that are , you know , against Congress's wishes. And so some of what's happening now is going to have to be adjudicated by the courts to find out how much local governments can really push back , um , or how much they can resist , you know , the kinds of funding restrictions that might be coming their way. But , you know , one of the things about federalism is government is many , many people in many places. And that can be a good thing.
S3: Constitutionally , the federal government can't force state and local governments to do things right. They can't just sort of tell states , you have to do this , or cities you have to do that. The leverage they have is over the control of grant money , right. Is that the federal government can threaten to take away grant money or not give grant money if the state and local governments don't do what they want them to do on a local level. Cities get about 5 to 10% of their funding from the federal government , so it's not a big chunk of their budgets , but it's enough to make them pay attention to federal wishes , right ? Here's the thing , though. If Trump were to follow through with his threats to take away federal funding , if cities don't do things he wants them to do , he has no more ammunition left. Right. That's that's all the federal government has in terms of like trying to force local governments to to do their bidding. So it's a it's a weapon that is a powerful weapon for the federal government but is limited in what can do , how much it can do. Right. And as Casey mentioned , there's also limits legally of what ? Under what conditions ? You can withdraw grant money from local governments. Same thing with state governments. The biggest funding from the federal government to state governments is Medicaid , which is a very popular program , and transportation funding , which is even more popular. Um , other grant funding , a federal funding for states is there , but it's not nearly as much. And it wouldn't be necessarily devastating to state budgets. So there's yes , there's influence the federal government has , but it is simply not the case. I mean , we are not in a a system where the federal government can run roughshod over state and local governments. I mean , there are limits. There are definite limits , both practically and constitutionally , to federal power.
S1: Well , Lindsay , before I let you go , I want to actually get each of your predictions for what happens next and and what you'll be watching out for. Although of course , none of you have a crystal ball. I get it. But , Brian , I'll start with you on that.
S3: I think I'm going to be more optimistic of the three. I actually think that that we're in a pretty bad place right now in terms of American democracy. I mean , a lot of democratic norms have been threatened. Um , you know , American democracy is not healthy. I actually think we may be near a bottom. Um , I actually think that things may get better as , um , you know , as some of the effects of the policies that have been implemented over the past few months actually start to take hold. Um , especially if we have a recession , as some people are predicting. Um , and other negative consequences from some of these policies. I think there may be some questioning of this and there may be more pushback. I think we were in a position when Trump first came into office. Is that , um , opponents of Trump were really thrown off by how rapid the change was and how quickly it was done. This flood the zone strategy actually was effective at keeping opponents of the Trump administration off balance , but now they've had time to regain their feet. I think you actually may see some effective strategies to counteract some of the things that he's done. Now. It may not work out that way. Lots of things could happen that could change the dynamics of this , but I am a little bit hopeful that some of this democratic backsliding may only be temporary.
S4: Casey , I love the optimism. Um , I , I think we're in for a consistent authoritarian plays over the course of the Trump administration , however long that lasts. Um , so I agree that if the economy bottoms out , um , there's , there's ways that that will be a restriction on anything they can do include up to and including Republicans in Congress , um , bolting , you know , abandoning their support for the Trump administration and its policies. And there's things there's Congress has a lot of tools that it can use. A lot of what the executive branch is doing , Congress has more or less allowed it to do , and it's a small margin in Congress might be affected by a big change in public opinion. But I feel like all of that is real contingent. And there's decisions that judges and Republican members of Congress and people in the public and governors will have to make in order to get us out of this , because I think that the attitude of the administration is clear. They want to consolidate power for themselves and their friends and punish their enemies. And that's that's not that's not going away as a fight that needs to be fought.
S1: Lindsey , I'll give you the final word here.
S2: Authoritarian governments get their legitimacy from performance. So the thing I will be watching is performance. And I think we will know a lot more In 6 to 12 months when we know how the economy is responding. To some of the tactics of the Trump administration. I worry that if performance is sort of stable or , you know , not terrible , that they will just continue as an administration to break down those guardrails. And then by the time we get to 2028 , we're in a place where it's either Trump running again , which I'm not sure how he figures out how to do that , but he claims he can or , for lack of a better word , some sort of puppet running in his place. Um , whether that's Vance or someone else , I'm not sure , but I think there is a lot of time between now and 2028 , and I think that a lot can change. And so I , I will be paying attention to performance , continuing to feel a bit pessimistic , but not letting go of the optimism.
S1: I've been speaking with Casey Dominguez , professor of political science and international relations at the University of San Diego. Casey. Thank you. Thank you. Also , Lyndsey Lupo. She's a professor of political science and dean of the School of Humanities , Arts and Public Engagement at Point Loma Nazarene University. Professor. Thank you.
S2: Thank you. It was great talking to you all.
S1: And Bryan Adams , professor of political science at San Diego State University , thanks for being here.
S3: Thanks is great conversation.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
