There is one glaring flaw in this otherwise thoughtful essay. It fails to identify a democratic alternative. The governors of California and Michigan are highlighted, but they both demonstrated the worst tendencies of the authoritarian Brahmin left during the pandemic. Who has harmed the poor and minorities more than those who denied them access to schools, libraries, basketball courts, and even parks and beaches. Many will never recover.
We have witnessed Chuck Schumer threaten the Supreme Court and the institutionalization of thought and speech crimes by the current administration. Misinformation is just another word for heresy. Everywhere, courts and prosecutors have been weaponized to a degree I thought unimaginable in America. The new version of loyalty oaths, DEI statements, are being codified in California and elsewhere. Respected law professors write books opposing the First Amendment. The Biden Administration has tried to codify attacks on due process through a rewrite of Title IX. Once again, where is the choice?
I watched the film Fahrenheit 451 again the other night. It has been one of my favorite movies since I was a kid. I love the direction by Francois Truffaut and find the acting of Julie Christie to be brilliant. For the first time, I felt depressed at the end of the film. For the first time, serious people are arguing that I must support the firemen in order to protect society.
Yasha correctly points out that our system of government militates against authoritarianism.
So there are two very different future threats to American freedoms.
One: an individual authoritarian figure who takes over and eliminates existing checks and balances centralizing government to become all powerful.
Two: a creeping systemic destruction of checks and balances in the absence of a single authoritarian figure. The Left's impatience with the pace of change is working to weaken the 1st A, to "reform" and stack SCOTUS, increase the size and scope of the federal government, politicize DA's and DOJ and increase law-making in the administrative branch. A weakening of the traditions against selective enforcement is another form of institutional corruption.
IF we ever have a real threat of the first (wannabe dictator type) it would only be after the second type of destruction (of traditions and checks and balances) has already occurred.
Accordingly, the greater actual, demonstrated systemic threat is coming from the Left and the Dems. Only AFTER the loss of checks & balances institutional protections would a Trump-like figure would in worst case scenarios be truly dangerous. 
"it is time to grapple seriously with the question of what would happen if he does."
Other than repeated emotive hysteria from the left...
"He would likely weaken NATO" - This is hilarious given that NATO is already weak because only the US spends its requisite per-GDP on defense. Trump would strengthen NATO by making the other member countries pay their fair share. Why is this such a threat to you libs?
"and undermine Western support for Ukraine."
No, he would implement what the majority of Americans want and that is to stop funding the military industrial war complex with taxpayer money when we have $40 trillion in debt, millions of homeless and crumbling infrastructure... especially when the conflict is a European one... and countries like Germany have been funding Russia by buying up its oil and natural gas.
"He would likely offer tax breaks to billionaires and rich corporations."
This is the most brain-dead liberal slogan. The last Trump tax relief helped the working class and took away New York liberal's mortgage deduction on their high valued property including their vacation home in Martha's Vineyard. There is no intellectual honesty in this "giving tax breaks to the wealthy" when we have a progressive income tax system and thus any increase in income tax hits the upper income bracket harder and any income tax decrease has the opposite effect. The intent of tax reductions are to increase economic activity that improves earning capability for labor... instead of taking more so liberals can hand it out to people to make them dependent on liberals.
"He would likely institute the largest program of mass deportations in American history."
Well yes, but only because the Biden Harris Administration invited in the most illegal immigrants, including 700,000 criminals, in history.
"He may try to fire tens of thousands of civil servants"
You mean he will make government more efficient by eliminating unnecessary agencies, programs and positions to better meet the founding design of the country for limited government.
"and instruct the FBI to prosecute his adversaries."
LOL. Wow, so this is a fear after Democrats instructed the FBI to prosecute its adversaries. I doubt Trump will do the same because only the Democrats play that dirty. But the public would just consider Trump doing the same as turnaround fair play.
"I argued in 2020 that a victory by Joe Biden would weaken the influence of woke ideas. This has broadly proven correct:"
My God... this can only be satire. There isn't any woke topic that has not been inflated since old Joe was placed in the root cellar while the Regime ran the country into the ground.
Yascha again one has a profound respect for your intellect and as an author you have written several well argued books "The Identity Synthesis," being a well-presented book about the ills of Wokism- although you avoided using that word. However, when it comes to Trump you seem to just go to pieces and your German based logic fails you, as you default to the TDS syndrome that has infected all leftist academics. It would seem that you and your contempories are just plain unable to sort out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to interpreting Trump's intentions and utterances. In this article you make very good observations that rightly point out the American Constitution has more than adequate checks and balances to prevent a lone politician wrestling power from the Institutions now in place in America. There is nothing in this article that decries the number or political leanings of the bloated ranks the federal bureaucrats with which all Presidents have to have plans and with which they have to cope. One knows that your daily life brings you into constant contact with academia and it is well known the ratio of leftist professors to those who are right of the political divide is very heavily weighted to the former. With this constant reinforcement by your colleagues, friends, and peers, may be most likely to explain your almost apoplectic writings and fearmongering of what a Trump administration MIGHT foist on America, which just cannot be taken seriously. Usually one likes the Persuasion guest articles and your other articles, which in the main are most insightful, full of facts and very plausible. All except those that are politically myopic, biased and just rants against a Presidential candidate who is running against another candidate with equally suspect intentions who receives no derogatory, pejorative language nor fearmongering about her equally concerning political ideology. Harris is spared, even though she was chosen by appointment and presented as an anointed one at a partisan convention, short circuiting, and Democratic primaries, this is who is opposing Trump in next weeks' election. Condoned by the wording in the Constitution, yes, buy where is the "democracy" in that happening,? Rants are one sided, and really can't be classed as serious journalism, which used to be truthful in content, long on facts and noticeably short on opinion, so that what was presented to the reader was not obviously biased and definitely not just supposition.
It would be nice if I were able to trust the professional "democracy handicappers". Unfortunately, nowadays nobody seems to make much of an effort at objectivity or even show an awareness of his biases. So when I read that a country has experienced "democratic backsliding" I think "Okay, maybe" and won't take it further than that without evidence and analysis I can sink my teeth into.
The problem exists mostly among progressives, if only because I don't see many conservatives in the democracy-handicapping business. I emphatically do not propose that there's a causal relation between one's politics and one's desire and ability to be objective. Still, it leaves me wondering whether Orban is as bad as "everyone" says or why it appears -- until one looks a bit more closely -- as if only conservative governments can experience backsliding.
Others here have pointed out some of the serious problems of the Biden Administration's relationship with democratic ideals. It's not that I'm saying "But what about...?" or claiming that "Everybody does it" or claiming that I know the relative risks. I'm simply asking why I should trust the analysis of anyone whose reasoning on the matter seems motivated.
In many of the arguments that a second Trump administration would be more damaging than the first to our democratic republic, the assumption is that somehow Trump would be able to accept and act on a coherent - albeit repugnant to many - ethos. I see no reason to believe that Donald Trump's leadership style would be any less transactional than during his first term even with a cadre of loyalists surrounding him.
I find it interesting how some people are thinking. Trump did not act like a fascist in his first term, nor did he jail enemies or start WWIII, but all of a sudden he will now be Hitler in a second term. On the other hand, Kamala Harris was an extremely weak presidential candidate, a weak VP and is now the potential savior of the US and the free world. Amazing.
This is far from reassuring. The real question, though, is why on earth we would elect a president who is a threat to constitutional democracy in the first place? It is like saying, “Don’t worry, the bad guys are in your house, but your foundation is very strong.” Great.
Yascha made it sound like the democratic institutions in this country were a rigid object, not amenable to improvements and evolution. That is categorically false. Democracy is a human invention, ingenious but far from perfection, always a work in progress. The way democracy improves is through encountering political challenges that always arises throughout human history. The challenges of populism and Donald Trump are no different. The crucial and constructive question to ask is NOT how to avoid collisions which are unavoidable and very much a matter of natural evolution. But from where and why did these challenges come from? Answers to the latter will help us improve our democracy as a tool of human flourishing instead of inciting fears and resistance to constructive change or evolution. The day we refuse confronting reality and change is the day that the human species loses its natural right to exist. Come on, Yascha, put down your fears and rise to the challenge
Who cares what Trump thinks? He would do what Putin orders. Musk's money for Twitter also came from Putin. The money for Trump's lawyers comes from a bank controlled by Putin's friends.
Trump has never done anything that wasn't to please his creditors. Why do you think he is selling Bibles?
Trump would be president for a week or two, before being displaced by Vance. He nearly was kicked out by reason of insanity less time.
With Vancs installed, Putin will take Ukraine in a couple weeks. Then he'll move on to rebuild USSR 2.0 with Poland and the Republic of Georgia falling first. The second flank he opened up in Israel will continue to distract the West.
Don’t you people get tired of this shtick?
There is one glaring flaw in this otherwise thoughtful essay. It fails to identify a democratic alternative. The governors of California and Michigan are highlighted, but they both demonstrated the worst tendencies of the authoritarian Brahmin left during the pandemic. Who has harmed the poor and minorities more than those who denied them access to schools, libraries, basketball courts, and even parks and beaches. Many will never recover.
We have witnessed Chuck Schumer threaten the Supreme Court and the institutionalization of thought and speech crimes by the current administration. Misinformation is just another word for heresy. Everywhere, courts and prosecutors have been weaponized to a degree I thought unimaginable in America. The new version of loyalty oaths, DEI statements, are being codified in California and elsewhere. Respected law professors write books opposing the First Amendment. The Biden Administration has tried to codify attacks on due process through a rewrite of Title IX. Once again, where is the choice?
I watched the film Fahrenheit 451 again the other night. It has been one of my favorite movies since I was a kid. I love the direction by Francois Truffaut and find the acting of Julie Christie to be brilliant. For the first time, I felt depressed at the end of the film. For the first time, serious people are arguing that I must support the firemen in order to protect society.
Yasha correctly points out that our system of government militates against authoritarianism.
So there are two very different future threats to American freedoms.
One: an individual authoritarian figure who takes over and eliminates existing checks and balances centralizing government to become all powerful.
Two: a creeping systemic destruction of checks and balances in the absence of a single authoritarian figure. The Left's impatience with the pace of change is working to weaken the 1st A, to "reform" and stack SCOTUS, increase the size and scope of the federal government, politicize DA's and DOJ and increase law-making in the administrative branch. A weakening of the traditions against selective enforcement is another form of institutional corruption.
IF we ever have a real threat of the first (wannabe dictator type) it would only be after the second type of destruction (of traditions and checks and balances) has already occurred.
Accordingly, the greater actual, demonstrated systemic threat is coming from the Left and the Dems. Only AFTER the loss of checks & balances institutional protections would a Trump-like figure would in worst case scenarios be truly dangerous. 
"it is time to grapple seriously with the question of what would happen if he does."
Other than repeated emotive hysteria from the left...
"He would likely weaken NATO" - This is hilarious given that NATO is already weak because only the US spends its requisite per-GDP on defense. Trump would strengthen NATO by making the other member countries pay their fair share. Why is this such a threat to you libs?
"and undermine Western support for Ukraine."
No, he would implement what the majority of Americans want and that is to stop funding the military industrial war complex with taxpayer money when we have $40 trillion in debt, millions of homeless and crumbling infrastructure... especially when the conflict is a European one... and countries like Germany have been funding Russia by buying up its oil and natural gas.
"He would likely offer tax breaks to billionaires and rich corporations."
This is the most brain-dead liberal slogan. The last Trump tax relief helped the working class and took away New York liberal's mortgage deduction on their high valued property including their vacation home in Martha's Vineyard. There is no intellectual honesty in this "giving tax breaks to the wealthy" when we have a progressive income tax system and thus any increase in income tax hits the upper income bracket harder and any income tax decrease has the opposite effect. The intent of tax reductions are to increase economic activity that improves earning capability for labor... instead of taking more so liberals can hand it out to people to make them dependent on liberals.
"He would likely institute the largest program of mass deportations in American history."
Well yes, but only because the Biden Harris Administration invited in the most illegal immigrants, including 700,000 criminals, in history.
"He may try to fire tens of thousands of civil servants"
You mean he will make government more efficient by eliminating unnecessary agencies, programs and positions to better meet the founding design of the country for limited government.
"and instruct the FBI to prosecute his adversaries."
LOL. Wow, so this is a fear after Democrats instructed the FBI to prosecute its adversaries. I doubt Trump will do the same because only the Democrats play that dirty. But the public would just consider Trump doing the same as turnaround fair play.
"I argued in 2020 that a victory by Joe Biden would weaken the influence of woke ideas. This has broadly proven correct:"
My God... this can only be satire. There isn't any woke topic that has not been inflated since old Joe was placed in the root cellar while the Regime ran the country into the ground.
Amen, brother.
Yascha again one has a profound respect for your intellect and as an author you have written several well argued books "The Identity Synthesis," being a well-presented book about the ills of Wokism- although you avoided using that word. However, when it comes to Trump you seem to just go to pieces and your German based logic fails you, as you default to the TDS syndrome that has infected all leftist academics. It would seem that you and your contempories are just plain unable to sort out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to interpreting Trump's intentions and utterances. In this article you make very good observations that rightly point out the American Constitution has more than adequate checks and balances to prevent a lone politician wrestling power from the Institutions now in place in America. There is nothing in this article that decries the number or political leanings of the bloated ranks the federal bureaucrats with which all Presidents have to have plans and with which they have to cope. One knows that your daily life brings you into constant contact with academia and it is well known the ratio of leftist professors to those who are right of the political divide is very heavily weighted to the former. With this constant reinforcement by your colleagues, friends, and peers, may be most likely to explain your almost apoplectic writings and fearmongering of what a Trump administration MIGHT foist on America, which just cannot be taken seriously. Usually one likes the Persuasion guest articles and your other articles, which in the main are most insightful, full of facts and very plausible. All except those that are politically myopic, biased and just rants against a Presidential candidate who is running against another candidate with equally suspect intentions who receives no derogatory, pejorative language nor fearmongering about her equally concerning political ideology. Harris is spared, even though she was chosen by appointment and presented as an anointed one at a partisan convention, short circuiting, and Democratic primaries, this is who is opposing Trump in next weeks' election. Condoned by the wording in the Constitution, yes, buy where is the "democracy" in that happening,? Rants are one sided, and really can't be classed as serious journalism, which used to be truthful in content, long on facts and noticeably short on opinion, so that what was presented to the reader was not obviously biased and definitely not just supposition.
It would be nice if I were able to trust the professional "democracy handicappers". Unfortunately, nowadays nobody seems to make much of an effort at objectivity or even show an awareness of his biases. So when I read that a country has experienced "democratic backsliding" I think "Okay, maybe" and won't take it further than that without evidence and analysis I can sink my teeth into.
The problem exists mostly among progressives, if only because I don't see many conservatives in the democracy-handicapping business. I emphatically do not propose that there's a causal relation between one's politics and one's desire and ability to be objective. Still, it leaves me wondering whether Orban is as bad as "everyone" says or why it appears -- until one looks a bit more closely -- as if only conservative governments can experience backsliding.
Others here have pointed out some of the serious problems of the Biden Administration's relationship with democratic ideals. It's not that I'm saying "But what about...?" or claiming that "Everybody does it" or claiming that I know the relative risks. I'm simply asking why I should trust the analysis of anyone whose reasoning on the matter seems motivated.
In many of the arguments that a second Trump administration would be more damaging than the first to our democratic republic, the assumption is that somehow Trump would be able to accept and act on a coherent - albeit repugnant to many - ethos. I see no reason to believe that Donald Trump's leadership style would be any less transactional than during his first term even with a cadre of loyalists surrounding him.
I find it interesting how some people are thinking. Trump did not act like a fascist in his first term, nor did he jail enemies or start WWIII, but all of a sudden he will now be Hitler in a second term. On the other hand, Kamala Harris was an extremely weak presidential candidate, a weak VP and is now the potential savior of the US and the free world. Amazing.
Totally.
This is far from reassuring. The real question, though, is why on earth we would elect a president who is a threat to constitutional democracy in the first place? It is like saying, “Don’t worry, the bad guys are in your house, but your foundation is very strong.” Great.
Yascha made it sound like the democratic institutions in this country were a rigid object, not amenable to improvements and evolution. That is categorically false. Democracy is a human invention, ingenious but far from perfection, always a work in progress. The way democracy improves is through encountering political challenges that always arises throughout human history. The challenges of populism and Donald Trump are no different. The crucial and constructive question to ask is NOT how to avoid collisions which are unavoidable and very much a matter of natural evolution. But from where and why did these challenges come from? Answers to the latter will help us improve our democracy as a tool of human flourishing instead of inciting fears and resistance to constructive change or evolution. The day we refuse confronting reality and change is the day that the human species loses its natural right to exist. Come on, Yascha, put down your fears and rise to the challenge
You paint a horrifying picture. I wish I could laugh it off.
Who cares what Trump thinks? He would do what Putin orders. Musk's money for Twitter also came from Putin. The money for Trump's lawyers comes from a bank controlled by Putin's friends.
Trump has never done anything that wasn't to please his creditors. Why do you think he is selling Bibles?
Trump would be president for a week or two, before being displaced by Vance. He nearly was kicked out by reason of insanity less time.
With Vancs installed, Putin will take Ukraine in a couple weeks. Then he'll move on to rebuild USSR 2.0 with Poland and the Republic of Georgia falling first. The second flank he opened up in Israel will continue to distract the West.