Consolidate Power

Summary

Autocracy in America: Consolidating Power

Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast Information:

• Title: Autocracy in America
• Host/Author: The Atlantic
• Description: There are authoritarian tactics already at work in the United States. To root them out, you have to know where to look.
• Episode: Consolidate Power
• Release Date: September 20, 2024

---

1. Introduction: Recognizing Authoritarian Tactics in the U.S. ([00:59] - [03:40])

The episode opens with Peter Pomerantsev, a senior fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, discussing his experiences under authoritarian regimes. He highlights a "sense that the institutions of the state, the police, the tax services, the bureaucracy, they're essentially these sort of dangerous animals that are not working for you, but working in the interests of the powerful" ([00:59]). Ann Applebaum, a staff writer at The Atlantic, elaborates on the concept of state capture, using Poland between 2015 and 2023 as a case study. They emphasize that authoritarianism isn't a distant threat but a present danger within democratic frameworks.

---

2. Historical Case Study: Huey Long and the Louisiana Dictatorship ([03:01] - [13:34])

Richard White, author of Kingfish, a biography of Huey Long, provides an in-depth look at Huey Long, a prominent Louisiana politician in the 1930s who exemplified the consolidation of power akin to dictatorial regimes.

• Early Political Career and Rise to Power ([03:16] - [07:05]): Long's charismatic approach and populist policies garnered significant support. He promised extensive reforms, such as building infrastructure and providing free school books, which initially benefited Louisiana, one of the poorest states at the time.

• Shift to Authoritarianism ([07:05] - [09:33]): As Long imposed ambitious projects, his methods became increasingly autocratic. When faced with opposition, he resorted to smear campaigns, such as falsely accusing a war hero of having syphilis ([07:44] - [08:07]). A blockade of impeachment efforts ensued, where Long bribed senators to survive charges of corruption and misconduct ([08:07] - [08:33]).

• Consolidation of Power ([09:01] - [12:24]): Long's playbook included capturing the legislature, dominating independent institutions, intimidating the media, and employing violence. Peter Pomerantsev summarizes Long’s steps: "capture the legislature, take over independent institutions, intimidate the media, and then you employ violence" ([09:33], [12:24]). Long's regime led to enduring socio-economic issues in Louisiana, highlighting the long-term detrimental effects of his authoritarian rule ([13:15]).

• Modern Implications ([13:28] - [13:34]): The episode draws parallels between Long’s tactics and contemporary political moves in Louisiana, suggesting that the seeds of authoritarianism planted in the past continue to influence present-day politics.

---

3. Modern-Day Parallels: Authoritarian Tendencies in Contemporary Politics ([13:34] - [18:23])

The discussion shifts to recent political developments in Louisiana, where Governor Jeff Landry proposed a rushed constitutional convention without public consultation ([13:34] - [15:03]). Ashley Kennedy Shelton, founder of the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, criticizes the move as a tactic to centralize power, mirroring Long's strategies ([14:30] - [15:03]).

• Normalization of Authoritarian Tactics ([16:03] - [17:17]): Shelton warns that such attempts to alter state constitutions without transparency could set a precedent for similar actions nationwide. This reflects a broader strategy where authoritarian practices seeded in the Deep South can proliferate across the country ([16:03] - [17:17]).

• Threats at the Federal Level ([17:17] - [18:23]): The conversation explores the vulnerability of U.S. federal institutions to similar tactics. Amanda Carpenter, former communications director for Senator Ted Cruz and current executive at Protect Democracy, emphasizes how modern-day authoritarians could manipulate federal agencies to consolidate power ([19:21] - [19:52]).

---

4. Mechanisms of Power Consolidation in Modern Government ([18:24] - [23:28])

The episode delves into specific strategies that could undermine democratic institutions:

• Manipulation of Federal Agencies ([19:21] - [20:28]): Amanda Carpenter discusses Schedule F, a proposed classification that would allow the President to remove career civil servants easily. She explains how this could enable the replacement of experienced bureaucrats with loyalists ([19:59] - [20:28]).

  "Restoring the President's authority to remove rogue bureaucrats, and I will wield that power very aggressively." ([20:07] - Amanda Carpenter)

• Control Over the Judiciary and Bureaucracy ([20:28] - [22:27]): By appointing loyalists to key positions within the judiciary and other independent bodies, an authoritarian leader can ensure unchallenged power. Peter Pomerantsev highlights how such manipulation can lead to censorship and bias in crucial regulatory agencies like the FCC.

  "Should Donald Trump be successful in implementing his ideas to take away many of these career civil servants and replace them with his loyalists." ([21:04] - Ann Applebaum)

• Intimidation and Censorship of the Media ([22:27] - [23:28]): The normalization of attacking the media undermines public trust and restricts dissent, essential for a functioning democracy. Amanda Carpenter points out the ease with which media outlets could be targeted once loyalists control regulating bodies.

  "If there is someone who actively seeks out to abuse those powers, and that is something that authoritarians explicitly do." ([22:49] - Amanda Carpenter)

---

5. Risks to the Military and Law Enforcement Institutions ([23:28] - [30:22])

The episode explores the critical role of the military in maintaining democratic integrity.

• Tom Nichols on Civil-Military Relations ([25:03] - [27:16]): Tom Nichols, professor emeritus at the Naval War College, discusses the importance of ethical standards within the military that resist political interference. He warns that without these safeguards, the military could be co-opted to support authoritarian agendas.

  "Everything in this country operates on the functional equivalent of a handshake. ... Democracies function on trust." ([26:10] - Tom Nichols)

• Potential for Military Misuse ([27:16] - [30:22]): The conversation outlines scenarios where the military could be used domestically to intimidate civilians or manipulate electoral processes. Peter Pomerantsev references extremist proposals, such as using the military to "protect" elections, which would effectively be a military coup.

  "Most Americans would find scary and many others would find, and I'm one of them, would find deeply objectionable and un American. That's functionally a military coup." ([30:08] - Tom Nichols)

---

6. Conclusion: The Fragility of Democratic Norms and Institutions ([30:22] - [32:18])

The episode concludes by emphasizing the delicate balance of democratic institutions and the ease with which they can be undermined through coordinated authoritarian tactics. Ann Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev stress the necessity of vigilance and active resistance to protect against the erosion of democratic norms.

"If you have a handful, five, six in the right positions, and then they can deftly use the chain of command to issue orders that are not obviously illegal, or at least illegal on their face." ([30:33] - Tom Nichols)

Teaser for Next Episode: The hosts hint at exploring international democratic alliances and ongoing global fights against authoritarian regimes in the next episode.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Peter Pomerantsev ([00:59]):
  "One of the main features that I experienced when I lived under authoritarian regimes is this sense that the institutions of the state... they're captured."

• Richard White ([03:23]):
  "As a former governor and later a U.S. senator from Louisiana, Huey Long dove headfirst into spending."

• Amanda Carpenter ([19:59]):
  "Donald Trump has said explicitly on day one of his presidency he's going to Implement an order known as Schedule F."

• Tom Nichols ([26:10]):
  "We have imbued our men and women in uniform with the idea that interfering in politics is repulsive to them."

---

Final Thoughts

"Consolidate Power" serves as a compelling examination of how authoritarian tactics, historically embodied by figures like Huey Long, can resurface in modern democratic contexts. Through expert insights and historical parallels, the podcast underscores the importance of safeguarding democratic institutions against the subtle erosion of checks and balances. Listeners are encouraged to remain vigilant and proactive in defending the democratic values that underpin American society.

Transcript

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways.

[Ryan Reynolds]

To tell you that Mint's offer of.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal.

[Ryan Reynolds]

So there goes my big idea for the commercial.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

Of $45 for a three month plan.

[Ann Applebaum]

Equivalent to $15 per month.

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra.

[Ryan Reynolds]

See mintmobile.com this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

And one of the main features that I experienced when I lived under authoritarian regimes is this sense that the institutions of the state, the police, the tax services, the bureaucracy, they're essentially these sort of dangerous animals that are not working for you, but working in the interests of the powerful, right?

[Ann Applebaum]

As though they could come after you if you get in the way.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So you have all these institutions which in a democracy are meant to serve you, the people, but in an authoritarian regime, they are. Well, they're captured.

[Ann Applebaum]

In fact, state capture is the term that political scientists use to describe this. And I watched it happen in Poland between 2015 and last year. An autocratic populist party won a legitimate election, but then began to act like they owned everything. They fired civil servants, they replaced them with people's friends and party loyalists. They allegedly arranged for state institutions to give money to foundations, which eventually wound up enriching party members or else funding their election campaigns that's being investigated right now. They used the tax office and the prosecutor's office to investigate their enemies, their political rivals, including me. My husband and I had to hire lawyers and spent a lot of time going through documents in order to counter false accusations. And it was not amusing. It was a form of state backed political harassment. Now, I guess it's the kind of thing Americans can't imagine they would ever deal with because, I don't know, our tradition of checks and balances is too long and Americans would never stand for that. We would protest and struggle. No way.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Yes way is what I found out. I mean, there is a pervasive sense in America that it's exceptional and obviously America is very, very special. But since I started researching this show, I've found that maybe America isn't quite as exceptional as sometimes people feel. Cause a leader did rise to power here and manipulate the of power to his desires.

[Richard White]

Huey Long did more good for any American state than any politician in history. The paradox is that Huey Long did more harm than any politician in any state in American history.

[Ann Applebaum]

I'm Ann Applebaum, a staff writer at the Atlantic.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

I'm Peter Pomerantsev, a senior fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

[Ann Applebaum]

This is Autocracy in America.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

In this podcast, we are not talking about some distant dystopian totalitarian state.

[Ann Applebaum]

This is not a show about the future of America. There are authoritarian tactics already at work.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Here, and we're going to show you where.

[Ann Applebaum]

Psychological corruption, widening apathy, perhaps the birth of kleptocracy.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

And in this episode, the Takeover.

[Huey Long]

How many men ever went to a barbecue and would let one man take off the table what's intended for 9/10 of the people to eat? The only way you'll ever be able to feed the balance of the people is to make that man come back and bring back some of that grub he ain't got no business with.

[Richard White]

Huey liked to brag that he grew up barefoot and hungry, but really he didn't. He grew up in a large middle class family. They had a two story frame house, they had electricity, they had water.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Richard White is the author of Kingfish, a biography of Huey Long.

[Richard White]

When he was up north, Louisiana, he would brag to the audience that when he was a kid, he'd hook up the horse and buggy and take his grandmother to a Baptist church. On Sunday, when he was down south, he would brag to the audience that on Sunday he would hook up in horse and buggy and take his grandmother to Catholic mass. Local politician said, you know Huey, how can you tell those lies? And he said, hell, we didn't even have a horse.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Wyatt has chronicled how Long basically invented a playbook for how one man can take over the institutions of a place, in this case Louisiana, for his own private gain.

[Richard White]

It was a state that was split and either you were absolutely for Huey Long or violently against him, and there was very little in between.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

And what I find so fascinating about Huey Long is that in a way, he became a classic and very recognizable autocrat, but at the same time, a really, really American one.

[Ann Applebaum]

In what way?

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Well, look, he was an entertainer and a salesman, literally, you know, one of his early Jobs was as a salesman going around Louisiana. And he always continued being an entertainer and a salesman, even as he took away people's rights. He had a very dramatic story. He died unexpectedly. He was killed in the Louisiana state Capitol, assassinated by the son in law of a political rival. Though again, it's a confusing story. There's some question about whether that man merely punched him and then Long was shot by a deflected bullet when his own security detail opened fire. What's for sure is that he was cut down at the peak of his power. But his life in politics actually started with a loss.

[Richard White]

In 1924, he ran for governor. He didn't do well. He ran in third. But as soon as he lost in 1924, he'd never stop campaigning. And for the next four years he did nothing but campaign for governor.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

What was Louisiana like at the time?

[Richard White]

At that time, I mean, the country was going through the Depression. Everyone was looking for an answer. And every extreme group you can come up with, whether it be far right or far left, was very active during that time.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

What was his pitch to the voters? What made him unique?

[Richard White]

Oh, he promised them everything. And I don't think they really cared whether he was truthful or not. He was the only one giving them any hope, whether it be false or not.

[Ann Applebaum]

How many times have we heard that before? I will solve all your problems. Only I can do it from someone who craves power, Right, Anne?

[Peter Pomerantsev]

And often they promise things to people who have very little and then they don't deliver. But actually in the beginning, when Long was finally elected, he did deliver on some of his big goals. Louisiana was one of the poorest states in the USA and there was a lot to improve.

[Richard White]

He built thousands of miles of new roads. He brought Louisiana out of the horse and buggy days. He gave the farmers a homestead exemption. He gave the school children free school books so they could finally go to school.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So, Anne, these were popular policies, but they weren't cheap. Long, first as governor and later As a U.S. senator from Louisiana, dove headfirst into spending. One of the things he wanted to do was impose a tax on the giant oil companies in Louisiana to raise funds. Some legislators pushed back, so Long kind of went at them. He would smear them with fake stories, for example.

[Richard White]

Crazy, crazy stuff. He was very, very creative.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

He accused a war hero of having syphilis. Others he just called names.

[Richard White]

One of his opponents had a beard and it was old feather duster, for example.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

A block of legislators opened up an impeachment against Long for 19 charges which included corruption, favoritism, oppression in office, gross misconduct, and just general incompetence.

[Richard White]

It came down to the last minute. He bought off a couple of senators. He gave them money and women and anything he could. And finally, he survived impeachment. After that, he was a different person. There were two hughies. The Huey before the impeachment who did all those good things, and the Huey after the impeachment, where he became vengeful. He wanted to crush every one of his enemies, and he did.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

In Louisiana in the 1930s, the governor of the state, Huey Long, became, in the words of a contemporary, the first true dictator out of the soil of America. He put in place a playbook that showed how a wannabe American dictator can capture the state, can overcome checks and balances, can make the powerful unaccountable to the truth. Step one, capture the legislature so it succumbs to your every whim.

[Richard White]

He started with the legislature. He would buy off the sheriff, buy off the big wheels. One by one, he conquered the legislature. He would walk onto the house floor, and off the top of his head, he would dictate law after law after law. He would gerrymander political divisions. He would change election dates. He would change the length of office. He would choose the people who counted the votes in one election. For example, in St. Bernard parish, you go to the records and you'll see that the voters of that election voted in alphabetical order. Can you figure that out?

[Peter Pomerantsev]

That's pretty sloppy cheating.

[Richard White]

No, it's not sloppy. It's blatant. They let him do it.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So, Anne, so much of this stuff is familiar to me from Eastern Europe. When an autocrat like Putin fakes an election, he wants everyone to know that he's faked the election in order to show his power. It's not about kidding people. It's not like, ahaha, I cheated on the election. It's more like saying I'm cheating on the election and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Ann Applebaum]

Yes, because sometimes when you lie, the point isn't to convince people. It's just to show how powerful you are.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Right. And in order to wield that power, there is a second step Long took. So first, he got the legislature under his thumb. Second, supposedly independent bodies were dominated by Huey Long too.

[Richard White]

He would choose all the boards and commissions. Every schoolteacher had to get permission from Baton Rouge for their job. And if they were from a family that opposed him, they lost their job.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Long continued with his with his playbook, including steps three and four. You capture the courts and intimidate the media.

[Richard White]

He packed the courts. He got rid of the few judges who opposed him. And once you have the courts in the legislature and you've already got the executive, you. You have all three branches of government, including passing a gag law on newspapers that prohibit them from criticizing him. So that's, you know, the fourth branch, be it may.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So basically, censorship.

[Richard White]

Yes, absolutely.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

And finally, step five, violence during an election.

[Richard White]

When people would get kidnapped and disappear for a while, Huey was doing it. I mean, his people were doing it. He used both the state police force and the national guard as his own personal police force. He would arrest his enemies. He set up machine gun nests around the capitol. He declared martial law in several towns that opposed him. There was nothing off the books for Huey.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

If I were to arrive to Louisiana in, I don't know, 1933, would I realize that I was in a quasi dictatorship or would it look like any other American state?

[Richard White]

Well, you would recognize right from the beginning, you either had to be for Huey or against him. Huey Long was not a politician. He was a demagogue.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So there you have Long's playbook for state capture. Capture the legislature, take over independent institutions, you intimidate the media, and then you employ violence. And the whole thing is made possible with the propaganda that strategically divides the state, where you have blind loyalty from your voters who will always support you in anything, and I mean anything that you want to do.

[Ann Applebaum]

And you have to ask, what was the long term effect of all that? His tenure didn't lay out a system designed to keep the state out of hard times indefinitely. Fast forward to today, and it's still an incredibly poor place.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

It's still near the bottom of the list for poverty, life expectancy, literacy, overall health.

[Ann Applebaum]

The most amazing thing that I have learned recently about Louisiana is that this kind of politics continues to this day. There are still attempts to capture Louisiana's institutions. Just this summer, the governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, made a move that Huey Long himself might have been impressed with. He called for a constitutional convention, making it possible, in theory, to rewrite the entire Louisiana state constitution with all of its checks and balances, changing all the rules without any public consultation in the space of a couple of weeks.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

It's kind of like maybe cleaning up.

[Richard White]

Your yard in springtime, right?

[Huey Long]

Raking the leaves, taking some of the weeds out of the landscape, making the place beautiful and more attractive.

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

This was absolutely about, you know, creating a scenario where there's absolute power.

[Ann Applebaum]

Ashley Kennedy Shelton is the founder, president and CEO of the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, a voter engagement organization in Louisiana.

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

Jeff Landry ran on him wanting to have a Constitutional Convention. This is a, you know, conservative governor with a conservative House and Senate. He's not been clear with anybody exactly why he wants to open the Constitution. Once you open it, it is open and they can do whatever they want.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So, Anne, why is this a big deal? Has this never happened in the U.S.

[Ann Applebaum]

To be clear, a Constitutional Convention in and of itself, though rare these days, is not unheard of. The last one to take place in Louisiana was back in the 1970s, but that one took place with some really different arrangements.

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

So in 1974, when we had the last Constitutional Convention, you know, it was a process to actually begin planning the Constitutional Convention. You know, years prior, the citizens of the state actually voted on delegates to participate in the Constitutional Convention and created a real process through which they would evaluate and address the, you know, the issues within the Constitution that they felt were critical and important.

[Ann Applebaum]

But this time around, things were approached differently.

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

We're trying to do one in two weeks, which doesn't make any sense. And nobody's disagreeing that our Constitution probably needs to be tidied up. But what doesn't make sense is that there's absolutely no citizen input and there's, you know, and that there's this two.

[Ann Applebaum]

Week period and the, and the tradition of autocracy. How does this fit into that?

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

You know, I think when you look at Louisiana historically, I mean, we've had so many lively characters, right? From Huey P. Long to Edwin Edwards to our current governor, like Jeff Landry, you know, like everybody puts their spin on it.

[Ann Applebaum]

Peter, I can see the skeptics sort of turning away from this story, shrugging this off as a local quirk.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

It does feel a little bit enticing to chalk this up as some sort of Louisiana tradition.

[Ann Applebaum]

Right? Except that. But you and I know from studying how democracies diminish that this could be a sign of something bigger. And I asked Ashley Kennedy Shelton what she thought about that idea. Are you seeing this happening in other places? You think this is a national plan?

[Ashley Kennedy Shelton]

Much like most bad policy, it gets seeded in the Deep South, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and then kind of sent wholesale to the rest of the country. We have talked to our folks in Alabama, you know, happened there recently. It's been at least maybe a year. But I think that this Constitutional Convention was about normalizing this idea of opening up state constitutions with the ultimate goal of opening the United States Constitution.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So, Anne, what happened in the end.

[Ann Applebaum]

Essentially, time ran out. The Louisiana legislators didn't take up the governor's request. Shelton and others organized a kind of statewide campaign against it. They put everybody on high alert that this could be dangerous, this could undermine rights, this could undermine other kinds of institutions. But doesn't mean the idea won't come back.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

But so how likely is this at the federal level?

[Ann Applebaum]

We'll get to that after the break.

[Ryan Reynolds]

At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments. It's about you, your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. [e-mail], the only thing we treat better than Windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost. Rules and restrictions apply.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

And hearing you talk with Ashley Kennedy Shelton, and thinking back to the story of Hugh Long, it sort of makes me wonder if this could happen in Louisiana. Could a takeover by one person really happen at the national level?

[Ann Applebaum]

Well, theoretically, it's not supposed to be able to happen in the US because of our system of checks and balances. In other words, if we had an executive who overreached, then he would be blocked by the courts or blocked by Congress. If Congress became too greedy for power, then the other institutions would check them, too. That's the nature of the system. It's supposed to make exactly this kind of state capture impossible.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Right. But recently I've learned that the systems of government meant to protect the US Are kind of more malleable and spongy than I thought. I talked to Amanda Carpenter. She's the former communications director for a Republican Senator, Ted Cruz. And now she works at Protect Democracy, that's an NGO that brings court cases to defend democratic values and rights.

[Amanda Carpenter]

Modern day authoritarians do not come into power by by brute force. Modern day authoritarians typically come to power competing in and winning democratic elections. But then once they get into power, tilting the levers of government, tilting all the levers of power in their favor.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

The levers of power she's talking about. Turns out they can have a big impact when it comes to how federal agencies are run.

[Huey Long]

Here's my plan to dismantle the deep state and reclaim our democracy from Washington corruption once and for all.

[Amanda Carpenter]

Donald Trump has said explicitly on day one of his presidency he's going to Implement an order known as Schedule F.

[Huey Long]

Restoring the President's authority to remove rogue bureaucrats, and I will wield that power very aggressively.

[Amanda Carpenter]

That would provide the basis for him to purge up to tens of thousands of career civil servants, then creating openings in which he can replace those positions with loyalists.

[Huey Long]

We will clean out all of the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus, and there are plenty of them. The departments and agencies that have been weaponized will be completely overhauled so that faceless bureaucrats will never again be able to target and persecute conservatives, Christians or the left's political enemies, which they're doing now at a level that nobody can believe.

[Ann Applebaum]

Peter, every U.S. president regularly chooses thousands of people to work for them, agency heads and cabinet members. But what's being described here is a bit more serious than that.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Yes, the threat is to fire experts, get rid of people who have worked in their job for years, people who understand how to make the system work for the public. To me, it definitely sounds like Huey Long.

[Ann Applebaum]

It's exactly the kind of thing that the Polish far right or the Venezuelan left or, or the Hungarian government has tried to do in order to capture the state, to use that term. Again, take it over, stuff it with loyalists.

[Amanda Carpenter]

In the out years that Donald Trump has been out of power, his allies have been closely studying the government and creating a sort of intellectual framework that would allow Donald Trump to act on all authoritarian impulses. A lot of it centers on the idea that there is no such thing as any independent government agency. You know, here in America, we do sort of operate under the norm that the Department of Justice, the fcc, the epa, all these government agencies operate with some amount of independence, meaning that the President cannot directly interfere with their day to day activities. That is a norm.

[Ann Applebaum]

And norm is not a law. A norm is a convention. It's a thing that we all agree about, but it's not written down anywhere. It's not in the Constitution, it's not in any other kind of law. If it's broken, there isn't a legal way to fix it.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Right. And it's not hard to imagine, is it, how this might play out with an agency that's linked to an industry that a wannabe autocrat openly despises. So take the Federal Communications Commission, that's the one that regulates media. Once you have loyalists all throughout an agency like that, the agenda of a leader with autocratic tendencies could be more efficiently pursued.

[Amanda Carpenter]

Should Donald Trump be successful in implementing his ideas to take away many of these career civil servants and replace them with his loyalists. What's to stop him from withholding the FCC license from certain broadcast outlets? What's to stop him from tripling the postage rates to punish Jeff Bezos? There are so many tools available in our government. If there is someone who actively seeks out to abuse those powers, and that is something that authoritarians explicitly do.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

It turns out that just like Long used the tax authorities to attack his enemies in Louisiana, a wannabe authoritarian at the federal level can weaponize the irs.

[Amanda Carpenter]

The IRS is certainly a vector for abuse of power. I think President Nixon targeted political enemies, and then even in the first Trump administration, you've had his former chief of staff, John Kelly, tell the press President Trump wanted to use the IRS to harass former FBI Director James Comey.

[Ann Applebaum]

Amanda Carpenter makes it all sound pretty easy. One could just follow in Long's footsteps and capture the courts, the bureaucracy, the tax authorities, attack the media, and nobody would stop you.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Yeah, but attacking the media is, that's, that's one level of menace. But, but Long used violence as well, and he employed the security services for his own gain. Amanda Carpenter thinks even that kind of direct violence could be, well, pretty possible.

[Amanda Carpenter]

One scary way that this sort of comes into focus is President Trump, during his first term, and this is well reported, has asked his security officials, well, how come you can't just shoot immigrants coming over the border? How come we can't just shoot protesters? And the answer is, because that is a violation of the law. I mean, not only is it immoral, but we will not do this for you. The idea of stamping out independence at these agencies, is that so that no one actually tells the President? No. President Trump has said many times in true authoritarian fashion, that I have Article 2 power to do whatever I want.

[Tom Nichols]

We've been lucky. I shouldn't say lucky. We've had a good system of civil military relations.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

And you know Tom Nichols, he's your colleague at the Atlantic, but he's also a professor emeritus at the Naval War College.

[Tom Nichols]

We have imbued our men and women in uniform with the idea that interfering in politics is repulsive to them, that it violates their sense of their own identity.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

We've been talking about a whole variety of levers of power and types of control. But I wanted to talk with Nichols about the military.

[Ann Applebaum]

The vision of those boots on the ground is very hard to shake, but at the same time, it seems super far fetched.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Well, this is what I thought, too. But in talking with Nichols, I became increasingly and alarmingly aware of, of how much more within Reach. It might be.

[Tom Nichols]

Everything in this country operates on the functional equivalent of a handshake. And that's good. Let me just be really clear.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

That's good.

[Tom Nichols]

I had a wonderful philosophy professor in college who was trying to explain to, you know, a bunch of unmarried kids how you don't want to have a law and a contract for everything, right? If you're married and you have a contract that says, I will take out the garbage, you will do the dishes, I will tell you once a day that I love you, you agree at least once a day to hug our children and so on, then you don't have a marriage. You know, marriage, like a lot of social relationships, functions on trust and cooperation and love and democracies function on trust. Countries that have, like, really long, detailed constitutions tend to have problems because they felt the need, you know, they felt the need to write every single thing down that you could possibly do wrong.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

It's like a very bad marriage. We're gonna put you, we're gonna put everything into a list, right?

[Tom Nichols]

It's like having a 57 page prenup. You know, maybe if you have to have 100 pages of a prenup, maybe this marriage wasn't a great idea to begin with, you know.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

So, Ann, Tom Nichols laid out for me a somewhat frightening, okay, actually a very frightening scenario about how an aspiring autocrats could capture the military. It starts with appointing yes men and yes women in the top spots. And when you're unable to do that, you just leave the office empty.

[Tom Nichols]

Let's look at what happened at the end of the Trump presidency where, as one of my friends in the military, retired military officer, said to me, the two most common names on doors at the Pentagon were vacant and acting. If you don't care about Senate confirmation, if you don't care about the guardrails, if you don't care about the norms and the laws that govern these institutions, then you can just say, you know, the president has the power to just fire people.

[Ann Applebaum]

And of course, the idea that you have acting heads of departments or temporary people in charge contributes to the idea that there's something plastic and fake and empty about government, that it's just not working anymore, that we don't have real people in real jobs.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

As I was talking to Tom, I was kind of still left wondering practically, what would a wannabe autocrat do when they controlled the military at home? What would they do with them domestically? How would it impact democracy here?

[Tom Nichols]

If you have a governor, for example, or political allies, you could have the military show up to their events in uniform and make it clear that you support them. You know, putting National Guard units working with Homeland Security or with SWAT teams. There's all kinds of mischief that you could do that really could just be a way of flexing muscle and trying to intimidate the civilian population, especially if you're about to do something pretty shaky. Constitutionally, if Donald Trump wins, he's talking about mass deportations. We don't have a big enough army to deport 11 million people. But, you know, that could get into an ugly situation. There was this kind of harebrained scheme that seems funny in retrospect but less funny now, where the idea was to seize voting machines to be. You know, and I'm making little air quotes here, to be examined for fraud. And then there was even one step further, which were. There's. There was some talk about, let's rerun the presidential election under the watchful eyes of the military, so there could be no fraud. You're not betraying the Constitution. You're saving it by protecting the sanctity of our elections, by going in and being the armed guards around polling machines.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

The Russians like to do this in places like they've occupied Eastern Ukraine. They'll have military soldiers come round. I've seen the videos. The military will come round and knock on people's doors. There'll be some granny opens the door, and they're like, hello, we're here to get your vote. And there's like, a guy with a Kalashnikov in a balaclava, which I think.

[Tom Nichols]

Most Americans would find scary and many others would find, and I'm one of them, would find deeply objectionable and un American. That's functionally a military coup.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Okay, Tom, we now have a scenario. Yeah. To get the military to protect an election. How many of your guys would you need in the system? What's the level of penetration that you need?

[Tom Nichols]

It depends on where they are in the chain of command. I mean, if you have a couple of people, if you have a handful, five, six in the right positions, and then they can deftly use the chain of command to issue orders that are not obviously illegal, or at least illegal on their face. You could get thousands of people obeying tens of people who are obeying three or four or five people.

[Ann Applebaum]

Three, four, five people.

[Huey Long]

Mm.

[Ann Applebaum]

Five people is not very many.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

Autocracy in America is hosted by Anne Applebaum and me, Peter Pomerantsev. It's produced by Natalie Brennan and Jocelyn Frank and edited by Dave Shaw, mixed by Rob Smirciak. Fact Check by Ivan Kim Claudini Baid is the executive producer of Atlantic Audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. Autocracy in America is a podcast from the Atlantic. It's made possible with support from the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, an academic and public forum dedicated to to strengthening global democracy through powerful civic engagement and informed, inclusive dialogue.

[Ann Applebaum]

Next time on Autocracy in America. The US Is the leader of an international democratic alliance, but there is another network of nations out there who work together, too.

[Peter Pomerantsev]

We are fighting a global fight. We are fighting really against Maduro, but also against Putin, against Xi Jinping Pin, against the mullahs from Iran because they are the lifeline of Maduro.

[Ann Applebaum]

We'll be back with more on that next.