Podcast Summary: Autocracy in America – "The Columnist"

Host: Garry Kasparov
Guest: Bret Stephens, New York Times columnist
Date: September 19, 2025
Timestamp references: [MM:SS]

Overview

This episode explores the current state and future prospects of American democracy as it faces a new wave of authoritarian tactics under Donald Trump’s second administration. Host Garry Kasparov and guest Bret Stephens reflect on their journeys through political opposition, the dangers posed by illiberalism, the shifting coalition lines in American politics, and the challenge of building a resilient liberal democracy amid growing polarization. The conversation touches on personal political evolutions, the pitfalls of political extremism, and the struggle to unite around core democratic values.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: The Urgency of the Moment

• Kasparov opens with a passionate summary of authoritarian moves by Trump in his second term, contrasting them with classical democratic values.

  “He has made moves familiar to anyone who has seen a democracy give way to autocracy: loyalists only, dubious claims to a mandate, a sycophantic party apparatus... harnessing the power of the military against its own people.” [00:57]

2. Bret Stephens’s Political Evolution

Early Opposition and Reevaluation

• Stephens recalls his staunch opposition to Trump, even likening him to Chavez in 2015, and the resulting fallout.

  “If by now you don’t find Donald Trump appalling, you’re appalling.” [06:08]

• He discusses how his attitude shifted after realizing that labeling Trump voters as bad people was counterproductive:

  “Telling voters they are bad people for their political likes or dislikes is not going to win them to your cause. It’s just not. It’s bad politics.” [06:37]

• On the need for engagement rather than condescension:

  “We need to listen to the Trump voter. We need to meet that Trump voter where he is. We have to stop condescending, we have to stop calling them names, people, because [...] we’re simply gonna strengthen the very movement that we’re seeking to defeat.” [07:19]

The “Done with Never Trump” Column

• Stephens clarifies his controversial “Done with Never Trump” column:

  “I wasn’t saying that Trump was gonna be a great president or that I changed my mind about him, but what I was done with was a certain style of politics that became [...] obsessive loathing of the man and his movement.” [07:49]

• He acknowledges some legitimacy in Trumpian critiques (e.g., border security, Biden’s fitness), advocating for “George Costanza politics”—sometimes doing the opposite of reflexive opposition. [09:49]

3. Comparing Trump’s First and Second Terms

• Kasparov: Trump’s initial administration was “traditional” in many respects; the second is “far more radical” and “dominated by the 2025 project.” [10:23]
• Stephens: The new cabinet is “staffed by manifestly incompetent people.”

  “With the arguable exception of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, who is a person I don’t recognize anymore [...] the Marco Rubio that we knew is gone.” [11:45]

• He sees J.D. Vance as an especially troubling, opportunistic, and intelligent figure:

  “If the Democrats don’t get their act together, he’s gonna be the next President of the United States.” [12:44]

4. Disagreement Without Hostility: The Collins-Stephens Column

• Stephens explains the origins and popularity of the NYT column with Gail Collins, emphasizing a “real hunger [...] for political difference in conversation that wasn’t based on outrage.”

  “There was clearly a real hunger among, you know, the silent majority of Times readers for political difference in conversation that wasn't based on outrage where people could like each other despite their political differences.” [13:34]

• They discuss whether liberals and conservatives still share core values:

  “We've moved from a world where the difference is between liberal and conservative to a world where the difference is between liberal and illiberal. Because I think the Republican Party to a great extent has become an illiberal party, not a conservative party.” [15:12]

5. MAGA’s Emerging Ideology

• Stephens identifies a coherence around “old school reactionary European nationalism,” skepticism toward both illegal and legal immigration, and tribal/nativist concepts of nation:

  “It's a kind of a concept of very old school reactionary European nationalism that distrusts elites, at least educated elites, distrusts outsiders… It's what used to be called throne and altar conservatism.” [16:17]

6. The Death of Old Coalitions and the Need for a Liberal Party

• Kasparov: The old left-right dichotomy is gone. What new coalitions are needed?

• Stephens: Rejects the idea of a centrist party (“you end up with mush”), arguing instead for a robust, ideologically clear liberal party:

  “What America needs is a liberal party. And I mean liberal in the Australian sense of the word or the Dutch sense of the word, which is a party that really is dedicated to the ideals of a free and open society governed by an effective rule of law…” [20:30]

• He sees the two-party system as an obstacle, requiring one party (likely Republican) to “implode” to allow something new:

  “It would have to be built over the wreckage of a defunct party…. The Republican Party could only succeed once the Whig party had failed… That will only happen once, say, the Republican Party. And it could happen implodes.” [22:12]

• Importance of charismatic leadership:

  “The point is there are elements that could create a winning coalition behind these ideas. What’s required is a charismatic major political figure.” [23:19]

7. American Political Realignment and Resilience

• On how the current turmoil will resolve, Stephens relies on American political traditions:

  “The basic laws of Politics that this country's operated under for generations still applies… If Trump continues to screw up... Democrats are likely to at least take the House. [...] People are always saying, oh, the Democratic Party is dead. The Republican Party's approval rating isn’t that much higher… The only way out is through, and we'll get through it.” [25:00]

• He pushes back on fears of American democracy’s imminent demise:

  “Our allegiance as a people to bedrock institutions and to a certain set of ideas is still pretty damn strong. We're not the Weimar Republic. We're not Yeltsin's Russia. Right. I mean, 250 years means something in this country. And I don't think it's all going to be washed away.” [26:08]

8. Lessons from Democratic Party History

• Stephens and Kasparov reflect on Democrats’ post-Reagan reinvention, wondering if a similar “Clinton moment” is possible or if they will be goaded leftward by MAGA provocations:

  “My fear is that the Democrats will be goaded once again by the MAGA right into capitulating to their own worst instincts. And I'm afraid. But it's a very effective tactic with the Democrats.” [28:47]

• On the need for Democrats to reclaim the center, not mirror their opponents’ extremes:

  “I guess the question you’re really asking is, is the head gonna beat the heart? Right. The heart wants to beat left in the Democratic Party, but the head wants to win. And the head wants an agenda that is going to serve middle America, middle class America, middle political America...” [29:44]

9. A Note of Qualified Optimism for America’s Future

• Kasparov asks for positive vision; Stephens delivers a stirring defense of democratic resilience:

  “One of the differences between a dictatorship and a democracy is that a dictatorship advertises its strength and hides its weakness. Democracies, by contrast, we advertise our weakness and hide our strength.” [31:22]

• He likens America’s pessimism to its constant drive for self-improvement:

  “There’s a pessimism paradox, which is that pessimistic people, at least if they're not fatalists, are constantly attending to the things that are going wrong. [...] Yet there's huge strength in the United States... The innovation is here. The excitement is here. Americans eventually get their heads out of their asses. It just sometimes takes a while.” [32:02]

• Ultimately, Stephens argues for long-term optimism despite short-term pessimism:

  “So in the long term, I’m an optimist, but I think actually it pays to be a pessimist in the short term because it makes you more attuned to both danger and opportunity.” [33:48]

Notable Quotes

• Bret Stephens:

  • “Telling voters they are bad people for their political likes or dislikes is not going to win them to your cause. It’s just not. It’s bad politics.” [06:37]
  • “We’ve moved from a world where the difference is between liberal and conservative to a world where the difference is between liberal and illiberal.” [15:12]
  • “What America needs is a liberal party. And I mean liberal in the Australian sense... dedicated to the ideals of a free and open society...” [20:30]
  • “Americans eventually get their heads out of their asses. It just sometimes takes a while.” [32:36]
  • “In the long term, I’m an optimist, but I think actually it pays to be a pessimist in the short term because it makes you more attuned to both danger and opportunity.” [33:48]

• Garry Kasparov:

  • “Trump’s first term was quite different from what we’re seeing now… anything that Trump has been doing so far and everything he has been saying so far, it’s far more radical.” [10:23]
  • “Are enemies within or enemies outside?” [34:24]

Memorable Moments & Timestamps

• [06:08-07:43] Stephens’s journey from “Never Trump” to a more nuanced political approach.
• [11:18-12:44] The transformation from Trump’s first administration to the more radical current one, with a warning about J.D. Vance.
• [13:13-14:18] The story behind the Collins-Stephens debate column: modeling civil disagreement.
• [16:05-17:29] Defining MAGA’s emerging ideology: nationalism, tribalism, and religion.
• [20:24-23:19] Why America doesn’t need a centrist party but instead a clear liberal alternative.
• [31:22-33:48] Stephens’s inspiring outlook on America’s capacity for renewal and innovation.

Conclusion

This episode masterfully dissects both the immediate threats and deeper cross-currents shaking American democracy. Through candid personal reflection, sharp political analysis, and a call for civil engagement and liberal principles, Kasparov and Stephens outline the dangers of illiberalism, the vanishing lines between conservative and reactionary politics, and the arduous path to democratic renewal. Despite clear-eyed warnings, the closing tone is cautiously hopeful, rooted in American adaptability and the enduring appeal of its core values.