What Post-Democracy America Looks Like

Summary

Offline with Jon Favreau – Episode Summary: "What Post-Democracy America Looks Like"

Release Date: February 16, 2025

In this thought-provoking episode of Offline with Jon Favreau, hosted by Jon Favreau from Crooked Media, political scientist and Harvard University professor Dr. Steven Levitsky delves into the evolving landscape of American democracy under what he terms "competitive authoritarianism." This in-depth conversation explores the subtle yet profound shifts threatening democratic institutions, the role of media under pressure, and strategies for opposition forces to counter authoritarian tendencies.

---

1. Introduction to Competitive Authoritarianism

Dr. Steven Levitsky introduces the concept of competitive authoritarianism, describing it as a hybrid system where democratic institutions remain formally intact but are manipulated to favor the incumbent. Unlike traditional authoritarian regimes with outright single-party rule or military dictatorships, competitive authoritarianism maintains elections and a semblance of opposition, making it a more insidious threat to democracy.

"Competitive authoritarianism is a kind of hybrid between democracy and authoritarianism. The constitutional architecture of democracy remains intact, but incumbents abuse the state machinery to tilt the playing field against the opposition."
— Dr. Steven Levitsky [53:41]

---

2. The Decline of Media Protections and Press Freedom

A significant portion of the discussion centers on the intimidation and suppression of media outlets under the current MAGA regime. Dr. Levitsky highlights numerous defamation lawsuits and regulatory pressures aimed at silencing critical reporting.

• Defamation Lawsuits: Major media entities like Disney, ABC, and Meta have settled multi-million dollar defamation cases stemming from actions against media organizations that challenged or criticized the administration.

  "The goal of these regulatory maneuvers is to prevent reporting on the government that we don't like. It's authoritarianism in action."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [04:42]

• Impact on Smaller Outlets: Unlike large corporations with the resources to absorb legal battles, smaller media outlets and independent journalists lack the financial and legal means to resist these assaults, leading to increased self-censorship and reduced media diversity.

  "There are only a handful of outlets in the country that have the resources to combat a frontal legal or regulatory assault like what we're seeing."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [05:08]

• Erosion of Defamation Protections: The undermining of the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, which set a high bar for defamation suits against the press, poses a grave threat. Overturning this precedent would lower the standards required for public officials to win defamation cases against media organizations.

  "Without Sullivan, the standard for suing a media outlet for defamation would be based on negligence rather than actual malice."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [13:23]

---

3. Social Media Manipulation and Algorithmic Bias

The episode examines how social media platforms, now largely influenced by regime-friendly figures like Elon Musk, are manipulated to control public perception and suppress dissent.

• Algorithmic Steering: Social media algorithms are being fine-tuned to promote pro-administration content while marginalizing critical voices. This manipulation makes it harder for opposition narratives to gain traction.

  "The algorithms now steer content in a way that favors Trump and his allies, making it challenging to amplify opposition voices."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [19:14]

• Online Harassment and Intimidation: Journalists and critics face online harassment orchestrated by influential figures, creating a hostile environment that discourages investigative reporting and open discourse.

  "Every reporter now has to consider the personal risks of reporting on figures like Musk or Trump, including potential online and offline harassment."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [09:42]

---

4. Structural Advantages Against Authoritarianism in the U.S.

Despite the rising threats, Dr. Levitsky identifies several structural advantages that the United States retains, which can aid in resisting the slide into full authoritarianism.

• Wealthy Private Sector: Unlike nations like Hungary or Turkey, the U.S. boasts a wealthy private sector capable of financing opposition groups, media organizations, and civil society initiatives crucial for democratic resilience.

  "A wealthy private sector is really helpful. Oppositions in Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Venezuela didn't have the financial means that the U.S. does."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [78:08]

• Professionalized Military and Independent Judiciary: The U.S. maintains a highly professionalized military and an independent judiciary system that serve as bulwarks against extraconstitutional power grabs.

  "A highly professionalized military and an independent judiciary are crucial advantages that help protect democratic institutions."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [78:08]

---

5. Challenges in Mobilizing Opposition

The conversation acknowledges the collective action problem facing opposition actors, including media, political parties, and civil society, who must balance organizational self-preservation with broader democratic resistance.

• Individual vs. Collective Interests: Leaders of institutions fear the repercussions of opposing the regime, leading to fragmented resistance and diminished collective efficacy.

  "Each CEO, university president, or media owner must prioritize their organization's survival, often at the expense of unified opposition."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [61:30]

• Demoralization and Fatigue: Continuous political turmoil and pressure have led to widespread demoralization, making sustained opposition efforts more challenging.

  "Seeing Trump win back power after previously being ousted was incredibly demoralizing and showed the formidable strength of the authoritarian push."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [64:24]

---

6. Strategies for Reinforcing Democracy

Dr. Levitsky offers several strategies for strengthening democratic resistance against competitive authoritarianism:

• Unified Opposition: Building a cohesive and well-funded opposition is essential. This includes concerted efforts by political entities, media organizations, and civil society groups to oppose authoritarian measures collectively.

  "The opposition must act together to exert power and influence, despite individual fears and organizational pressures."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [61:30]

• Mobilizing Public Opinion: Influential figures must speak out and actively work to shift public opinion in favor of democratic norms, countering the regime's narratives.

  "Influential leaders and institutions need to actively speak out to shift public opinion and resist authoritarian pressures."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [61:30]

• Engaging the Youth: Encouraging younger generations to participate actively in democratic processes and opposition efforts can infuse fresh energy and perspectives into the resistance movement.

  "College students and young activists are crucial for revitalizing the democratic opposition and driving forward movement against authoritarianism."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [82:58]

---

7. The Role of Information and Media Environment

The fragmented and polarized information environment presents both challenges and opportunities for democratic resistance:

• Attention Economy: The competition for public attention makes it difficult for opposition voices to gain visibility amidst a saturated media landscape dominated by pro-regime content.

  "The attention economy has transformed how information is consumed, making it harder for democratic messages to compete with regime-aligned narratives."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [67:40]

• Harnessing Digital Platforms: Leveraging digital platforms creatively can help in disseminating democratic narratives and organizing resistance more effectively.

  "Despite challenges, digital platforms offer tools for organizing and spreading democratic messages more efficiently than traditional media alone."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [74:56]

---

8. Restoring Democratic Guardrails

Addressing the restoration of democratic institutions after a period of erosion is a complex and gradual process:

• Institutional Reforms: Rebuilding trust and functionality in democratic institutions requires targeted reforms, enhanced transparency, and accountability mechanisms to prevent future abuses.

  "Restoring democratic institutions demands sustained effort, transparency, and accountability to rebuild public trust and institutional integrity."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [80:54]

• Reinvigorating Norms: Reinforcing democratic norms and values through education, public discourse, and political leadership can help solidify resistance against authoritarian tendencies.

  "Reinvigorating democratic norms is essential for sustaining resistance and ensuring the resilience of democratic institutions."
  — Dr. Steven Levitsky [80:54]

---

9. Conclusion and Call to Action

Dr. Levitsky emphasizes the urgent need for collective action and renewed commitment to democratic principles to stave off the further erosion of democracy in the United States.

"The opposition must not remain silent. Collective resistance is essential to prevent the consolidation of authoritarian power and to preserve democratic integrity."
— Dr. Steven Levitsky [72:53]

Jon Favreau and Dr. Levitsky conclude the episode by urging listeners to engage actively in democratic processes, support independent media, and participate in opposition efforts to ensure the longevity and resilience of American democracy.

---

Notable Quotes:

1. "Competitive authoritarianism is a kind of hybrid between democracy and authoritarianism..."
   — Dr. Steven Levitsky [53:41]

2. "The goal of these regulatory maneuvers is to prevent reporting on the government that we don't like."
   — Dr. Steven Levitsky [04:42]

3. "Without Sullivan, the standard for suing a media outlet for defamation would be based on negligence rather than actual malice."
   — Dr. Steven Levitsky [13:23]

4. "The opposition must act together to exert power and influence, despite individual fears and organizational pressures."
   — Dr. Steven Levitsky [61:30]

5. "The attention economy has transformed how information is consumed, making it harder for democratic messages to compete with regime-aligned narratives."
   — Dr. Steven Levitsky [67:40]

---

This episode serves as a crucial examination of the fraying threads of American democracy, highlighting the nuanced and often covert tactics employed to undermine democratic institutions. Dr. Steven Levitsky’s insights offer both a warning and a roadmap for sustaining democratic resilience in an increasingly polarized and manipulated media environment.

Transcript

[Jon Favreau]

Offline is brought to you by Manicura Honey. Are you looking for something simple and delicious to add to your wellness routine? I think if you are, Tommy, you can use some honey. But not just any honey. Manakura honey. It's rich, creamy and the most delicious honey you've ever had. And I know what you're wondering. You're like, is it ethically produced? It is, yeah. The master. It's by Manicura's master beekeepers who are in the remote forests of New Zealand, where I'll be soon. Manicura honey contains powerful nutrients to support immunity and gut health. The bees collect the nectar from the manuka tea tree in New Zealand. The nectar is packed with bioactives and the honey that is produced has three times more antioxidants and prebiotics than your average honey. A special antibacterial compound called MGO also comes from the nectar of the tea tree. Manicura third party tests every single harvest for MGO and makes these results available through their QR system. It's a game changer, and all you need is one heaped teaspoon each morning to get the most out of the amazing bioactives in Manuka. Additional usage through the day is completely fine, especially helping to cut out other sweeteners. It's a honey with superpowers. Now it's easier than ever to try Manicor a honey. Head to manicore.com offline to get $25 off the starter kit, which comes with an MGO 850 plus Manuka honey jar, five honey travel sticks, a wooden spoon and a guidebook. That's manicore.com offline for $25 off your starter kit.

[Max Fisher]

The Democratic Party is in much better shape than oppositions in other competitive authoritarian regimes. You have a single unified opposition which doesn't exist in Hungary or Turkey and other places. It's clearly electorally viable. Yes. You know, it lost by 1.5 percentage points in 2024, but won a series of elections prior to that. It's pretty well organized. It remains pretty well financed. There's no reason why the Democrats can't go out and win the 2026 election, despite the Trump administration's abuses. So it's been demoralizing to watch just how stunned and groggy the opposition was in the initial weeks. But we're already seeing the party begin to react, and I think that the Democratic Party's ability to compete in elections is not in serious doubt.

[Jon Favreau]

I'm Jon Favreau.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I'm Max Fisher and you Just heard.

[Jon Favreau]

From today's guest, political scientist and professor at Harvard University, Dr. Steven Levitsky. So you and I are going to get into all the ways that our new MAGA regime is trying to control our perception of what they're doing. Media outlets are facing defamation lawsuits and FCC investigations. Social media platforms are now largely controlled by people friendly to the regime, or in Elon's case, part of the regime. And as we were talking in our production meeting, we all thought it might be a good idea to have a discussion with someone who can help us compare what Trump and Elon are doing to other modern information age authoritarian regimes. And lucky for us, Steve Levitsky just published two great pieces in the Atlantic and Foreign affairs this week about what a 21st century model of autocracy would look like right here in the United States and what we can do about it. For those of you unfamiliar with Dr. Levitsky's work, he's a scholar of authoritarianism and democratic institutions around the world. You might have heard about his New York Times bestseller, How Democracies Die. He also co wrote Tyranny of the Minority, which explores the way Trumpism has weakened America's democratic institutions. So we invited him on to talk about what authoritarians around the world can teach us about what we can expect from Trump 2.0 and what lessons those opposing him can teach us about fighting back. It was a great conversation. We'll get to it in a minute. But first, as promised, we're going to talk specifically about what the MAGA regime is doing to intimidate and silence critics. Yes, in the media, Trump has targeted quite a few media entities with lawsuits. Disney and ABC have settled a $15 million defamation case. Metta has settled for $25 million over suspending Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts after January 6th. And maybe the most troubling, the reports that Paramount, which is the parent company of cbs, is in talks with Trump to settle his baseless and fucking Bonkers lawsuit against 60 Minutes for what he alleges was a deceptively edited interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That's not all. Trump's new Project 2025 FCC chair has already launched investigations into NPR and PBS over their advertisement policy, Comcast, NBC over DEI initiatives, and a local San Francisco radio station over their coverage of an ICE immigration raid.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

None of which is illegal. None of which it's very explicit. The goal of these regulatory maneuvers is don't do reporting on the government that we don't like. It's very.

[Jon Favreau]

That's about it. From a Pure business perspective, you can see why giant companies like Disney and Paramount and Meta are settling and see that as the path of least resistance.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

But like what are smaller outlets and journalists supposed to do? Like what, what do you think about all this?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I think that you are really right to highlight as a like big first matter what this means for smaller outlets for independent journalists. There are only a handful of outlets in the country that have the resources to combat a frontal legal or regulatory assault like what we're seeing. And there has been people outside of the industry won't know this, but there has been a very long standing practice for decades that the big outlets will collectively act as a shield for the entire industry on legal matters, on legal protections, on big Supreme Court cases, whistleblower protections, FOIA rules.

[Jon Favreau]

This is sort of like an unwritten non formalized understanding.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah. And the idea is that everybody pools resources on these because everybody benefits from the protections and that that shields the smaller outlets too, who, you know, they can't field a team of 10 people to go argue these cases. And I think it really seems like that era of the big collective industry wide shield is ending. We see the big TV networks, which are a big part of that kind of shield coalition, are starting to capitulate, maybe because they feel like they have to, maybe because their corporate overlords, you know, are weighing it against other things. Some friends at the Times were telling me the other day about a big briefing that everyone in the newsroom got from the New York Times legal team, which is always kind of unofficially acted as the like sort of leaders of this big media wide coalition. They lead a lot of these cases. And what they said in this briefing is basically what I have said, that the collective shield is gone. The idea of everyone working together against legal challenges, it's gone. It's everybody for themselves now. And if you're a reporter like one of two or three places, you are probably okay, but for the most of the industry that's going to be really scary. They also said that billionaire conservatives are now funding tons of defamation lawsuits, nuisance lawsuits against media organizations, with the expectation that some will go through, some will not, but it will just like raise the cost of doing business. And another important change that you and I have talked about a little bit, but seems to really be getting formalized, which is that defamation law is just kind of not real anymore in the way that it has longstanding served as a protection for a free press to report on the government. Conservative judges are just like reinterpreting defamation to mean Whatever they want it to mean, and to mean now that they're gonna render huge judgments because you hurt conservative feelings. That's not in most cases, but it's happening in enough that you can judge shop, you can kind of, you throw 30 defamation cases at the wall and, you know, one or two of them will go through now where it used to be. None of them would go through. And this is really, I think, making systemic changes for how the media works. Because even if, you know, again, even if not all of those cases succeed, some of them go to discovery, which leads to public humiliation, because it means all of that media organization's emails, internal communications have to go through the trial and inevitably they become public. They can name reporters personally, which means even if your outlet is protected, maybe you lose your house or you lose your kid's college fund. And this is gonna force now every reporter and every news outlet into an impossible calculus. You want to report something about the Trump administration that that administration won't like. You know, you might end up facing a defamation suit. The risk, however small, of a $5 million, $25 million settlement or judgment or an FCC fine, because the FCC is run by a crazy person now. And even if that just makes you or your editors 20% more cautious, more risk averse, that is going to have a big effect on what reaches people. Like, I've worked at places that have a lot of lawyers and places that don't of lawyers and the news that they feel comfortable reporting is different.

[Jon Favreau]

And the way you report it and the way you talk about it.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Absolutely.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. I mean, look, they're, they are, their goal here is to change behavior. Yes, right. Their goal is not to necessarily get a bunch of money.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right? No, of course.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, they are, they are punitive people. And I'm sure they'd like to bankrupt some individuals and media outlets.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

But they want to change behavior.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yes.

[Jon Favreau]

And they want compliance.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

And so if you see that this is happening and you don't have the resources to hire the lawyers that you need to, to fight it, or you don't want all of your texts and slacks and everything else to be public or to be leaked during the course of a trial, you certainly don't even want, even, even if you're confident about all that, if you have the resources and you're confident about all of your tech, you still just don't want to go through a multi year legal process hanging over your head because of incredible stress anxiety. Right.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Or you don't maybe, you know, you don't Know how your managers are going to respond if a suit gets brought. There's also this stuff. JD Vance and Elon Musk siccing their followers on this Wall Street Journal reporter who had the temerity to report about this, like, guy in Doge and what he was doing and telling everybody, like, she's evil. Like, let's get her. Even if nobody acts on that, every reporter now has to ask themselves, before I report a story on Musk or Doge that is gonna be unflattering to them, you know, will one of their 10 million followers on Twitter take the cues that these people are clearly trying to put out and come to my house or come to my kid's school, and everybody's going to have to have hard conversation now about how much are you willing to personally put on the line to report on what the government is doing, which is scary.

[Jon Favreau]

I do feel like the shit that shield that you spoke of needs, someone needs to try to reconstitute that.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And maybe in a different form. Right. Because obviously, yeah, the media industry has changed so dramatically over the last 10, 20 years. It's not just that the political environment has changed. I do. I've been wondering if some liberal billionaire or some of the more liberal donors or even center. Right. Whoever, whoever's not MAGA that has the resources is going to, like, help fund the defense for some of these defamations.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That's a good point.

[Jon Favreau]

Or some organization is going to pop up.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right? It is, sort of. Course. Right. But if they have lawyers, they can at least defend and get it. It is one of the problems that is not solvable, but is much more addressable, like, just with money. It's a shortcoming in our institutions that you can kind of defense against. But I do think it's important to take a step back here and to look at. To me, this is not just like, trying to steer coverage in a direction that they like or don't like, which, of course, every administration does to some extent. The totality of the tools that they are using is authoritarianism. It is wielding the power of the state to make it costly and to coerce media organizations specifically out of reporting on the government's extraordinarily illegal abuses of power.

[Jon Favreau]

Right.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

And that's when I say that I know that, like, everybody calls everything authoritarianism now and fascism now. And I'm not saying that it's like, whoa, Trump's got big dictator vibes. I'm saying this is the model.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

This is the, like, I can't say the number of countries I've reported in where this is precisely. This is how it started in Russia. Like, I'm not just talking about, like, places where it's like, oh, Poland, they like, have some, you know, there some erosion of freedoms around the margins. Like, people think the way that this works is you wake up one morning and the government has thrown all the reporters in the jail and it's illegal. And that's not how it works. It is many steps like this where you make it scarier, harder, riskier to report on what the government is doing around the margins. You know, you restrict access. The AP just got thrown out of the White House briefing room. Yes, maybe. And you alongside that, I know we're gonna talk about this. You promote regime media that does not have the same restrictions on it. And just over time, it becomes harder and harder and costlier and costlier to freely on what the government is doing. So fewer people understandably do it.

[Jon Favreau]

You mentioned sort of defamation law and judges reinterpreting it, especially MAGA judges. Trump appointed judges. Trump mega donor Steve Wynn has also filed a petition with the Supreme Court imploring them to overturn New York Times versus Sullivan, which is the landmark case that raised the standards for a plaintiff to win a suit against a media organization. It's like the foundational defamation ruling. Can you explain what New York Times versus Sullivan is and what the media environment would look like if it were overturned?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So what this 1964 Supreme Court case did is it said that defamation suits filed against the media by a public official have to meet a special separate bar that you have to be able to prove not just that what the media published was wrong and harmful, but that it was, had, had what's called actual malice behind it, which means specific intention to harm that official by publishing something false. Like one of the few instances of this that we can point to of like a defamation lawsuit actually meeting this bar against a media organization, which is very rare because it's very hard to meet. It was fox news in 2020 was the great Dominion. They were publishing or they were running. All of these lies about Dominion voting systems. And the way that they proved it was they didn't just say the things you're airing are not true and they're harmful to this company. They, through discovery, they proved that executives were emailing each other saying, hey, we know this isn't true. Should we still air it?

[Max Fisher]

Sure.

[Jon Favreau]

Right.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That is actual malice. It was a very hard bar to clear. It's very rare to clear it.

[Jon Favreau]

Congrats to Fox News. For clearing.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I know, I know. Which we talked about at the time. It's like, it's good that at some point you can be accountable for deliberately lying about people in ways that are harmful to democracy. But it also has, it was part of a larger transition that has been happening where we are eroding the bounds of that.

[Jon Favreau]

And you, before we go on the, the Paramount 60 Minutes thing.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's not that.

[Jon Favreau]

No, but I'm saying just that would be what happened there was. They aired an interview with Kamala Harris.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

And one part of the interview where she gives sort of a bad answer. It's not great. It was not terrible. Whatever. Yeah, we know about it because they released that clip on Social as a preview to the interview. The actual interview didn't include that one.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

They showed a different clip.

[Jon Favreau]

So this would be. They send. They take CBS to discovery. Now, this was, this was election interference. It wasn't defamation. And she wasn't defaming Trump. She wasn't talking about Trump in the.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So there's no harm.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, but they would have to be like, election. You know, they would have to find text in 60 minutes and be like, hey, we think this answer was pretty bad. Let's not cut it all together. Let's put it out on Social, but not to our viewers. And then maybe it'll hurt Mr. Trump.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Well, the thing is, it is, it.

[Jon Favreau]

Is the, it is the most insane one yet. And if, like Paramount said it, killing and CBS on that one.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Well, the thing, I mean, you kind of alluded to this, the often how these pressures work on media organizations, and this case is an illustrative one, is that he is simultaneously suing them for this bullshit election interference thing that everybody knows is false. And the content of it is like, how dare you air an interview with my political rival. I want that to be legal now. But he's paired that with implied regulatory pressure because CBS is trying to do this merger right now. And the fear is in the fear that they are trying to create in corporate is if you don't cave on this and give us $20 million, you won't get your merger. Now, from the perspective of this giant company, it's worth paying a $20 million speeding ticket or whatever in order to get a merger that is worth much more. The thing that is scary about it is, is it creates a further precedent that you, you throw at whatever bullshit defamation charge you want if you don't like coverage or if we dared to interview one of your rivals. And then we are going to have to Pay you some sort of fine or fee for doing so, which creates a big added burden for free functioning of the press.

[Jon Favreau]

So, anyway, back to. Back to Sullivan then.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

If. What do you think the appetite is for it being overturned? I know Clarence Thomas has sort of hinted that he doesn't like it all that much.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

And then what would. What would the environment look like should it be overturned?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So Neil Gorsuch, as well, hinted, has suggested that he wants it to be overturned. So that's two justices we don't really know about the other ones. Brett Kavanaugh said something offhand where he, like, approvingly referenced Sullivan in a way that people are reading is maybe he wants to uphold it. So it's tough to say. A world without it. The standard for suing a media outlet for defamation is no longer actual malice. It's just negligence. And it would also mean that public officials would be treated the same as private individuals for the purpose of defamation lawsuits. The bar is much, much higher.

[Jon Favreau]

It should be.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right? Right. Because you should be able to talk critically about public officials because they are accountable to the public. And a world without Sullivan, it would be like, no, Donald Trump just, like, has the same projections as any other private individual and the same level of accountability as a random person on the street, which is to say he would be much less accountable.

[Jon Favreau]

Bad.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's bad. It's bad. And I think that even if it stands, and I Supreme Court readers think it's safe, I hope they're right. I think it's always easy to be too optimistic about it, even if it stands. Creating the threat is another thing that forces everyone to be more cautious and to walk on eggshells because nobody wants to write the story or the blog post or the tweet that Trump then uses to, like, box in Kavanaugh.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So that he will strip free media protections from the United States for a generation. So it's. It's just. It's a lot of things to make people proactively surrender.

[Jon Favreau]

The other huge problem unique to this version of the MAGA regime is its incredibly close alliance with the social media moguls whose platforms originally weakened these legacy media organizations we're talking about. Right. And now dominate most of our attention, most of our media diet. One thing I've noticed that feels different than the first Trump term is that it's not just hard. We've talked about how it's harder to find information, good information, keep up with what's going on.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Sure.

[Jon Favreau]

But when they do something dangerous or damaging, it also Seems harder to get the word out and get people's attention beyond the people like us who are already alarmed and already know. And this goes to the conversation I had with Chris Hayes on last week's episode. How are you thinking about that? Like, I, I just, it feels like I feel sort of not constrained because I'm, I'm afraid, but I'm just like. We're just like yelling into the wind here.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yes. It's. It feels like every time I log on to social media, the, the bars and the walls of who I can reach are closing in more tightly. The. The field of the discussion is getting much more narrow. And I, that's. I don't think that's an accident. I think that these companies have been very clear that they want to retool their algorith that will promote Trump. We know that Meta did this very explicitly the first time around. And the first time around in Trump won. They were at least overtly opposed to him. And they were still behind the scenes engineering their algorithms to favor him. Now he's up there at the fucking deus with him. You know, he's going on Joe Rogan and saying, we're going to de wokeify the Internet. Of course they want to steer things his way. They've got a sweet deal with him.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Biden was trying to regulate the tech companies. And I think that this is a really. I think it's extremely important to see this in context with Trump's pressures on free media and with his efforts to like, effectively end a lot of media freedoms in America. Because this is the other half of the authoritarian playbook, which is you promote regime media.

[Jon Favreau]

Right.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

And this again, like people. I understand why people have this image in their mind of like North Korea. It's like, oh, you have state media and it's like, have you ever watched the North Korean state media?

[Jon Favreau]

I've seen some clips, yeah.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's pretty funny.

[Jon Favreau]

It's great.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So there's the lady who like talks in this weird sing songy voice and just like praises the Grand Marshal of the Army, Kim Jong Un, Jong Hoon. But that is.

[Jon Favreau]

It literally now sounds like the Trump administration and, and Fox and.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah, that's true.

[Jon Favreau]

All the same.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Tucker has been there for a while. Yeah. But I is to say that like, that is not actually the model for how regime media works. The way that regime media works is you promote friendly, loyal, but often privately owned media companies. You give them access while you're denying it to everybody else. You promote lots of rights and freedoms for them. While nobody else has them. And it's also much more engaging. I think people are shocked. I find people are often shocked to learn that Russia today, which is the like now fully regime state media for Russia, that people watch it voluntarily. Watched it voluntarily when there were other freely available outlets. Even people who don't.

[Jon Favreau]

Larry King was on it for a while, remember?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That's right. I forgot about that. Yeah. Larry's not, he's not Batman.

[Jon Favreau]

It has had an evolution like.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It has. It has, absolutely. But it's to say that like, like the way that regime controlled media works now is that it's more engaging, it's more entertaining. People turn it on because it's easy. They turn it on because the free press is much more constrained, becomes more expensive.

[Jon Favreau]

Well, yes. And there's something else going on, which is, I think if the, if you look at Donald Trump's approval ratings or the level of alarm in the country or why there aren't people in the streets.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

It's not all because the rest of the country is tuned into Fox.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

Or just on Twitter the whole time and only seeing Elon and his fanboys tweet. Like, it's just that people have turned away altogether or they are getting their information from fragments of clips and social media here and there. They dip in and out. And it's just, it is the, the breaking apart of a media environment where we all sort of consume from the similar.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

10, 15, 20, whatever outlets shared reality. The shit. The fact that that's gone, I think is a very. It's made this moment more dangerous because there is more apathy or more just ignorance of what's happening.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right. You don't, you're not aware of what's happening or what you see is that like, oh, this seems reasonable. Like, look at all that fraud at usaid and it, like if you.

[Jon Favreau]

Or like, or just. Yeah, Trump wins. Trump won. That kind of sucks. Whatever. I'm going to work every day. I can't deal with this shit anymore.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

I did this for a whole bunch of many years and I'm fine. Everything seems fine so far.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right. I'm not affected, whatever. Yes. I think there's a lot of that. I think it's important to remember that you and I, or probably most listen to the show, will log onto social media and what you'll see is people yelling about how Trump is bad. Like I'm logging onto Twitter and I'm saying that Trump is bad. Like the Steve Levitsky piece, I tweeted it out and like I got a lot of numbers on it and that was great. But we're.

[Jon Favreau]

And if you really want to feel like things are bad, then you go to Blue Sky.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's true.

[Jon Favreau]

It's like, it's like one alarm on Twitter in between a bunch of Elon people being like, look what Doge found. Look at. Let's arrest all these criminals. Death to. You know. And then you go to Blue Sky.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's like everybody is truly. But even that is like, that is a, a narrow, increasingly shrinking space. And if you see what social media looks like for the much larger demographics of the kind of like low information. Joe Rogan. Listen, swing voters, if you start an. It's actually worth trying this. You start an Instagram account or a Twitter account. Like you want to set up a burner to like follow whatever. You will see what the algorithm feeds you now. And it's very different what it would have fed you a year ago. It's all pro Trump accounts. It's Elon Musk, it's pro AI Instagram. Yes.

[Jon Favreau]

Didn't they stop or now they're back to doing political.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

They're back to doing politics.

[Jon Favreau]

Sure.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Politics are safe again now because the politics lead to Trump, which leads to deregulation.

[Jon Favreau]

That's a good. I might do that. I might do the dummy account just to see.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I. I've talked to a couple people who have done it on both Twitter and Instagram and they were shocked.

[Jon Favreau]

I wonder if TikTok. I wonder what Tick Tock would be like. I've got a whole experiment in my head.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I mean, you open up Tick Tock, the first thing you see is a push alert saying, thank you, President Donald Trump for saving Tick Tock.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, that's. It's not subtle. Offline is brought to you by ZBiotics pre alcohol. Let me tell you, there's a surefire way to wake up feeling fresh after a night of drinking. It's with pre alcohol zbiotics. Pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. My only problem with the Biotics is remembering to take it is running out of it.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah, I just want to be very direct here. If you're having drinks and you're over 30 and if you're doing on a.

[Jon Favreau]

School night and you're not taking Zbiotics, you're an idiot. You're an idiot and you do not deserve to live in this country and be a citizen. I just, I don't know. I don't have a drink without. I think you're better at remembering. I went out last weekend. Totally forgot the Zebiotics. I'm an idiot. With pre alcohol I can stay on track and not let winter travel and celebrations throw me off course. I hate when a celebration throws me off course. Go to zebiotics.com offline to learn more and get 15 off your first order. When you use offline at checkout, Zebiotics is back with 100 money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money. No questions asked. Asked. Remember to head to ZBiotics.com offline and use the code offline at checkout for 15% off. Is hot sleep keeping you up?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

The Tempur Pedic Breeze mattress pulls heat.

[Jon Favreau]

Away from your body so it feels.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Up to 10 degrees cooler. Save up to 500 on select adjustable mattress sets. @tempur pedic.com On Breeze Mattress Sets, only.

[Jon Favreau]

Lesser savings may apply. Maybe the best example of how difficult it is to follow everything Trump and Elon are doing is what Doge has been up to. Partly because they're moving so fast, partly because they're doing so much, partly because Trump and Elon have pretty big megaphones.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yes.

[Jon Favreau]

With which to control the narrative. Right. But there was a Washington Post story this week by Jeff Stein and some other reporters that I'm surprised didn't get more attention, though maybe I shouldn't be in this environment. They report that in addition to shrinking the federal workforce and making life hell for the people who decide to remain, one of the end goals for Elon Musk and Doge is to replace most federal workers with, quote, AI, machine learning and even robots.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

You don't think we can. This is job replacement, retraining. But for the robots that make Hondas, I just.

[Jon Favreau]

What is happening?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I. I look.

[Jon Favreau]

Of course. Of course it is.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I know. I look, if we're talking about putting the Arnold T1000 in charge of SEC regulations, FTC.

[Jon Favreau]

Unfortunately, that's not what we're talking about.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Okay, but I would. I'm just saying I would Support that. I'm not categorically robots and government.

[Jon Favreau]

No, but I. You bring up the point and the challenge, right? Which is I don't. I don't want to be reflexively against for government.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

Making government, like using technology to make government work better. And, and this like, look, technology automating people's jobs in the private sector out of existence is a problem. And we can all debate whatever, right. In the public sector, when it's taxpayers funding the federal workforce and the federal bureaucracy, if you can find some technological fixes to make government more official and more and, and better and serve people better, serve the taxpayers better, give us better benefits and save money and everything like, I get that.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Okay?

[Jon Favreau]

But with AI, you are creating AI that can potentially has ideological bias, bias towards in other ways. And if we are now counting on AI to serve taxpayers and to serve people their benefits. And Elon is like, let's build an AI that destroys woke. But he, you know, his definition of WOKE is anything that's not right.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right hand. Something that he doesn't like his companies. Yes, that is the.

[Jon Favreau]

That's the real danger.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So I initially will be. I did not take this, like, super seriously because it's like, Elon Musk says a lot of things. But there was a really good piece about it in the Atlantic by these two security experts, Bruce Schneier and Nathan Sanders. They made, I thought, a pretty persuasive case for why it's worrying. And I should say they're not categorically anti A in government. And they're like, it pains in the piece to talk about how several governments, including the Canadian government, Taiwanese government, have found really effective ways to use AI to, To enhance the function of governments if, like, regulatory agencies can use it to try to track, like, fraud in the stock market. And it, like, can be a useful tool beyond just the, like, whatever productivity stuff. The point that they made, that I thought was a very good one, which really aligns with Steve Levitsky's piece, is that one of the most important breaks we have on the politicization of institutions in this country is the civil service is 2 million people who are career. They have discretion, they have ethics, they have workplace protections because they're unionized. And that. That has proven to be in this country and in many others, like, a really strong break on people like Trump who want to turn the DOJ into, you know, prosecute all of my rivals. So the more that you replace those workers with AI or robots or a sticky note or whatever, Elon wants to like bring in the more that you are effectively empowering the political appointees who as a default are like wildly outnumbered by your civil servants.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes, this is the, this is the danger. Yeah.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Where, where are you at on Elon Musk's agenda and all this? I know you talk about it a lot in psa, but do you feel like there's anything that's happened in the last few days that have kind of changed how you're thinking about it?

[Jon Favreau]

You know, I think that he is from the tech world and they.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Is that the worst thing you can say?

[Jon Favreau]

Well, now, yeah, they. I'll give you the most. You know what, I'll give you the most generous explanation. Okay, it may not sound generous.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

We're nothing at this show if not generous to Elon Musk.

[Jon Favreau]

Right. But this may, this, it may not come off as generous, but this to me is the most generous explanation, which is people have in Silicon Valley. In my experience in the tech world, especially as, not the like rank and file, but the founder level incredible disregard for government and politics and they don't understand why someone hasn't innovated America's way out of all of our political problems.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

Because every problem can be solved by some kind of technological innovation and it has nothing to do with human judgment and how people don't get along and need to agree because they've never had to agree with anyone because they, they're the boss.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right. Or institutions.

[Jon Favreau]

Institutions, right. Government. So he looks at that and of course, and he has not paid much attention beyond whatever government has done for him and his companies, which is plenty. And so he comes to Washington, he opens up the hood. Hood, right. He looks on, he looks under the hood. And he was like, what is this? It's inefficient. And so he was like, I'm gonna treat it like one of my companies and I'm gonna break apart.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And also he's not just a, just a regular tech guy anymore. Now he is a radicalized right wing tech guy. Right. Who sees people in the government, who, a lot of them are liberal and if they're not, he assumes they're liberal.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

And he hates everything, woke everything dei. And, and so he is in there like a bull in a china shop, just destroying everything. And he feels like, you know, I read in one of these pieces that they believe in, you know, zero based budgeting which they use in their companies, which is we, you just take every budget down to zero and then you rebuild from there.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

So I think he thinks like we Will some, some parts of the, of the federal government are valuable, some benefits are good, some services are good, but let's just get rid of it all.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And then rebuild from scratch. Well, in the, getting rid of it at a company that means, you know, you, you lose some workers, you fire some people, they lose jobs, which is, you know, bad enough, but in the federal government, it's going to mean that like life saving services, benefits, cancer treatment.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Coming to a hall, things that the whole.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. Are going to be destroyed.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And it's gonna be hard to build them back. Even if later on through a court or through the goodwill of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, they decide, oh yeah, this service and this benefit was actually worth it.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah. There is a very, that to me.

[Jon Favreau]

Is the most generous interpretation of what is happening.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I mean, there's a very like late 1980s, early 1990s kind of cultural trope that we see in like. You ever see the movie Dave?

[Jon Favreau]

Yes.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Where it's this like.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, they all want to be Dave.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right. If we just had like a normal guy who came in and just like, this is a family budget and if we sat down at the kitchen table and are like, we don't need this wasteful pork barrel barrel spending problem or this wasteful sport pork barrel spending, then we can balance the budget and save so much money. And I do think that he is riding a little bit off of that. I think it's. There's a lot of nihilism happening too though. I think that the, that he sees the headlines about, you know, cancer research disappearing and about hundreds of thousands of people losing access to life saving care. And I think that's fun for him. Him.

[Jon Favreau]

Tressie McMillan caught him. Had a great piece about this in the New York Times and I thought she made a good comparison. She said Musk's fans love his narration of power as a vicarious game like experience of dominance. These fans don't find the Doge escapades category confusing. If anything, the bombastic flooding of norms and laws make the, makes the world more sensible to them. Musk clarifies a scary world, putting it in terms they understand. Bad guy, good guy, evil villain, kill, win. This is propaganda, but it's also a skilled manipulation of content in a content saturated culture. All of our emotions are fuel for the content. Machines that don't care what we feel, only that we do.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

And I think that was really smart because he, he is gamifying it and he's fine. Like, I remember being in government writing speeches for Obama when he would want to talk about making government more efficient and reorganizing government and getting more bang for our button using technology and all that kind of stuff. And I remember you'd be like, like famously, we had a line in the State of the Union about salmon and how the salmon were under the purview of the Department of Commerce, also the Interior Department, because one of them looked at salmon when they were in freshwater and one in saltwater. And then we made a joke. And I remember this, like the, the war between the cabinet agencies. Like, like I was getting calls from Gary Locke, who was the Secretary of Commerce right before the State of the Union, like, you can't do this. This is wrong. This is going to. This is going to be attack. And I was like, this bureaucracy. Right. Like, so I, I like.

[Max Fisher]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

But these examples suddenly when they are just tweeted out.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

To just hundreds of millions of people. Yeah. Many of them idiots. Many of them purposeful idiots who want to use them as an example of why all government is bad.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

Are very dangerous.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

And I think.

[Jon Favreau]

And that's not. Like I said, that's not to say that there, There's a lot of inefficiency in waste of government. That's not that I've seen it. Right. But this is something you could go after waste, inefficiency in government, even with a sledgehammer in a way that is not this.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

There's nothing about this that looks like the salmon. Two agencies. There are too many people.

[Jon Favreau]

Reorganization of government project in the early. You know, whenever it was.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I do think it is. I think it is the critical insight of understanding what's happening now and maybe one of the critical insights of politics in our era that people like watching other people get hur. And it makes them feel powerful. It makes them feel empowered. At a time when for lots of reasons, some good, some created out of thin air by social media, people feel disempowered. The idea of watching someone be hurt on their behalf. I think this honestly is a big part of the Luigi Mangioni stuff.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

And the like conversations that I've had with people since you and I first talked about it, where I think most people. It's kind of like a laugh and a joke. But like, I talk to a lot of people who know better. The like joy I would see in their eyes when they're talking about someone who they don't know and they don't really have a good case or why he should be murdered. But it feels good to cheer for Someone getting killed. And I worry about that crossing partisan lines.

[Jon Favreau]

I. Yes, I do think there's a lot of that, especially with, I mean you see it on Twitter all the time.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Absolutely.

[Jon Favreau]

It's like one of the reasons I've turned replies off.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's where people go to have fun hurting other people.

[Jon Favreau]

But I do think for, for the broader electorate who is not necessarily paying attention or only hearing some of this.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Sure.

[Jon Favreau]

One thing I've been thinking over the last couple weeks is we have to lift up stories of people getting hurt because conversations about lawlessness.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right. Who's going to win in the court.

[Jon Favreau]

The bureaucracy, the fight against bureaucracy. I think they are, they can be confusing to people. I think they feel like esoteric to people. Like, they don't. It's hard to grasp. And I think when you share a story, you know about the. There's a 71 year old grandmother in Thailand who's a refugee who like would go back to this USAID funded hospital every time she had oxygen problems and the hospital shut down and she just died.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right. You know, you're literally someone who just died.

[Jon Favreau]

And it's like that wasn't so like someone dying in a, in a war where there's one side thinking this. It was just someone died because Elon Musk decided to pull the plug on USAID without any process whatsoever ever.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Right.

[Jon Favreau]

And now. And there's going to be so many more stories like that.

[Max Fisher]

Right.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I agree that, that and that's something we really learned about the like save democracy discourse from Trump's first term is that that is very animating to people like you and me, but for a lot of people, it's an abstract principle that does not have a lot of concrete meaning.

[Jon Favreau]

Yep. Offline is brought to you by Lumen. Did you know that when your metabolism is working properly, you will feel the benefits in literally every aspect of your life? Life Lumen is a valuable tool that gives you insights to create a healthy metabolism for your body. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. And on the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workout, sleep and even stress management. All you have to do is breathe into your lumen the first thing in the morning and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. They then give you a personalized nutrition plan for that day based on your measurements. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time. And Lumen will give you tips to keep you on top of your health game. We got people all over the office using lumen. You wake up in the morning, you breathe into it, and it's like, ugh, you're disgusting. Get to, get, go, get, go. Work out, maybe eat something healthier or it's nice to you or it's nice to you if you've been following along. So that's important too. You want the approval of your lumen because your metabolism is at the center of everything your body does. Optimal metabolic health translates to a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep, and more. Take the next step to improving your health. Go to Lumen Me offline to get 20% off your lumen. That's L U M E N Me offline for 20% off your purchase. Thank you Lumen for sponsoring this episode.

[Max Fisher]

Business.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's all the things that keep this world turning. And behind every one of these companies is a partner helping to keep it all moving. It's why the local flower shop and your favorite pizza joint, the startup and the stadium, Hospitals and hotels, banks and restaurants nationwide all choose the advanced network cybersecurity solutions and round the clock trusted partnership from Comcast Business, the company that.

[Jon Favreau]

Powers more businesses than anyone else.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Comcast Business powering possibilities restrictions apply.

[Jon Favreau]

Call or visit comcastbusiness.com to learn more. Okay, before we jump to Dr. Levitsky, it's time to talk about what we've been doing to reclaim our ability to focus with our new offline challenge. Max, this week you and I were supposed to spend more time just walking outside 20 minutes uninterrupted with no phone.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yep.

[Jon Favreau]

Did you get a chance to do that? And how'd it go?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I did, I did. I think what I will say is this the. The daily walk evangelist like Chris Hayes. The way that they talk about it is you go for a stroll and your brain is just exploding with the. You're making these connections across different topics and it' the enlightenment that you feel great and you're floating up in the clouds.

[Jon Favreau]

Didn't happen for you, huh?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I would not say that was my experience now. It absolutely improved my life. There were some days when I would go for a walk and I would like doom spiral about the news or I would ruminate about something that happened, but for the most part, I really did find that it really helped to calm me down. Even on the bad days, even in days when I was like thinking about the news on my walk, it wasn't making me feel better about where the country was going. I still had the same like, like assessment of what was happening in the world and why it was bad, but I just felt more equipped to face it. And the real benefit that I found was that on days where I took a walk at the end of the day and then after that, like put my phone away, I was just like, I felt better all night. If I was with friends, I was much more present and much more like enjoying the time with them much more effectively. And then I slept better and it like, like the next morning I would really realize how good it had been for me. Cause I would pick up my phone and get all the push alerts and all of a sudden it would like hit me again. And that was a terrible feeling. But it also made me appreciate like, oh, I had you know, 12 hours of like relative peace inside of my own heart. I think largely because I took that walk at the end of the day and then made sure to stay in that state after I got back.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes, that's exactly what happened with me, really. I am now the walk evangelist. And I do not think that I necessarily had, you know, the deepest thoughts. But here's why I. The first time I did it, the first couple times at the beginning of the walk, you still have the. You're think you're perseverating about whatever's happening in your life or the news or whatever. And, and the.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

You've got smartphone.

[Jon Favreau]

The thoughts are. Yeah, smartphone brain. Yeah, the thoughts are ping ponging. By the end of the walk, that's when you start thinking Exactly. Bigger thoughts.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yes.

[Jon Favreau]

Letting your mind wander. So it does take a transition. Right. But I found it so enjoyable that I like yesterday's walk. I kept my phone in my back pocket just in case someone needed me. But I, and for a timer. Cause I was like, it's a 20 minute walk and the timer went off and I just kept walking because I was like, I don't have another meeting until like another 15, 20 minutes. I'm just gonna keep walking and still not look at my phone.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That's great. It's good like 40 minutes. Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And it's really. And it's same that you were a calmer. I did it the other day because I didn't want to walk around the office. It's not like the nicest walk around our office. But I wanted to go Home, but I didn't want to go in the house because then they were all going to see me and I wasn't going to go. So I literally parked. I parked a block. Oh. I told Emily this afterwards, after the fact. I parked a block from my home and then walked around my neighborhood, which I love. My neighborhood.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Okay, so you did the like. Like you were the FBI casing your own house.

[Jon Favreau]

The funniest thing, though, is I'm like, I'm in the zone and I'm. I'm coming back to my car. After the 20 minute walk. I see this guy walking. He's got headphones in with his dog. And he was like. He looks at me and I'm like, I wonder if he's looking at me because I'm a weirdo walking with nothing, not a phone. And he's up and he goes, I'm listening to you right now.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Really?

[Jon Favreau]

And I was like, oh. And I go, oh. I'm like, I'm. I'm doing this thing where I'm trying to walk without any distractions. He's like, I know, I've heard you guys.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

He was listening to Offline.

[Jon Favreau]

I don't think right then, but he was like, I know, I've heard you guys.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

No, he was listening to Offline.

[Max Fisher]

Yeah.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Let's get a better story.

[Jon Favreau]

Better story.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That's beautiful. Very fine on the sidewalk. Thank you for listening to the show. And take out your fucking headphones.

[Max Fisher]

Go on.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

In all seriousness, I take. I go on hikes all the time. I almost always bring my headphones. This forced me to do it with that headphones. And it's so much better for me.

[Jon Favreau]

It is better.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

It's so much better. I love podcasts. I hope that people continue to listen to podcasts, but do the walk without the headphones, really.

[Jon Favreau]

Before we sat down, we took some time to look at an oil painting as a way to measure our ability to focus. Something inspired by Francesca Paris and Larry Buchanan at the New York Times. Last week, I kicked Max's ass. Did so again this week. Do you have anything to say for yourself?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Look, I am impressed that given your frankly, horrific screen time numbers, that you have this focus within you and I do not. But I think it's a nice reversal of the last offline challenge where I felt like we were, say, starting in different places.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

But I feel my focus drifting. I really want to look at the painting. I'm enjoying looking at the painting we looked at. It was a painting of a people at a party, which was so nice. I was imagining myself there. I did misidentify the painter when the painting first came up, which is.

[Jon Favreau]

You were pretty proud of yourself.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I know. It was the worst of all worlds where I. I got caught bragging about knowing a. A impressionist painter and then was also incorrect.

[Jon Favreau]

We're also looking at the number of times we pick up our phones over the course of the day. Last week, I averaged 276 times per day max. You average 88. How's it looking this week for you?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I'm down to 81.

[Jon Favreau]

Okay.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I'm doing pretty good. What about you?

[Jon Favreau]

So My average is 201.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Oh, my God.

[Jon Favreau]

So I got down from 230.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So, like, I dropped like a quarter.

[Jon Favreau]

But I will say that today, right before we recorded. And of course it is 3:30, so there's some time left. Yeah, I was at 70.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Really?

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. Right before we recorded.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I find that I Days. Days where I work more. My numbers are better if I have something to focus on on Sometimes work is helpful.

[Jon Favreau]

I think that the focus. And we. We didn't even get to talk about our sleep, which is. By the way, the sleep tracker app is garbage.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

So I actually said that I slept.

[Jon Favreau]

It's not that I slept three hours and 45 minutes last night. And that's not what happened.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

How much did you sleep? But it's also 3 hours and 55 minutes.

[Jon Favreau]

Emma and I were talking about this. It's making me sleep worse when it's on because I'm like, I know I'm not. It's like the good student in me. I'm like, I'm not gonna sleep well.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I had a listener reach out to me, actually, after we talked about that and was like, like, don't worry. That's perfectly normal to stress about your sleep number and therefore sleep worse sleep. But, like, it goes away. Yeah, but it's still. I think that your and I's brain is like, not. It's not ideal for a challenge like this where we're keeping score.

[Jon Favreau]

It's not. I will say the walks combined with. So, like, yesterday, I was tired. I didn't get good sleep the night before. Last night, despite what the sleep app says, I did get good sleep.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That's great.

[Jon Favreau]

Yesterday I had a lot of time in the middle of the day to prepare for this very show. I was just not focused over the place. I was tired. Right. And.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And this morning I came in here feeling rested and I had my phone somewhere else and I was like, prepping for the show and like, no dist. I was focused and I was like, you know what? I'm, like, feeling better and I, like, have the phone over here and I'm, like, doing better because of the locks. Like, I did notice it in person.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Something that I think we keep learning with this is you can't solve any one thing because all of these things feed into each other, either a vicious or a virtuous cycle. I felt I. There was one night this week where I slept, like four hours because I was stressed about the news. All the next day. I'm on my fucking phone, I'm doom scrolling. I feel terrible. I don't go for a walk catching up all week, but another day this week I went for a walk, kept my phone completely away from me through the rest of the night, slept better, felt better the next day, and had an easier time keeping off of my phone.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, that's. There you go. What do we have in store for the week ahead?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Okay, so this week we are trying a set of techniques for creating blocks of time where we can deeply focus on work. This is a huge one on the, like, wellness podcaster circuit. Also the most annoying type a person. Most annoyingly successful type a person that, you know, definitely does this as an evangelist for it. I hear about it from a lot of people. I'm skeptical about it, to be honest, but I feel like we should try it because it's like, the top of the list for a lot of people. So we're gonna set a few blocks this week. I'm thinking maybe like three blocks of two hours each. I've just focused on work. Work. Those numbers sound good?

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, sure.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Okay. Okay, thank you.

[Jon Favreau]

How are we gonna do this?

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

You're gonna set do not disturb on your laptop so it'll mute certain things. We're gonna set times of the day to check email and social media, so it'll be, you know, there are blocks when you can check it, blocks when you can't check it. Kind of like batching it in or out. We'll figure out off mic whether we're gonna use, like, any specific apps on our phone to limit our access to these things or not. Or if we think just like, using our words is enough, and I might check in midweek, and if this is too easy, then maybe we raise the stakes by giving ourselves blocks of time during the day at work where we, like, stick our phone in a drawer.

[Jon Favreau]

This will not be too easy for me.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Oh, really?

[Jon Favreau]

This is the boy. Just thinking to myself. I mean, who knows? But thinking to myself, that there's gonna be a two hour block where I just have to pay attention to the one thing that I'm doing and not check. Everything else is insane to me.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Oh, I love deep, focused work. It feels amazing when you're like really jamming on something.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, I did it this morning, but even this morning while I was doing it, I was still. I was checking from time to time. But just for me, relatively speaking, it was better. I was gonna be.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I was gonna say I thought this would be easier for you because you typically work from like 3:30 in the morning to 5:30 in the morning.

[Jon Favreau]

I'm all over the place.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Okay.

[Jon Favreau]

No, I'm all over the place.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Okay.

[Jon Favreau]

I'm reading all kinds of tweets, just getting so.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

You are reading all kinds of tweets.

[Jon Favreau]

Getting all the news.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

If there's one thing, the only way.

[Jon Favreau]

You get the news these days is just checking a million different places. There's some tweets, there's some websites, there's a piece, there's some texts. Maybe we should have all the news.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Where we just get the newspaper. Could you imagine getting the news the next day, what that would do to your brain? I mean, the company would shut down, but what an experiment it would be.

[Jon Favreau]

It's not news.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That's.

[Jon Favreau]

That's old.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

That's old. Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

All right, before we jump to Levitsky, some quick housekeeping slash some big news. We are changing our release date.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

I'm excited. This is great. This is huge.

[Jon Favreau]

Going forward, you will find new episodes of offline in your feed every, every Thursday. We're also hoping this new schedule will help us stay on top of all the crazy offline news we find ourselves constantly bombarded by during the week. Our first Thursday episode launches this upcoming Thursday, February 20th. We will see you all back here then. After the break, my conversation with Dr. Steven Levitsky about what 21st century autocracy looks like in America. This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. Just going to talk about the importance of therapy here. You know, maybe some of you have been in therapy, maybe some of you haven't. And here's the deal. Everyone actually needs therapy. You think you don't need therapy? Therapy is not like, oh, something's wrong with you. Go to therapy. Therapy is just like someone to talk to hour a week. You sit there, you talk about your feelings, talk about what's on your mind. And unlike, unlike friends, they're. They're obligated to listen. And they don't just pretend to listen. They're like they're really listening and it's really helpful. Makes usually makes you feel better. Makes me feel better every time I go to therapy, so I would highly recommend it. And if you want to give therapy a try and you don't want to leave your house, you can use BetterHelp. BetterHelp is fully online making therapy affordable and convenient. Serving over 5 million people worldwide. Access a diverse network of more than 30,000 credentialed therapists with a wide range of specialties. You can easily switch therapists anytime at no extra cost. Discover your relationship green flags with better help. Visit betterhelp.com offline to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp. H E-L-P.com offline with an advanced network.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Cybersecurity solutions and trusted partnership, Comcast Business.

[Jon Favreau]

Powers more businesses than anyone Comcast Business.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

Powering possibilities restrictions apply.

[Jon Favreau]

Call or visit comcastbusiness.com to learn more. Steven Levitsky welcome to Offline.

[Max Fisher]

Thanks for having me, John.

[Jon Favreau]

So you know things are bad when a How Democracies Die author is out there writing pieces A few weeks into Trump 2.0 you write in Foreign affairs quote US democracy will likely break down during the second Trump administration, but that what lies ahead is not fascist or single party dictatorship leadership, but competitive authoritarianism. Can you explain for people what competitive authoritarianism is and what it looks like?

[Max Fisher]

Yeah, competitive authoritarianism is kind of a hybrid between democracy and authoritarianism. The constitutional architecture of democracy remains intact. There continue to be elections, the opposition is legal, operates above ground. But but incumbent abuse, systematic incumbent abuse of the state, the use weaponization of the machinery of government and deployment against rivals against opposition tilts the playing field against the opposition so that there is competition. It's not single party rule, but competition is unfair and there are abuses of power that are not not something that we associate with democracy. So this is contemporary Hungary, contemporary Turkey, Venezuela under Go Chavez, Peru in the 1990s. A bunch of sort of middle income countries, post communist countries slid in and out of competitive authoritarianism in the 1990s, early 2000s. It's just not something that we ever would have anticipated emerging or that I ever would. I wrote a book about this in 2010. Just never ever imagined that we'd be talking about competitive authoritarianism in the United States.

[Jon Favreau]

Why do you think that competitive authoritarianism is the de facto model for authoritarianism in today's world? Like what about contemporary society makes traditional authoritarianism like, you know, the axis powers or north what North Korea is less plausible?

[Max Fisher]

Well, the main reason is that since the end of the Cold War, democracy, electoral democracy, continues to have a lot of legitimacy. With the exception of maybe parts of the Middle east and maybe China, there are very few places where an alternative to electoral democracy is really considered legitimate. People like to vote. People like the idea of being able to choose their leaders. So it's really hard in the 21st century to just eliminate elections and have, say, say, single party rule or military dictatorship of the kind that we saw a lot of in the, say, the 1970s. So democracy continues to be pretty close to being the only game in town. So because it's so hard to just completely derail democracy and eliminate democratic institutions, elected leaders, autocrats like to cheat. They, they, they kind of create a Potemkin village facade of democracy, but try to abuse power within it. And so that's become very, very common since the end of the Cold War.

[Jon Favreau]

So I know the transition from democracy to autocracy is more of a sliding scale than an on, off switch, especially in the modern era. But what do you see as the primary differences between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 that makes this version seem more like competitive authoritarianism to you?

[Max Fisher]

There are a bunch of differences. I mean, one of the great problems in recent months is that an awful lot of Americans responded to Trump's victory in 2024 with a shrug because they said, well, you know, the first time people like Levitsky started, you know, raising, talking about democracy dying, and, and we, you know, we were fine. We survived. But the context is really different. First, in, in the first time around, Trump didn't think he was going to win. He had no plan, he had no team. He did not control the Republican Party. So he, and he didn't understand how the machinery of government even worked. He believed when he, when he began his presidency that all the institutions of the state were there at his beck and call, that he would be able to, to get public servants across the US Government to, to work towards his own personal and political ends. It was shocked and angered to find out that things don't work that way. So he governed, for the most part, his first term with either conservative technocrats or traditional, more or less traditional Republicans, and they constrained him. He didn't have a plan for overturning democracy, and he relied on more or less establishment figures who, who at critical points, constrained him. And second time around is very different. First of all, he has a better sense of what he wants to do. Very importantly, he does have a team and a set of ideologues around him. Who have been planning for four years for this weaponization of the state that we're seeing. And third, and crucially, crucially, he now owns the Republican Party. There is no resistance from within the Republican Party whatsoever. And that party, of course, controls both houses of Congress. So Trump is in a much, much better position to impose his will. He's much less constrained than he was first time around. It's really night and day.

[Jon Favreau]

You say in the piece that, you know, competitive authoritarianism under Trump will transform political life in the United States for people who might be, be following the news and seeing the chaos, but are not sure how it's actually going to transform political life here. Could you talk about what that might look like for people, like what might be in store for us?

[Max Fisher]

Sure. A number of, of different individuals and organizations across the country are going to have to, are going to have to think hard about the consequences of their behavior. Those who, who wanted to write a check to a Democratic candidate, Democratic Party candidate in the past and would do so maybe thinking about their bank account, but beyond that wouldn't have to think about the consciousness now, are going to have to worry about maybe they're increasing the likelihood of an IRS investigation or audit if they become a Democratic Party donor. Universities are having to think about, about what kinds of policies they carry out, about who they hire, who they promote, what they teach. We're seeing a dramatic consequence of this with the city of New York. Right. The mayor of New York is supposed to be elected by the people of New York and is supposed to govern on behalf of the people of New York and is now basically co opted by the federal government. Government. And it's going to have to carry out policies not that the voters in New York want, but that Donald Trump wants, because if he doesn't, he's going to get suspended charges waged against him. Right. This is the, the, the weaponization of the state means that a whole series of carrots and sticks are deployed to change the way people behave. No longer are are we going to be able to think just in terms of our, you know, what's best for our career, what's best for our job job, what's best for our constituents. We're going to have to worry about the consequences in terms of investigation, in terms of online harassment, in terms of tax audits for our behavior. And that is life under authoritarian rule. Soft authoritarianism, but authoritarianism nevertheless.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, we've obviously been thinking about this a lot since we do both politics and media here. I mean, every media organization, including ours, now faces is the prospect of, you know, frivolous, costly, debilitating defamation suits from Trump, someone else, not to mention potential investigations by the fcc, doj, another government agency. We're already seeing this with some media organizations from where you said, is there anything that can be done about this? Or like what? What are the best strategies for opposition forces or media outlets to fight this?

[Max Fisher]

Well, I think there's a collective action problem, because almost all the actors involved, whether it's CBS News, ABC News, Harvard University, Democratic Party politicians, mayors, governors, there's a whole set of pretty powerful actors who, if they got to, first of all, who believe in democracy at the end of the day, would rather have a democracy than authoritarian regime, and who, if they acted together, could exert a fair amount of power. But they face a collective action problem because every CEO, every university president, every media owner or editor has to worry about their organization, right? Every CEO has got to take care of his or her shareholders. Every university president's got to take care of their endowment, make sure they don't get a federal funding cut. And so the behavior to take care of your own organization requires making compromises or maybe shutting up, maybe not engaging in the kind of opposition behavior that would perhaps weaken the government. And so what is rational for the president of Harvard? What is rational for the CEO of major corporations? What is rational maybe for, for particular governors and mayors, is to adopt a very pragmatic response, often to move to the sidelines to silence themselves. The collective cost of that is a weaker opposition is a quieter opposition. What we need to do is the opposite of that. It's not easy, but I think one of the great myths of the last two months has been that resistance failed the first time around. That is just a ridiculous claim. The resistance, the opposition to Trump. Trump in the first term blocked. His most abusive initiatives led to his defeat in the 2018 election and then his defeat in 2020. Removal from power. So the resistance stopped Trump in his tracks and removed him from power as soon as was legally possible. I measure that as a success. There's no way to stop an authoritarian power grab by remaining silent. It requires resistance. Resistance takes place on all sorts of fronts. Ultimately, we're not going to be able to really change the balance of power until the midterm elections. But we've got to begin to move public opinion, and that only happens when influential figures speak out, when university presidents speak out, when CEOs speak out, when religious leaders speak, speak out. Remaining silent is not going to do it.

[Jon Favreau]

How would you characterize the state of the opposition right now. And why do you think it feels so different than it did in 2017?

[Max Fisher]

I've been trying to figure that out since the day after the election. You know, obviously there is a mix of fear, of exhaustion, of resignation, in some cases of pragmatism and opportunism, but mostly fear, exhaustion and resignation. People, including me, have been doing this for eight years. And to see Donald Trump not only come back to power, but win the popular vote was incredibly demoralizing. And the fact that he won the popular vote, even though he was one of the narrowest victories in modern history, really legitimized his whole project in many people's eyes and was a gut punch. That said, I think the Democratic Party is in much, there are, there are a number of long term issues for, I think, the center left across the Democratic world, but the Democratic Party is in much better shape than oppositions in, in other competitive authoritarian regimes. You have a single unified opposition which doesn't exist in Hungary or Turkey and other places. Is, it's clearly electorally viable. Yes. You know, it lost by 1.5 percentage points in, in 2024, but won a series of elections prior to that. It's pretty well organized. It remains pretty well financed. There's, there's no reason why the Democrats can't go out and win the 2026 election despite the Trump administration's abuses. So it's been, it's been demoralizing to watch just how stunned and groggy the, the opposition was in the initial weeks. But we're already seeing the party begin to react. And I think that the Democratic Party's ability to, to, to compete in elections is not in serious doubt.

[Jon Favreau]

The, the other challenge that I think about a lot, that we talk about a lot on this show is, and this is, you know, a change from 2017. It's just gotten worse since 2017, which is the, the information environment has become so polluted and degraded. And you know, I'm not just talking about misinformation and propaganda here, though there's plenty of that, but our ability and willingness to keep our attention on what's happening and to direct other people's attention toward what's happening. And the fact that the, there are so many different sources of information and the media environment has become so atomized at this point and splintered that it's become really hard to get people to pay attention. And, you know, we were talking about the collective action problem in terms of sort of the organized opposition, but it feels like there's almost a broader issue in the country where, you know, you might see all the chaos and not be too thrilled with Trump. But you're, you're like, if I don't speak out or if I don't, you know, organize, or if I don't seem supportive of the opposition, then I can just live a pretty decent life with my family. And that's probably more important than figuring this out. And, you know, maybe, maybe Trump will burn himself out. I can just ignore him for four years. How do you think about that challenge in this environment?

[Max Fisher]

Well, a couple things. First of all, there's always a danger in an authoritarian setting of, of too many people just saying, well, this isn't directly affecting me. I kept my job, my kids are okay. I'm just going to keep my head down for four years. That's a danger in every authoritarian situation. In terms of the changing information environment, this is very recent. I'm still trying to get my head around how this new information environment works and how many people it affects. And, you know, I buy the argument about the attention economy. And I think it probably is the case that Democrats have been a little slower than Trump and some of his allies in sort of learning how to capture attention in the contemporary era. I don't think we know, though, how many people that affects. I mean, I don't think that's the reason, frankly, why the Democrats lost. Lost the 2024 election. The Democrats lost the 2024 election primarily because incumbents are losing elections since COVID all over the world. I did account right after the election of all the democracies in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, North America, Australia, New Zealand, 55 elections since COVID hit. Incumbents were thrown out of power 41 out of 55 times, 80% of the time, time incumbents lost. People are really grumpy post Covid. Whatever the information environment, in all democracies, people were poised to throw out the incumbents. I'm not sure. And I think that's going to work in the Democrats benefit in the years to come. They should not wait around for Trump to lose support. For sure, but Trump will lose support. I don't think the information environment is so fragile, fragmented, and that we're in such bubbles that Trump's 49% is going to remain at 49%. No, it's probably going to decline. People are aware, particularly if the economy does not go well, particularly if prices don't come down, particularly if they dismantle the key aspects of the federal government. And so the government becomes much worse at solving people's problems. I, I suspect that people are going to be well aware of that and that, you know, Democratic politicians have to learn how to work this new information environment. But I don't think that's going to prevent Americans from becoming aware of what's going on in the Trump administration.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, I was just saying you one, one thing your piece really hammers home is that, is that public opinion matters and when authoritarian leaders are more popular, there's less resistance. Trump is more popular than he's ever been, but as you mentioned, he's still around 50% and falling in the last couple weeks since he's taken office. How do you think about the ability for the opposition to move public opinion in a competitive authoritarian system? And are there examples in other places, except for, I guess ours in 2020, but where public opinion can actually be, be shifted by the opposition and different strategies and tactics that they may have used?

[Max Fisher]

I mean, it's especially today. I mean, one of the good things about this new media environment is the old fashioned strategies of buying off the major television networks or the major newspapers don't work anymore because it's really easy for people to get access to information online. And so it's harder today for autocrats to manipulate public opinion than it ever was before. That's one of the benefits of the Internet and social media. Hungary is one case where Orban has been able to maintain an unusually high level of public support. And that does seem to have to do with his ability to manipulate the media environment. But Erdogan's lost a lot of support in Turkey. Maduro, God knows, has not been able to, despite his control of the mainstream media, has been not able to maintain public support. The few who maintain a lot of support, like Bukele and Putin, are actually legitimately very, very popular. So I don't think there's any reason why, I mean, the thing about Trump is he's got a ceiling, as you said, he's not going to get over 50% which I think helps protect us. But he's also got a floor. And the guys, the autocrats who really floor flail are the ones who become really unpopular. The president of one of the reasons why the president of, of South Korea completely failed in his effort to impose martial laws. He had a 20% approval rating. He was really, really unpopular. So Trump's in the middle. He's not popular enough to be able to, to just immediately tramp on democratic institutions and get away with it. But he's always going to be Be he's never going to be unpopular enough that he becomes politically isolated. Unfortunately, yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

Ezra Klein wrote a piece about the first few weeks of Trump called Don't Believe him where he argues, quote, trump is acting like a king because he's too weak to govern like a president. He's trying to substitute perception for reality. He's hoping that perception then becomes reality. That can only happen if we believe him. The first two weeks of Trump's presidency have not shown his strength. Strength. He's trying to persuade you of something that isn't true. Don't believe him. What do you make of that argument?

[Max Fisher]

There's a lot to that in that an awful lot of what Trump is doing is, is show are executive decrees that don't either that don't do very much or that are likely eventually to be stalled or blocked in or overturned in the courts. It's not trialy traffic. True, though. I mean the, you know, the, the, the co optation of the, the city government of New York, that's real. That's a, that's, that's happening. That's a big deal. The pressure that was placed on the parent companies of ABC and CBS News to, to settle frivolous lawsuits that they easily would have won, that's a major blow, blow to press freedom. That's real. That arm twisting is real. And the damage that Musk and Doge are going to do to the federal government, some of it will be repaired, some of it they'll be forced to abandon, but they're going to really weaken our civil service and our government. That's going to affect many people's lives, whether we believe it or not. So I take Ezra's point in the sense that it's really important that we not be cowed into submission or into hiding under our desks by Trump's symbolic exertion of power, because most of it is symbolic, but he's doing damage day to day and we've got to get out and fight it.

[Jon Favreau]

I've thought a lot for the last several years about, about like what draws people and entire societies to authoritarians. You mentioned that a leader like Putin is legitimately popular. And you know, as we saw, Trump has gotten more popular over time. Hannah Arendt believed that one reason people are attracted to dictators is what she calls atomization or you know, a disconnectedness with society that can breed loneliness. And this is again something we talk a lot about on this show. But how much do you think that sort of our sort of social alienation, loneliness, especially post Covid is, is contributing to some of the instability we're seeing here and across the world. And if so, like, does that, does that give us a sign of how we might start to organize collectively to oppose authoritarian movements?

[Max Fisher]

Well, I'm no hot off, aren't. I don't have a great answer to that question. I mean, I think, I'm not sure. There's clearly a discontent in democracies across the rest since COVID no question about it. And that discontent is leading to the election of more populist figures who basically promise to take a wrecking ball to the status quo, to just break the status quo. I mean, we see this in Argentina, we've seen it in to a degree in Mexico and El Salvador, and we're seeing in the United States. I mean, that people will be cheering on the just sort of reckless dismantling of the US Government is stunning. I think few of us would have expected it a decade ago. So there is a level of discontent that's behind this. But look, more than atomized, we're polarized. Half this country wants nothing to do do and will never want anything to do with what Trump is doing and will never, never has supported Trump and never will support Trump. It's a third of this country, a little more than a third of the country that is energetically behind Trump and Trumpism, that is enthusiastically embracing the wrecking ball that is Trump. That's important. We need to understand that. But it's not a majority of Americans. Trump won the election not because, because we're in an Arrentian state of atomization. Trump won because people were unhappy with the status quo, particularly with the economy, and they voted for the opposition. We have a two party system and when people are unhappy with the status quo, they vote for the opposition. It's not true that 49.8% of the US electorate voted for authoritarianism. They voted for the opposition opposition. Some people voted for authoritarianism, but a lot of them just voted for the opposition party.

[Jon Favreau]

So, you know, this is like one advantage we have, right? That Trump's popularity is still hovering around 50%. What are other advantages that you think the United States has either at this moment or just structurally that other countries that have slid into competitive authoritarianism didn't have?

[Max Fisher]

First of all, we're a really wealthy country with a big civil society and a big private sector. And as scandalous as it was to see, see people like Zuckerberg and Bezos on their knees, there are still a lot of billionaires and multi millionaires out there who are willing and able to, to finance the opposition, to finance pro democracy groups, civil society organizations, universities and, and Democratic Party candidates. I don't, whoever the Democratic Party candidate is in 2020 is probably going to be able to finance themselves pretty easily and that's critical in really effective authoritarian regimes. Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela, especially Russia. Oppositions are starved out of existence because the private sector is too terrified to fund the opposition. So a wealthy private sector is really helpful. And then there are a couple of institutional advantages that are not guaranteed and eventually can get worn down. But a highly professionalized military that is un, that is not going to be easily mobilized for extra constitutional behavior. So you know, the, the best way to shut down a democracy is to get the military behind you. Most presidential coups involve an alliance with the military that is is not going to happen immediately still that the, the upper ranks of the military are very, very professionalized and we have a pretty independent judiciary that can change. And there are already, we've seen some Trump appointees that are really kind of in the bag for Trump and that could worsen over time eventually. But for now we can rely on, on a pretty independent judiciary. And you know, they, I got to say even a month ago when we wrote this foreign affairs piece, we didn't anticipate a serious challenge to judicial rulings. The kind of stuff that JD Vance has been talking about this week. I have no idea whether the administration would, would follow up on those sorts of threats. But you know, if they ignore the judiciary, that puts us in a different, in a different ballgame, a much more dangerous ball game. But for now, now an independent and powerful judiciary, a highly professionalized military and a pretty wealthy, well endowed civil society private sector are three advantages that oppositions in Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Venezuela didn't have.

[Jon Favreau]

Do you have examples of where a democracy successfully restored its guardrails after a period of severe democratic erosion?

[Max Fisher]

There are lots of cases of oppositions, of democratic oppositions winning power back. It's, there are fewer cases of a quick restoration of the old guardrails. So the, the case to watch I think is Poland where there's a, the democratic opposition won power back a couple of years ago and there's, and it's hard, you know, after the, the machinery of government's been weaponized and partisan allies are placed throughout the state. It's hard to go back and restore the state the way it was before. And it's been a very difficult chore for the current government in Poland. But that's probably the closest case to watch of a I mean, there are other cases of sort of long term periods of authoritarian, the collapse of a dictatorship like in Spain or in Chile. But that's not what this is. This is a sort of a slide into an authoritarian government, a pretty good chance that the opposition wins the next election. And I think that the problem is going to be precisely what you point to, that the norms have been shot to hell and a lot of the rules have been twisted, manipulated, weakened. And it's just a lot easier to break democratic institutions than it is to rebuild them. And my guess is we're going to take a couple of steps back and then we'll be able to take a step forward. But it's going to be very hard to get back to where we were in say, the Obama era.

[Jon Favreau]

So you're a professor. What are you saying to your students to try to stave off the fatigue and disillusionment that so many young people might be feeling right now and sort of, you know, wave the flag for democracy as you are trying to send off a lot of young students hopefully inspired to go change the world.

[Max Fisher]

I tell them it's their turn. I tell them that a lot of us have been out there for the last eight years fighting for democracy with a mixed record. We certainly did not prevent Trump from, from coming back to power. And my 18, 19, 20 year old students, it's time for them to stand up. And you know, they were young when Trump was first elected. They were, most of them were too young to be part of the so called resistance the first time around. It's their term. I mean, as we noted earlier in this conversation, a lot of us are feeling this awful mix of exhaustion and fear and resignation which is pushing a lot of activists, a lot of citizens to the sidelines. What the democratic small D democratic opposition needs is fresh blood. And I think college students, it's very likely that college students will lead the way in the opposition position this time around.

[Jon Favreau]

I hope so. Dr. Sty, thank you so much for joining Offline and for everything you've been doing to really help put this in context for us and, and give us a, give us a bit of a path forward. So appreciate that.

[Max Fisher]

Thanks so much for having me on.

[Jon Favreau]

Offline is a crooked media production. It's written and hosted by me, Jon Favreau along with Max Fisher. The show is produced by Austin Fisher and Emma Ilick Frank Jordan Kanter is our sound editor. Audio support from Charlotte Landis and Kyle Segland. Delon Villanueva produces our videos each week. Jordan Katz and Kenny Siegel take care of our music. Thanks to Ari Schwartz, Madeline Herringer and Adrienne Hill for production support. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

[Dr. Steven Levitsky]

You have one goal. Find the perfect place to grow your company. You don't have time for empty promises and at Jobs Ohio, we don't have time to make them. You deserve a partner who gets it, someone who understands your vision and the seamless path to sustainable growth. Expect this and so much more in Ohio, where you'll benefit from the best sites, earlier funding and the top industry talent you've been searching for. Bring your business to Ohio and join our centuries spanning tradition of movers and shakers. Get started [e-mail] with an advanced network, cybersecurity solutions and trusted partnership. Comcast Business powers more businesses than than anyone. Comcast Business powering possibilities restrictions apply.

[Jon Favreau]

Call or visit comcastbusiness.com to learn more.