Podcast Summary: The Political Scene | The New Yorker Episode: How Bad Is It?: Three Political Scientists Say America Is No Longer a Democracy
Date: December 11, 2025
Host(s): Tyler Foggatt, Andrew Marantz
Guests:

• Steven Levitsky (Harvard)
• Daniel Ziblatt (Harvard)
• Lucan Way (University of Toronto)

Episode Overview

In this special "emergency" episode of The Political Scene, hosts Tyler Foggatt and Andrew Marantz convene a panel with three leading political scientists—Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, and Lucan Way—for a sobering check-in on the state of American democracy. All three scholars have published influential work on democratic erosion and "competitive authoritarianism," and their new article in Foreign Affairs makes the explicit, headline-grabbing case: the United States is now a competitive authoritarian regime, no longer a democracy.

The discussion covers their reasoning behind this dramatic diagnosis, comparisons with other countries, what "competitive authoritarianism" means, the speed and nature of America's decline, potential for resistance, and the likely shape of American politics going forward.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. From Warning to Declaration: The Scholars' Process

• Background & Collaboration: The three panelists have known each other since grad school at UC Berkeley and routinely challenge each other's thinking about democracy and authoritarianism. (04:14)
• Why Declare America 'No Longer a Democracy'?:
  • They "reached the conclusion that this was necessary" after nine months of observation following Trump's second term. The process was not rash but a product of internal skepticism and dialogue. (04:14 – 05:16)
  • Quote (Daniel Ziblatt, 04:14):

    "We all play slightly different roles... We try to serve as skeptics to each other. So actually, having the three of us in conversation about this... is actually very productive."

2. Defining Competitive Authoritarianism and Assessing America

• What Is Competitive Authoritarianism?
  • Systems where elections exist and some freedoms persist, but the playing field is heavily skewed by state power, repression, and intimidation. (06:21)
  • The US "crossed the line" with the rapid weaponization of the state—such as actions against law firms simply for representing government rivals—without any legalistic or legislative cover, moving with stunning speed in early 2025. (06:21–08:32)
  • Quote (Lucan Way, 08:08):

    "What happened in the United States was something... not legalistic in a number of ways. One, it did not involve a change in the law. He just did it...the sheer rapidity, the rapid descent in literally a matter of weeks..."

3. Why Did America Move Faster Than Past Cases?

• Comparisons to Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, India:
  • Although the US had legal and democratic traditions, Trump's administration bypassed legal changes and rapidly imposed authoritarian hardball, doing more damage in less time than those international precedents. (17:40–18:52)
  • Quote (Daniel Ziblatt, 17:40):

    "...its authoritarian turn was faster and farther reaching than those that occurred in the first year of those other regimes."

• Second-Term Factor:
  • This is also viewed as the culmination of a project that began in 2016, likened to Victor Orbán's more ruthless return to power.

4. The Experience of Living in 'Soft' Authoritarianism

• Affective Whiplash & Asymmetric Experience:
  • Many Americans find the new regime normal in daily life—life goes on, "mimosas in authoritarian regimes"—but political and civil rights are deeply eroded underneath. (13:41–15:45)
  • The impact is uneven: some, especially targeted groups, feel real fear and repression; others barely notice. (15:05)
  • Quote (Steven Levitsky, 13:51):

    "...life goes on in many, many, many respects, as normal in authoritarianism...in a competitive authoritarian regime... things look pretty normal."

5. Markers of Authoritarianism in Practice

• Self-Censorship as the Key Evidence:
  • The chilling effect on journalists, universities, and dissenters is a litmus test for competitive authoritarianism. (20:22)
  • Universities, in particular, are described as experiencing preemptive appeasement, mass self-censorship, suppression of protest rights, and leadership "not speaking out." (20:56–22:25)
  • Quote (Levitsky, 20:56):

    "In the case of universities, the attack was so thoroughgoing and so punitive that there has been a large scale kind of preemptive appeasement..."

6. Dilemmas of Resistance and Acquiescence

• Why Don't Institutions Push Back?
  • For many organizations, it's rational to lay low to protect themselves in the short term, but collectively this enables the authoritarian project. (25:00–27:16)
  • American exceptionalism and weak civic associations make coordinated resistance harder. (27:16)
  • Quote (Levitsky, 25:13):

    "...what is rational in the short term may be very destructive in the medium term...that's why U.S. society has responded slowly and ineffectively so far..."

7. Entrenched Instability and the Outlook for the Next Decade

• No Entrenched Dictatorship, No Full Restoration:
  • The likeliest outcome is a bumpy "slide back and forth between dysfunctional democracy and unstable competitive authoritarianism." (32:53–33:03)
• Democratic Opposition Still Strong—For Now:
  • Compared to opposition parties elsewhere, the Democratic Party is well-funded, united, and viable—a significant source of hope. (35:32–36:54)
  • Quote (Levitsky, 35:32):

    "This is a viable political party that's going to be able to win the first national election...That's comparatively speaking, really quite positive."

8. Approval Ratings and Regime Durability

• Low Approval, More Vulnerability:
  • Competitive authoritarians who lack popular approval are more susceptible to electoral or bureaucratic resistance; bureaucrats won't "go all in" if they think the regime won't last. (37:48–39:34)
  • Example: When bureaucrats expect quick change, they hesitate to follow illegal orders.
  • Quote (Way, 37:48):

    "...if you think that this guy is going to be in power for another eight, 10 months...you're going to resist."

9. Comparative International Lessons and Future Scenarios

• Poland as a Model of 'Militant Democracy':
  • The longer "hardball" politics continue, the more the opposition may be induced (or forced) to fight dirty as well, deepening instability. (41:03–42:12)
• Potential Sources of Regime Weakness:
  • Corruption and concentration of power become political liabilities for the ruling party.
  • America's decentralized election systems and state-level autonomy serve as obstacles to full-fledged regime control. (43:05–45:00)

10. Personal Responses—Stay or Go?

• On Asking "Should I Leave?":
  • Exaggerating danger by talking about emigrating reinforces the regime's narrative of inevitability and can demoralize resistance.
  • Quote (Ziblatt, 45:31):

    "Even engaging in the kind of talk, 'Oh, I might have to leave because my life is at risk...' is just reinforcing this sort of perception of inevitability..."

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "They have mimosas in authoritarian regimes, too."
  – Steven Levitsky (13:41)
  (Highlighting that daily life can feel 'normal' even as the system changes at its core)

• "In a democracy, you can criticize the government and still not have to worry that your government contract will be revoked or that you'll be audited by the IRS or lose your grant funding. But in the authoritarian regime, this is precisely what people have to worry about."
  – Lucan Way (12:07)

• "This is not El Salvador. This is not Bukele. This is a government that's moving fast and breaking things and breaking things that many Americans don't want broken. This is a very ideological political party... They're not the kind of authoritarian force that gets things done."
  – Levitsky (33:03–34:08)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:00 — Announcement of the Foreign Affairs article and diagnosis: US "no longer a democracy"
• 06:21 — Definition and arrival of "competitive authoritarianism" in America
• 08:32 — Why the line was crossed: Weaponization of state power without legal change
• 13:41 — How authoritarianism can feel "normal" in everyday life
• 15:05 — Authoritarianism’s asymmetric impact
• 17:40 — Why the US is compared to Hungary, India, etc, and why it moved faster
• 20:22 — Self-censorship in journalism
• 20:56–23:45 — Universities as examples of repression and self-censorship
• 25:00 — Dilemma: rational acquiescence vs. resistance
• 32:53 — The likely future: regime instability, not consolidated dictatorship
• 35:32 — Why U.S. democratic opposition is stronger than in most cases
• 37:48 — Significance of approval ratings for resistance within authoritarian regimes
• 41:03 — Poland and the dilemma of "militant democracy"
• 43:05–45:00 — How corruption and decentralized elections could undermine the regime
• 45:31 — On the rhetoric and psychology of leaving the country

Overall Tone & Takeaways

The tone is frank, analytical, often somber but not fatalistic, with the hosts and guests balancing clear-eyed pessimism about the current moment with an emphasis on historical context and the possibilities for resistance and eventual recovery. The guests stress that an authoritarian turn does not mean "the end of history," and that U.S. society retains unique sources of resilience.