This Is How Democracies Die

[Belsnickel]

I read a book recently called On Tyranny which is about lessons learned from the rise and fall of democracies in the twentieth century. These primarily have happened at the hand of fascism and communism in central and eastern Europe, but a lot of the information rings true for others, as well. It's a good book, and the author is a well known scholar on the history of eastern Europe. Anyway, because of this book, this opinion piece caught my eye.

Quote:Blatant dictatorship – in the form of fascism, communism, or military rule – has disappeared across much of the world. Military coups and other violent seizures of power are rare. Most countries hold regular elections. Democracies still die, but by different means.

Since the end of the Cold War, most democratic breakdowns have been caused not by generals and soldiers but by elected governments themselves. Like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.

Democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box. The electoral road to breakdown is dangerously deceptive. With a classic coup d’état, as in Pinochet’s Chile, the death of a democracy is immediate and evident to all. The presidential palace burns. The president is killed, imprisoned or shipped off into exile. The constitution is suspended or scrapped.

On the electoral road, none of these things happen. There are no tanks in the streets. Constitutions and other nominally democratic institutions remain in place. People still vote. Elected autocrats maintain a veneer of democracy while eviscerating its substance.

Many government efforts to subvert democracy are “legal”, in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy – making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption or cleaning up the electoral process.

Newspapers still publish but are bought off or bullied into self-censorship. Citizens continue to criticize the government but often find themselves facing tax or other legal troubles. This sows public confusion. People do not immediately realize what is happening. Many continue to believe they are living under a democracy.

Because there is no single moment – no coup, declaration of martial law, or suspension of the constitution – in which the regime obviously “crosses the line” into dictatorship, nothing may set off society’s alarm bells. Those who denounce government abuse may be dismissed as exaggerating or crying wolf. Democracy’s erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible.

How vulnerable is American democracy to this form of backsliding? The foundations of our democracy are certainly stronger than those in Venezuela, Turkey or Hungary. But are they strong enough?

Answering such a question requires stepping back from daily headlines and breaking news alerts to widen our view, drawing lessons from the experiences of other democracies around the world and throughout history.

A comparative approach reveals how elected autocrats in different parts of the world employ remarkably similar strategies to subvert democratic institutions. As these patterns become visible, the steps toward breakdown grow less ambiguous –and easier to combat. Knowing how citizens in other democracies have successfully resisted elected autocrats, or why they tragically failed to do so, is essential to those seeking to defend American democracy today.

We know that extremist demagogues emerge from time to time in all societies, even in healthy democracies. The United States has had its share of them, including Henry Ford, Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy and George Wallace.

An essential test for democracies is not whether such figures emerge but whether political leaders, and especially political parties, work to prevent them from gaining power in the first place – by keeping them off mainstream party tickets, refusing to endorse or align with them and, when necessary, making common cause with rivals in support of democratic candidates.

Isolating popular extremists requires political courage. But when fear, opportunism or miscalculation leads established parties to bring extremists into the mainstream, democracy is imperiled.

Once a would-be authoritarian makes it to power, democracies face a second critical test: will the autocratic leader subvert democratic institutions or be constrained by them?

Institutions alone are not enough to rein in elected autocrats. Constitutions must be defended – by political parties and organized citizens but also by democratic norms. Without robust norms, constitutional checks and balances do not serve as the bulwarks of democracy we imagine them to be. Institutions become political weapons, wielded forcefully by those who control them against those who do not.

This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy – packing and “weaponizing” the courts and other neutral agencies, buying off the media and the private sector (or bullying them into silence) and rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents. The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy – gradually, subtly, and even legally – to kill it.

America failed the first test in November 2016, when we elected a president with a dubious allegiance to democratic norms.

Donald Trump’s surprise victory was made possible not only by public disaffection but also by the Republican party’s failure to keep an extremist demagogue within its own ranks from gaining the nomination.

How serious is the threat now? Many observers take comfort in our constitution, which was designed precisely to thwart and contain demagogues like Trump. Our Madisonian system of checks and balances has endured for more than two centuries. It survived the civil war, the great depression, the Cold War and Watergate. Surely, then, it will be able to survive Trump.

We are less certain. Historically, our system of checks and balances has worked pretty well – but not, or not entirely, because of the constitutional system designed by the founders. Democracies work best – and survive longer – where constitutions are reinforced by unwritten democratic norms.

Two basic norms have preserved America’s checks and balances in ways we have come to take for granted: mutual toleration, or the understanding that competing parties accept one another as legitimate rivals, and forbearance, or the idea that
politicians should exercise restraint in deploying their institutional prerogatives.

These two norms undergirded American democracy for most of the 20th century. Leaders of the two major parties accepted one another as legitimate and resisted the temptation to use their temporary control of institutions to maximum partisan advantage. Norms of toleration and restraint served as the soft guardrails of American democracy, helping it avoid the kind of partisan fight to the death that has destroyed democracies elsewhere in the world, including Europe in the 1930s and South America in the 1960s and 1970s.

Today, however, the guardrails of American democracy are weakening. The erosion of our democratic norms began in the 1980s and 1990s and accelerated in the 2000s. By the time Barack Obama became president, many Republicans in particular questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned forbearance for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.

Trump may have accelerated this process, but he didn’t cause it. The challenges facing American democracy run deeper. The weakening of our democratic norms is rooted in extreme partisan polarization – one that extends beyond policy differences into an existential conflict over race and culture.

America’s efforts to achieve racial equality as our society grows increasingly diverse have fueled an insidious reaction and intensifying polarization. And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.

There are, therefore, reasons for alarm. Not only did Americans elect a demagogue in 2016, but we did so at a time when the norms that once protected our democracy were already coming unmoored.

But if other countries’ experiences teach us that that polarization can kill democracies, they also teach us that breakdown is neither inevitable nor irreversible.

Many Americans are justifiably frightened by what is happening to our country. But protecting our democracy requires more than just fright or outrage. We must be humble and bold. We must learn from other countries to see the warning signs – and recognize the false alarms. We must be aware of the fateful missteps that have wrecked other democracies. And we must see how citizens have risen to meet the great democratic crises of the past, overcoming their own deep-seated divisions to avert breakdown.

History doesn’t repeat itself. But it rhymes. The promise of history is that we can find the rhymes before it is too late.

This is only an excerpt of a book by two Harvard professors of government (one European, one Latin American, both with focuses on democratization as well). I think it is rather thought provoking, though.

Of course, I know some will dismiss this at liberal, elitist, anti-Trump hate from academia and so it isn't worth anything. I just know that I am seeing norms being torn down, norms that existed to keep our institutions upright. This is concerning to me, and I feel we need to pay close attention to what is done.

[Arturo Bandini]

with thunderous applause !

[hollodero]

(01-25-2018, 03:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course, I know some will dismiss this at liberal, elitist, anti-Trump hate from academia and so it isn't worth anything. I just know that I am seeing norms being torn down, norms that existed to keep our institutions upright. This is concerning to me, and I feel we need to pay close attention to what is done.

Yeah that's what this looks like to me from the distance. Spooky and maybe even dangerous.

Especially the polarisation part seems fitting. Again from the distance I see people go through remarkable lengths to be on Trump's side, remarkably willing to discredit law enforcement, journalists and such, and/or remarkably reluctant to stand up and speak out against Trump, and/or even remarkably willing to spin false narratives, lie and do embarrassing stuff to aid and defend Trump. Holding the fort against the other side takes precedence over quite a troubling lot of things. 
In a climate like this, the question what would finally be intolerable might have a frightening answer.

Two cents given, thanks for sharing.

[CKwi88]

(01-25-2018, 04:28 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: with thunderous applause !

I believe that was liberty, not democracy. 



As to the OP, I couldn't agree more. I'd equate the eroding of democracy to the boiled frog parable. There are certainly disturbing trends that need to be addressed. At the top of my list I would have the attacking of the media, increased power/influence of corporations, and the subversion of the electoral process through gerrymandering and voting laws that alienate certain communities and populations and limit participation in elections. 

The isolating of extremists bit of the article is another good point. It's the "intolerance of the intolerant" paradox, but I don't think that the constitution is a document that people should hide behind while things go to shit, a la the whole "guns are a constitutional right" argument whenever shooting come up. 

[Belsnickel]

I had to write a short little response to this article for a class I am in. I figured I would throw it up here:

Quote:The Guardian recently published an opinion piece by Steven Levitsky and Dabiel Ziblatt. These two Harvard professors of government, focusing on Latin America and Europe respectively, have written a book by the same title. The article was an excerpt from the book and it did a fine job of peaking my interest in the book itself, especially after reading On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder.

The article begins with the authors explaining the shift in the fall of democracies around the world. They point out that in the past thirty years these have occurred mostly by incremental changes taking place in the electoral process instead of the instant, and often violent, overthrows of the past. They point out that these movements are often legal, a result of people using and then systemically dismantling the very systems they used to gain power. If you have also read Snyder’s book you will notice here that this connects to chapter two in which the lesson is that we must defend our institutions. Snyder contends in the prologue that if we feel we are “threatened by tyranny, we can…contemplate the history of other democracies and republics” (Snyder 10). This means looking around the world for the signs of a falling democracy, and this is just what Levitsky and Ziblatt are doing in the beginning of this article.

Levitsky and Ziblatt continue on to discuss how this relates to the current situation in the United States with the rise of Trump. They observe that these figures will appear throughout history, but it is a “test for democracies…whether political leaders, and political parties, work to prevent them from gaining power”. In this, as they argue later on, the Republican Party failed by electing Trump. The other important test is whether the institutions in place will hold this rising power in check. The authors suggest that this institution is not only the legal framework, but it is the system of unwritten norms in place. That connection to Snyder’s work is again a strong one in this section for not only the institutions, but also the tearing down of the opposition party, the erosion of ethics, and other lessons that Snyder lays out in his book. That tolerance and restraint that the authors mention allows for a, if not harmonious, civil government of differing views and ethical behavior.

The argument that Levitsky and Ziblatt lay out in this excerpt is compelling. When viewed alongside Snyder’s work, another expert on politics in Europe, it is downright scary. There is no doubt that we need to work to prevent further erosion of the institutions in place, checking the power that our elected officials hold. This is something that is a continuous process for all democracies and does include the unwritten norms rather than just the codified ones. I, however, question the wisdom of leaving so many of them as unwritten norms. So many of the ethical norms in place with the office of President of the United States were unwritten, and those have been the first to be jettisoned. If we are to fight this battle there is no ground to stand on when we contest these actions if there is no formal, legal framework in place. We have no recourse until the next election cycle at which point those norms are gone. Unwritten norms are an important part of our institutions which we must defend, on that we can all agree, but if they are so important we should consider writing them down.

Not that the grading rubric for this was looking for specific things. Were I just writing a response to this article, or even the book, it would have been a bit different (and a lot longer), but this shares some of my thoughts on the article itself.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-25-2018, 05:02 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that's what this looks like to me from the distance. Spooky and maybe even dangerous.

Especially the polarisation part seems fitting. Again from the distance I see people go through remarkable lengths to be on Trump's side, remarkably willing to discredit law enforcement, journalists and such, and/or remarkably reluctant to stand up and speak out against Trump, and/or even remarkably willing to spin false narratives, lie and do embarrassing stuff to aid and defend Trump. Holding the fort against the other side takes precedence over quite a troubling lot of things. 
In a climate like this, the question what would finally be intolerable might have a frightening answer.

Two cents given, thanks for sharing.

Honestly, I've seen it go both ways.

With Trump, you have supporters that will support him no matter what bad things he's done/will do but you also have detractors that will hate him no matter what good things he's done/will do.

I've seen it with Obama and with George W. Bush and I can only guess that it was happening with Clinton and probably Reagan as well (didn't really get into politics into 'Dub ya').

I think it's the fact that both sides can be so intractable and set in their ways and convinced the problem lies with the "other side" that is one of the greatest barriers to getting America to be the country it could be.

[*michaelsean*]

So when we've actually lost our democracy, what will it look like? I understand they say the losing of it is subtle, but how will we know when we've lost it?

[StLucieBengal]

We have been losing it since the Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson days.

[BengalHawk62]

(01-25-2018, 06:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We have been losing it since the Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson days.

That's going back a long ways......I personally would say it started to die in Dallas. 

[hollodero]

(01-25-2018, 05:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Honestly, I've seen it go both ways.

With Trump, you have supporters that will support him no matter what bad things he's done/will do but you also have detractors that will hate him no matter what good things he's done/will do.

I've seen it with Obama and with George W. Bush and I can only guess that it was happening with Clinton and probably Reagan as well (didn't really get into politics into 'Dub ya').

I think it's the fact that both sides can be so intractable and set in their ways and convinced the problem lies with the "other side" that is one of the greatest barriers to getting America to be the country it could be.

I'm not just talking diehard supporters though. Of course everyone has some of those. But the amount of Trump loyalty for lack of a better word from other people in power is what's so troubling. What gets tolerated and defended and spun and so on.

Also, while the point often holds merit I do think it doesn't always go both ways equally. Have you ever played the "What if Obama had done it" game. If Obama had dubious and/or ongoing business dealings he's not willing to disclose, a bunch of undeclared foreign agents in his transition team, had silenced a porn star with 100.000 Dollars he had an affair with, had talked about pussygrabbing, shittalked to boy scouts, would defame political opponents, the FBI and journalists on a daily basis, claimed voter fraud and supported a child molester, had a Times list accusing him of lieing a thousand times, a special councel investigation and so on and so on (this always ends up in lists too long, you know the stuff anyway), no way his support were still around the 40% mark. There would be some supporters. There wouldn't be quite that many. And there would be a whole bunch of Democrats being strongly opposed and voicing that, not just a single Flake. - It's just, Obama or Bush or whoever weren't Trump, so it's hard to compare.

Now while most of these things are rather embarrassing than troubling for democracy, the constant discrediting of law enforcement and the media and the repeated mentioning of baseless conspiracies against political opponents and the whole authoritarian attitude look more serious. As does the silence and deflection from his party.

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2018, 06:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So when we've actually lost our democracy, what will it look like? I understand they say the losing of it is subtle, but how will we know when we've lost it?

It's hard to say. I mean, we probably each have our own thresholds. You would first have to ask what the defining characteristics are of a democratic government, and then assess how well we meet those standards.

I tend to agree with Dahl's framework for a polyarchy (what some call a representative democracy). His standards are effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of adults. These standards should then result in consequences such as political equality, guarantee of essential rights, moral autonomy, economic prosperity, and human development (progression of society/education).

How effective is our participation? How equal are our votes? Does the citizenry understand things in government? Do we control the agenda? Are all adults included?

Also, these aren't perfect standards, just some of the best ones I have seen that are widely used.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-25-2018, 06:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not just talking diehard supporters though. Of course everyone has some of those. But the amount of Trump loyalty for lack of a better word from other people in power is what's so troubling. What gets tolerated and defended and spun and so on.

Are you young? I only ask, because I've not seen any differenc ein the support Trump gets from other politicians than any of the other presidents before him got (since I've paid attention to politics anyway - about the middle of Clinton's 2nd term).

(01-25-2018, 06:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, while the point often holds merit I do think it doesn't always go both ways equally. Have you ever played the "What if Obama had done it" game. If Obama had dubious and/or ongoing business dealings he's not willing to disclose, a bunch of undeclared foreign agents in his transition team, had silenced a porn star with 100.000 Dollars he had an affair with, had talked about pussygrabbing, shittalked to boy scouts, would defame political opponents, the FBI and journalists on a daily basis, claimed voter fraud and supported a child molester, had a Times list accusing him of lieing a thousand times, a special councel investigation and so on and so on (this always ends up in lists too long, you know the stuff anyway), no way his support were still around the 40% mark. There would be some supporters. There wouldn't be quite that many. And there would be a whole bunch of Democrats being strongly opposed and voicing that, not just a single Flake. - It's just, Obama or Bush or whoever weren't Trump, so it's hard to compare.

You never heard of Bill or Hillary Clinton? 
And the "other side do it more" argument is a HUGE problem. The fact that BOTH sides do it and to a significant degree is a problem. Just because one side is like 10 or 20% more corrupt doesn't make it better for the other side if both sides are hugely (or bigly ) corrupt.

(01-25-2018, 06:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Now while most of these things are rather embarrassing than troubling for democracy, the constant discrediting of law enforcement and the media and the repeated mentioning of baseless conspiracies against political opponents and the whole authoritarian attitude look more serious. As does the silence and deflection from his party.

All I'm going to say is that while it's true that Trump shouldn't call all news 'Fake', the fact remains that there are a LOT of 'fake news' stories from supposedly reputable news organizations. If news agencies would go back to making sure their sources were vetted, that their claims were based on merit, stopped rushing to be the 'first', and basically went back to being highly ethical, Trump would have no basis to call ANY news fake. Not that that would stop him, I'm sure, but it'd certainly take away from whatever credibility he might have left.

[*bfine32*]

It can be argued that the most democratic event to happen in our Nation in over a century. The 2016 Election had no incumbent, the DNC trotted out 1 candidate the RNC trotted out about 18. At no time during the whittling down on the 18 did Trump have the backing of the RNC, but the people chose him despite this. Even during the GE there were those in the Republican establishment opposing Trump, while the DNC was cheating to solely support their choice.

Trump wins the election. What about that goes counter to democracy?

[fredtoast]

Democracies don't die unless there are other huge problems in society.

Trump did not get elected because people suddenly decided it was okay to be an asshole. Trump got elected because a certain group of people are very afraid.

Our democracy was safe as long as people who wanted to work could go out and get jobs that allowed them to raise a family. But now the rest of the world is catching up to America. good jobs are being outsourced. technology is making a lot of jobs obsolete. Our economic system has funneled all the economic gains of the last 3 decades up to the top 5% of the population. Health care and education costs have been rising so much faster than wages that the middle class sees it future getting dimmer and dimmer.

Trump racists rhetoric would not have been so popular if middle class Americans did not see immigrants as an economic threat. These people are not motivated by racism. They are motivated by self preservation.

The people who claim they don't care about the environment or global warming are really saying that they don't want any regulation that might lower wages or eliminate jobs.

Democracies only die without a violent coup when there are serious economic problems.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 07:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump wins the election. What about that goes counter to democracy?

This is not all Trumps fault but I see three major threats to democracy.

1.  De-legitimizing the press.  I feel that a robust free press is essential to a democracy.  If the press has no power then that allows the government to run roughshod over citizens.

2.  Elevating corporations over government.  One of the biggest roles of government is to protect the people from the power of corporations.  The individual players may not be evil in their hearts, but capitalism at its very core values profit over human lives.  Unchecked corporate power can produce the same fascist results as unchecked government power.  The people just get exploited by corporations instead of dictators.

3.  De-legitimizing all government agencies other than the executive branch.  Our system of checks and balances does not work if the the executive branch has all of the power.  If the Department of Justice can not investigate the President then who will? 

[Belsnickel]

(01-25-2018, 07:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It can be argued that the most democratic event to happen in our Nation in over a century. The 2016 Election had no incumbent, the DNC trotted out 1 candidate the RNC trotted out about 18. At no time during the whittling down on the 18 did Trump have the backing of the RNC, but the people chose him despite this. Even during the GE there were those in the Republican establishment opposing Trump, while the DNC was cheating to solely support their choice.

Trump wins the election. What about that goes counter to democracy?

If you were to read the article, you would see this doesn't address what they ar saying. Democracy is more than just elections, but even focusing on that's election it is hard to say it is the most democratic thing in a century when he did not win with a plurality of the popular vote.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2018, 08:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you were to read the article, you would see this doesn't address what they ar saying. Democracy is more than just elections, but even focusing on that's election it is hard to say it is the most democratic thing in a century when he did not win with a plurality of the popular vote.

I guess I just focused on the whole How Democracies die thing, considered free elections to be the hallmark of democracies, and provided an example that directly refutes the premise; hell the special election in Alabama is another more recent example.

I feel the election of Trump was pretty Democratic as in our current democracy (we don't do popular vote in GE) he won when every deck was stacked against him.  

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess I just focused on the whole How Democracies die thing and provided an example that directly refutes the premise;

You mean you did not even read the story so you don't even understand the premise.

Like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, elected leaders have subverted democratic institutions in Georgia, Hungary, Nicaragua, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Ukraine.

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2018, 08:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean you did not even read the story so you don't even understand the premise.

If you think that every country that has an "elected" leader is a true democracy then you can move on to a different thread.

Nope, but free elections are the hallmark of democracies, would you not agree?

I glossed over the article, just seemed to be more of the sky is falling stuff. Now if Hills would have gotten elected after what the DNC did then we might want to start worrying about free elections and the demise of democracies.  

[Dill]

(01-25-2018, 07:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Are you young? I only ask, because I've not seen any differenc ein the support Trump gets from other politicians than any of the other presidents before him got (since I've paid attention to politics anyway - about the middle of Clinton's 2nd term).

You never heard of Bill or Hillary Clinton? 
And the "other side do it more" argument is a HUGE problem. The fact that BOTH sides do it and to a significant degree is a problem. Just because one side is like 10 or 20% more corrupt doesn't make it better for the other side if both sides are hugely (or bigly ) corrupt.

All I'm going to say is that while it's true that Trump shouldn't call all news 'Fake', the fact remains that there are a LOT of 'fake news' stories from supposedly reputable news organizations. If news agencies would go back to making sure their sources were vetted, that their claims were based on merit, stopped rushing to be the 'first', and basically went back to being highly ethical, Trump would have no basis to call ANY news fake. Not that that would stop him, I'm sure, but it'd certainly take away from whatever credibility he might have left.

Three quick points here, Philhos:

1. I am not young. And I am aware of no other president, 51% of whose supporters thought he should have the power to override judges decisions, thereby tossing aside one of the essential checks built into our system.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/11/americans-arent-attached-democracy-rule-law
I am unaware of any other president who has so vilified and sought to undermine our intelligence agencies. Only one--NIXON--has villified the press, and nowhere near the degree Trump does. I am unaware of any president since Jackson who demands the DOJ be personally loyal to him and an instrument for prosecuting political opponents. These are exactly the kinds of authoritarian tendencies which undermine democracies, as described in On Tyranny. "Both sides" aren't doing this.

2. I have heard of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and neither has gotten away with anything like Trump's behavior.  Bill Clinton being villified for sexual assault long after he is out of office is NOT the same as Trump being elected in spite of it.  That is NOT--I repeat NOT--"both sides" doing it.  NO PRESIDENT has continually and spectacularly lied to the public the way Trump has--Obama tapped his phone lines, thousands of Muslims cheered the fall of the twin towers, 3-5 million voted illegally. What president has ever publicly insulted women's looks and mocked the disabled as Trump does? And his supporters don't blink. When has this ever happened before in the US??

3. There are no "fake news" stories from reputable news organizations. Fake news occurs when people create a non news site which looks legitimate and then posts something deliberately false, like Hilary killed Vince Foster.  If a reputable news organization overly trusts a source or otherwise makes an error, that is an entirely different kettle of fish. When fake news became a problem in the last election, reputable news sources began publishing primers on how to tell fake from real. Fox and Trump immediately started calling the other side "fake news," deliberately increasing the fog around the factual record with "alternative facts.' NO OTHER PRESIDENT in the history of the US has sought to characterize the entire Free Press outside of FOX as fake as Trump does.  And never in the history the Republic have so many of a president's supporters so blindly followed him in this. These are exactly the kinds of authoritarian tendencies which undermine democracies, as described in On Tyranny.  Again, both sides don't do it.

You say that Trump would continue calling MSM "fake" no matter what they did. That, in itself, should clue you into the major difference between Trump and every previous president.  Add to this his supporters would continue to support him, and you have to move beyond the "both sides do it" claims.  The country will never get back on track until a critical mass of voters understand what is unprecedented and undemocratic about the Trump regime.