According to a recent survey, most political scientists agree that President Donald Trump is turning the United States government into an autocracy, all too quickly.
As political scholars Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way explain, a competitive-authoritarian country is one where elections are held and election results carry, but incumbents alter the game so as to tilt the odds of winning heavily in their favour. This effectively makes it an autocratic regime, with one person holding the lion’s share of power.
Politicians tilt these odds by doing exactly the sorts of things Trump is doing. He is replacing civil servants with loyalists, and then repurposing the long-standing institutions they serve. This is so he can use those institutions for political gain — to punish dissenters and reward allies. All to support his staying in power.
As just one recent example, Levistky and Way predicted in February that the Internal Revenue Service would become one of the many departments that Trump would weaponize. On April 15, Trump called for the IRS to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status in response to the university’s refusal to acquiesce. Trump had previously withheld billions of dollars in grant funding.
Read more: Harvard is suing the White House: here's what Trump hopes to achieve by targeting universities
Is there any case in which Trump has still acted in the service of the American public? Arguably, no, not by a long shot. Even the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post describes his first 100 days as a remarkable failure across multiple fronts.
The headlines have been blistering, calling those first 100 days “horrifying” and “inept.” Nor is the American public impressed: most give his performance a grade of D or F, according to a recent poll.
The biggest threat of all may be permanent damage to government institutions.
Democracy and population health
As research shows, these trends cannot possibly be good for the lives and livelihoods of American citizens. We have known for over a decade that the recruitment of civil servants based on their political affiliations or loyalties, rather than credentials, is a recipe for political corruption. Corruption, in turn, harms population health.
My own recent study affirms these findings. It also concludes that the impact of civil service hiring on population health is surprisingly direct. All of this suggests more corruption and worse health as Trump tightens his control over the civil service.
Democracy, too, matters for population health. In another study, we found that democracies have as much as 11 years of added life expectancy, and 75 per cent lower rates of infant mortality, compared to autocratic countries. For someone focused on cross-national differences in health, these were huge differences.
Economic impacts
Trump’s actions will soon affect American wallets as well if they haven’t already, as research on both civil service hiring and democratization would suggest.
It’s not difficult to demonstrate the threat, which continues to evolve in real time. Tourism in the U.S. has taken a serious hit in recent weeks, with airline bookings from Canada down 70 per cent.
People from other countries first started boycotting American goods and services in response to Trump’s tariff campaign. In the meantime, Congress has done little to curtail the detainment of migrants without just cause, or their deportation to a Salvadorean mega-prison without due process. And now tourists are afraid to travel to the U.S.
It is fair to say that both economic prosperity and population health require investment in the same government infrastructures that the Trump administration is now downsizing.
Yet the damage does not stop at the border. Trump’s decisions will have ripple effects on global health. Programs focused on containing infectious disease in the developing world are bearing the brunt of huge cuts to USAID.
Speed and volume
Trump’s approach is not informed by any kind of economic expertise. He is shooting the American economy in both feet by waging a tariff war against other countries as he simultaneously decimates tourism and upends a low-cost workforce with his immigration policy.
Americans who voted for him will not get the price control they were hoping for, with supply-chain disruptions coming quickly down the pipeline.
Nor can Americans count on the court system to preserve democracy. This is for two reasons.
First, Trump’s executive actions are happening far too quickly. He has had a record number of executive orders since taking office only three months ago. It may take months if not years for challenges to these decisions to work their way through courts.
Second, courts will not necessarily rule on the side of democracy, as in the Supreme Court’s decision to assure legal immunity for Trump.
None of this bodes well. According to one watchdog based in Sweden, the U.S. could lose its status as a democratic nation in just a few months — well before the midterm elections.
Starting a movement
All of this has one common denominator: Trump’s unhinged executive power. A decidedly meek U.S. Congress needs to wake from its stupor and constrain that power.
But at the time of this writing, the House judiciary committee plans to slip provisions into a budget megabill that will grant Trump ever more sweeping power over regulations.
One solution may be what we sociologists refer to as a social movement. This is where as many people as possible choose to act. Small interactions — like sharing an article with friends and family — can make a big difference, according to one prominent perspective in sociology.
Other means are more direct, like joining a protest or writing to members of Congress. And then there are decisions about what not to do. Universities and law firms are encouraged not to participate in the fraying of American democracy by making a “deal” with the Trump administration.
The take-home message is that the threat to American democracy is real and it is imminent. The impact on human health and well-being will be global. If the collapse of American democracy affects all of us, inside and outside of U.S. borders, then we can all agree to do something about it.
Andrew C. Patterson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
