Authoritarianism – March 27, 2026

This conversation is a long time coming.

To get us going means going way back to some of history’s earliest philosophers and political thinkers, to arrive at a conclusion about all governments across all nations in that we see a clear and repetitive cycle of growth and decay.

Going back to ancient Greek Historian Polybius is a good place to start, all too easy to argue not only did his work survive the ages but he was arguably an originator of concepts like separation of powers, checks and balances to limit power, and his work about “the people” as a functional element of a government influenced everyone from Roman general and politician Scipio Aemilianus, to English philosopher and physician John Locke, to the framers of the US Constitution.

In all of that, he also proposed a governments cycle, evolution and devolution, of where “the people” fit into the mix. Stages – Monarchy, to Tyranny, to Aristocracy, to Oligarchy, to Democracy, to Ochlocracy, and a return to Monarchy. For the purposes of this conversation Ochlocracy is a form of degraded Democracy where “mob rules,” a sort of fluid condition where political goals and emotion end up greatly influenced by how the majority reacts to conditions. Some may even call this “tyranny of the majority,” where any condition of being minority comes with real risk.

Speaking of influential historical philosophers, Plato and Aristotle both added to this very conversation be it from different takes. The difference between Plato as an idealist and Aristotle as a realist, they both represented a foundational clarification then split for Western thought. One interesting contrast between Plato and Aristotle is why they had very different opinions on which model of governance would, in context, last the longest.

Plato suggested that excessive freedom under some form of democracy would eventually lead to chaos, thus make way for a “protector” to take control and become tyrannical. So, his conclusion was aristocracy was better in that “rule by the most wise” prevented the masses from being their own undoing.

Aristotle was entirely pragmatic, looked at people in the extreme of their views as the core issue to deal with. Therefor, he looked as a mixed model of democracy and oligarchy to deal with the most wealthy and the most poor throttling each other where “the rule of the middle” kept government and society afloat. Arguably, Aristotle was the first to place some degree of weight on the social and economic purpose of a middle class. Even if at the time that meant not aristocracy and not poor, but the producers and doers in a society. That was his argument for stability.

Regardless of their different takes and conclusions, where they agreed was the concept that no system of government was in any regard permanent. Even if they proposed very different abstracts of government, both knew either one would degrade and alter over time.

Call this introduction the basis for our conversation on how people react and abide by various governments, and then how various governments tend to slide into some other model (even if few to none call it out when it happens.)

Types of Authoritarianism

This part will admittedly get awkward, and very likely to annoy all the political science elitists from their years in the study of government.

What we are not as interested in defining are models of authoritarian governments, such as Military Dictatorship or Single-Party Regime, arguably looking at these things as the distinct classifications of what results from government models shifting. What we are interested in defining, and challenging conventional wisdoms, are systems of political organization and ideology. Such as Constitutional Republic and Democracy, but also Fascism and Democratic Socialism. Might even have time to squeeze in where Theocracy fits into things.

Some raw definitions (and no, they are not my definitions.)

Constitutional Republic – A nation or state that is considered a “public matter” under a form of constitutionally limited government, where the constitution is the highest form of law, and representation is determined with election by the people. For this conversation the core principles are: prevent a tyrant, prevent tyranny of the majority, and guarantee “rights” that the government could not vote away.

Democracy – All this means is a system of government where political power is vested in the people. That may be by Direct Democracy or Representative by definition, but in the modern context there really is not much legislation by people assembled. The reason to bring this up is when someone says “America is a Democracy” that is a bit of a generalization and not entirely true in practice (we will talk more about that.)

Theocracy – Form of government where deity, God or Gods, is recognized as the supreme ruling authority. Legal statutes are derived from religious text and law, in practice central religious figures are in absolute control. Arguably, one of the more extreme examples of Authoritarianism. Largely because, these are usually under a single religion and that means other religions are diminished if not outlawed. In the claim of acting on the behalf of deity, the people are often afforded little to no personal civil liberty and most aspects of society and economy end up decided upon under convictions from religion.

Fascism – This is a far right political ideology, generally characterized as centralized and dictatorial authoritarian power. Historically speaking always included forcible suppression of opposition, regimentation of society and economy, and ultranationalism themes to direct the resources of a nation. Emerged, or cemented, in Italy in 1919 under Mussolini and more extreme in Nazi Germany under Hitler.

Socialism – Threw this in there as a bit of a trick. Socialism is a broad economic and political philosophy as an answer to some of the pitfalls of unchecked Capitalism, in that socialism emphasizes public ownership of the means of production (as in land, resources, development, etc.) Where Capitalism emphasizes private ownership of means in the competition for profit, socialism turns to some form of collective government to own and manage it all. In theory, distribute wealth and services with more equity than Capitalism tends to produce

Again, we will get further into this as we go but, both Socialism and Capitalism in the extremes are non-existent, most modern societies and economies blend aspects of market and planned function. One item to keep in mind is Socialism tends to be deployed by concentrated political power, think single political party.

Democratic Socialism – Relatively speaking, new, and another one of those terms lost to the quagmire of political perceptions. Like Socialism above, Democratic Socialism does advocate for the further abolition of capitalism looking at what aspects of the economy can be socially owned. But unlike Socialism above, Democratic Socialism is not necessarily about the Authoritarianism seen from single-party command. As is all things new, there will be consistent question on not just practicality of the theory but also related topics like public accountability, handling duopoly today where one is for this and the other is against it, and understanding how much “command economy” function still shows up.

Modern Application, and some splitting of hairs

This is where it gets really fun.

If you combined the first part of our conversation to the definitions portion it should become very apparent that we can define these things with specificity but that also things tend to shift with subtleties. That specificity of a model of governance, with elements of the economy and society, where on a long enough timeline the model alters. Eventually some other government form is there.

Look at it this way.

There is no real observed political science law that states all governments slide into authoritarianism of some form, even if it appears that overall it tends to happen depending on certain conditions. Moreover, just about all forms of democratic governments are at risk of consolidated power moves.

Many reasons for that of course, not the least of which is the political ease of having more power and more latitude than a Constitution, or some other form of government mandate, typically grants.

A conclusion to consider is that as things become more complex, as political divisions become more severe, there is at least a natural pull towards consolidated power in a manner where competition is less likely to reel it back in. Meaning, some degree of (or combination of) “tyranny of the majority” and “protector” complex that becomes a tyrant level thinking. Modern Authoritarianism can occur quickly, some violent Coup or uprising by the people, but for the most part these shifts start with elected leaders using obtained power to diminish the role of the very people that elected them.

By all the typical targets. The media, how elections are performed, how the people can speak about the government, and eating away at judicial independence. In any process of consolidation is the removal of checks and balances, placing under the control of centralized leadership various political function.

In the modern era context, this can be done by any number of means not necessarily fitting nice and neat into the definitions above.

The first hair to split is a suggestion to evaluate, the idea that the further we go the more we see Republicans embrace a form of Fascism while Democrats outwardly suggest their future is Democratic Socialism. The rub being we know what fascism tends to do to nations and people, but also that we have no real textbook example of multiple-party and individual liberty based Democratic Socialism in practice.

And just like that, it should make sense why Democrats are calling out Republicans for being modern day fascists just as much as Republicans are calling out Democrats for an unrealized political future too close to the horrors of yesterday’s Socialism. Might even say that we have left the realm of the older Capitalism vs. Socialism debate and moved onto which form of Authoritarianism will win out. What Republicans clearly want or what Democrats clearly want, both of which on paper suggests the core concepts of Constitutional Republic need to be altered.

That might be a second hair to split, some political argument that our Constitutional Republic and Constitutional rule of law is safe in the hands of Republican Fascism or Democratic Socialism.

All things being even… not really

No matter what we are democratically backsliding into, the central consideration in all this is how much of early philosophy and political theory applies to the duopolistic political direction this nation is headed. Might even say, the further the division the more vivid the picture gets on ultimate goals from ole ‘D and ‘R.

Or, the duopoly paradox. A choice of authoritarianisms, both seemingly with a smile, that are only similar in that they both want more consistent periods of power while hearing less from opposition. This has already started to happen, Democrats and Republicans today will look at each other and point out the pitfalls of the direction the other wants to take the nation. Just as they would with any subject we hear them discuss. Deficits and Debt, wars, abortion, gun rights, you name it there is always some polarizing take on the matter. The “us vs. them” division oriented political strategy.

This concept is much deeper.

Only because our slide from Constitutional Republic to some other form of government, even not named, is well underway.

Before navigating away thinking “conspiracy theory,” consider that you are already hearing some of the themes, and complaints of one another, play out going as far back as the 1980s. However, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is credited with bringing back the term with his 2016 and 2020 Presidential Campaigns. Now, how Sanders describes Democratic Socialism is different than the above. He largely rejects most of the classical Marxist definitions and attributes, rejecting taking over the means of production, rather defining this as economic rights as being synonymous with human rights. Represent all, “not just the top,” as he would put it. Similar story with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY 14th.)

Just, no one knows exactly what that means but the criticisms of the movement are mounting. There are some mislabeling of other similar models. The Sweden and Denmark models lean capitalist, no real socialism elements. Free markets, private ownership even if regulated. What they both have is a strong welfare state funded by high taxes (by comparison.) That is more likely what Sanders and AOC envision.

But, there is also a political liability with the term Democratic Socialism. Not just because of no real certainty what it means in practice but the term itself, “socialism,” is not going to win with moderates and independents. The very group that determines national election results. Anyone with even a remote understanding of what the greatest generation fought against is not going to adopt the term willingly. You get into “mainstream” vs some “sectarian” view of all this and unification of vision and means to get there is out the window.

But, don’t get too harsh with Democrats, the other side also has their authoritarian leaning faults.

Republicans do not even want to call the current flavor of MAGA Republicanism as fascism in any regard. There may be real structural differences in today’s flavor against decades back, but some of the core elements are there. Demonization of internal opposition as “enemies,” or “traitors,” or “not good for the country.” Using the FCC to harass the media, and/or lawsuits claiming defamation. Calling out the Supreme Court for a decision that does not go their way, and calling out former party members for not being loyal enough. (Um, former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.)

Going a little further with this. The Federal Government seizing State voter rolls and ballot results for “investigation.” The idea of needing to prove you are who you say you are, again, with the “SAVE America Act.”

The point up for consideration being, today’s version of Republican fascism can still be largely Neoliberal Capitalism driven by deregulated markets for higher risk and profits for the few and still mixed with single-party intending centralized power with plenty of stress on Constitutional confines of the Executive Branch. Like loyalty of Congressional leadership to a President as well as that of the Supreme Court, or continuing the overuse of Executive Orders.

As we see more favorability for those willing to commit Jan 6th style attacks by those Republicans who benefit from it, passive encouragement of going after both opposition and non-party loyalists, and even going with anti-intellectualism and anti-science themes, there is a prevailing set of traits on who is in the good graces of MAGA Republican vision against everyone else.

No real middle ground, including those falling in the independent camps. You could argue every bit of what is happening is designed to undermine democracy, and discourage speaking out about it. All with the realization that protests that turn violent is now bipartisan, the only difference being subject and which side benefits from it.

Outlook

The argument is we are in that nebulous area between the steps of Democracy in Constitutional Republic terms, to some form of Ochlocracy that we see today, going towards that potential return to Aristocracy of some form.

A potential question to consider carefully, was Plato and Aristotle that far off the mark even if they did not entirely agree themselves?

Easy to argue we are somewhere in that area of being represented by the irrational, often overly emotional and party loyalist, which drives the very violent reactions seen as some major bill is passed, some election surprises mainstream media (which is all too often now anyway,) some event occurs angering the nation, or some speech is given filled with hatred. “Enemies” or “radicals” when speaking about one another, “look who is not standing up” during a SOTU, and other cheap theatrics.

“Rule by the masses” by appealing to anything but intellect, anything but respect for the Constitution and decorum, all in a manner that would bring a smile to ole Newt Gingrich. Jan 6th then is not the only legal breakdown we have seen, those in power sidestepping legal and ethical landmines is now largely normal, and tyranny of the majority is becoming more real. Something championed now by Republicans and Democrats be it for different reasons.

Example, the argument to breakdown the Electoral College is a move towards greater strength of majority rule. Other examples, Filibuster Reform and Gerrymandering. The idea of securing House Seats and ensuring Senate simple majority passing of legislation.

Already starting to become realized.

The SAVE America Act is going after who can vote and by what standard of proof that they can. The concept of re-carving up districts in States to ensure more go Republican or Democrat all happened in the past year the moment Republicans started to become concerned about the midterms. None of these things are about the voter, they are about political longevity and by extension centralizing more power via the very means several predicted forever ago about the potential slides away from Democracy to… something else.

Even recent history suggests that is not so good for the people.