Political scientists have long assumed that the American constitutional system was a durable safeguard against authoritarian leadership. Checks and balances, separation of powers and federalism were designed to prevent executive overreach.
However, a new paper by UC Berkeley Political Science Professor Eric Schickler, “What Donald Trump Has Taught Us about American Political Institutions,” argues that recent political developments have challenged those assumptions. He suggests that the Trump presidency has proven that those institutions, once viewed as bulwarks against authoritarianism, are far more fragile than previously thought.
“The last 14 months have underscored some weaknesses of American political institutions that political scientists need to pay more attention to,” said Schickler. “Trump has been highly effective in destroying certain parts of the state, like USAID or undermining the capacity of others, such as the FDA. My paper asks how this came to happen.”
Rather than defending the constitution and resisting overreach, for example, many institutions have instead deferred to the executive branch. This includes Congress, the administrative state, civil society actors and corporations, among others.
“We supposedly have a system in which different institutions can be depended on to defend their own power against encroachments from other institutions,” said Schickler. “Our pluralistic civil society, with all its different interests, should provide a protection against authoritarianism because they will defend their own interests against the government.”
Congress’ response to Trump’s presidency offers one of the clearest examples of how this expectation has failed to hold, he said. Congress’ oversight of the executive branch has been limited, even in situations where constitutional norms were challenged, Schickler argued.
The administrative state has also proven less resilient than scholars expected, he noted. Agencies often assumed to be stable have, he said, become strained by executive actions, budgetary pressure and internal disruption.
Likewise, civil society actors have struggled to provide meaningful resistance, he noted. In the face of economic consequences imposed by the federal government, Schickler argued, many institutions have proven themselves to be more likely to accommodate authoritarianism than confront it directly.
Schickler discussed how corporations have enabled authoritarianism: “The government can impose immense costs on your business if it wants to,” he said. “So, corporations give way to demands because doing otherwise would come at a huge economic cost. From a shareholder perspective, it’s better to just give in.”
Schickler’s analysis challenges long-standing assumptions within political science about the resilience of democratic institutions. If institutions continue to neglect the importance of collective resistance, the checks and balances that once seemed reliable will continue to deteriorate.
Central to the paper is the concept of nationalized polarization, developed by Schickler and UC Berkeley Political Science Professor Paul Pierson. In their book, “Partisan Nation,” the two argue that American politics have shifted toward two highly polarized national parties, reducing the diversity that once characterized the party system.
“The constitutional order wasn’t designed for this unnationalized polarization,” said Schickler. “This has given us teammanship across branches, where the Courts, the Congress and the President aren’t checking one another, but rather are much more inclined to defer to the president.”
This has led members of Congress to prioritize supporting a president from their own party rather than defending institutional authority. Schickler builds on this concept in his paper, analyzing how polarization and institutional incentives have factored into recent political developments.
The rapid weakening of American political institutions indicates that political scientists may have overestimated the resilience of our political system, he said. Understanding these vulnerabilities and how to respond to them, Schickler argued, should now become a central research priority.
“What we’re seeing requires coordinated opposition from corporations, universities and institutions,” Schickler said. “Ordinary voters and citizens should also be willing to form a coordinated counter to corporations that cave to authoritarianism. Coordinated action by citizens – as consumers – could change their calculus about whether it makes economic sense to cave rather than resist.”