In the wake of Donald Trump’s return to power, the United States finds itself at a crossroads. With a flurry of executive orders and actions, Trump has begun dismantling key institutions of governance, drawing from the blueprint of Project 2025, a conservative initiative aimed at reshaping the federal government. This is not merely a political shift; it is a calculated move toward authoritarianism, one that echoes the strategies of strongmen like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, and even Adolf Hitler. The stakes could not be higher, and the question we must confront is this: How do we push back against this existential threat to democracy?
The Blueprint: Project 2025 and the Dismantling of Government
Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups, outlines a radical vision for the federal government. It calls for the wholesale replacement of civil servants with political loyalists, the privatization of key institutions, and the consolidation of executive power. Trump’s early actions—pardoning over 1,500 participants in the January 6 insurrection, including leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys—suggest that he is following this playbook to the letter.
Historically, the pardon power has been used sparingly and judiciously. But Trump’s pardons of individuals linked to violent extremist groups send a chilling message: loyalty to the leader will be rewarded, even if it involves acts of sedition. This is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, where the rule of law is subordinated to the whims of the ruler. As scholars of authoritarianism have noted, such actions are not merely symbolic; they are a signal to followers that violence in the leader’s name will be excused, if not encouraged.
The Role of JD Vance and the Influence of Anti-Democratic Elites
Trump’s vice-presidential pick, JD Vance, adds another layer of concern. Vance, a rising star in the Republican Party, has deep ties to Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, who has openly questioned the value of democracy. Thiel has argued that capitalism and democracy are incompatible, suggesting that the latter should be dismantled in favor of a more authoritarian system. Vance’s friendship with Curtis Yarvin, a self-described “neoreactionary” who advocates for the abolition of democratic institutions and the establishment of a technocratic dictatorship, further underscores the ideological underpinnings of this movement.
Curtis Yarvin and the Case for Dismantling Government
To fully understand the ideological underpinnings of the current threat to American democracy, we must examine the ideas of Curtis Yarvin, a controversial figure whose writings have influenced key players in the Republican Party, including JD Vance. Yarvin, who writes under the pseudonym “Mencius Moldbug,” is a leading voice in the “neoreactionary” movement (often abbreviated as NRx), a fringe political philosophy that rejects democracy and advocates for a return to authoritarian governance.
Yarvin’s central argument is that democracy is inherently unstable and inefficient. He believes that democratic institutions, with their emphasis on equality and popular sovereignty, lead to chaos and corruption. Instead, Yarvin proposes a system he calls “formalism,” in which power is concentrated in the hands of a single, unelected leader—a modern-day monarch or dictator. This leader would be supported by a technocratic elite, ensuring stability and efficiency at the expense of individual freedoms and political participation.
Yarvin’s ideas are not merely theoretical; they have real-world implications. His vision of a post-democratic society aligns closely with the goals of Project 2025 and the broader authoritarian movement within the Republican Party. By advocating for the dismantling of government institutions and the concentration of power in the hands of a few, Yarvin and his followers are laying the groundwork for a regime that prioritizes control over liberty.
The influence of figures like Thiel and Yarvin raises troubling questions about the future of American governance. If the Republican Party succeeds in its efforts to privatize government institutions and replace them with corporate-controlled entities, we could see the emergence of an oligarchy—a system in which power is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy elites. This is not mere speculation; it is a pattern we have seen in countries like Russia, where Putin has used privatization to enrich his allies and consolidate power.
The Economic Implications of a National Sales Tax
One of the most radical proposals on the table is the replacement of the IRS with a national sales tax. Proponents argue that this would simplify the tax code and reduce government overreach. But critics warn that such a move would disproportionately burden low- and middle-income Americans, while allowing the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.
Who Would Be Most Affected?
The shift to a national sales tax would have profound implications for economic inequality in the United States. Here’s how it would play out:
- Low- and Middle-Income Families: These households spend a larger proportion of their income on goods and services, meaning they would bear the brunt of a national sales tax. For example, a family earning $50,000 a year might spend 80% of their income on taxable items like food, clothing, and transportation. Under a national sales tax, they could see their effective tax rate skyrocket, leaving less money for savings, education, or healthcare.
- The Working Poor: Those living paycheck to paycheck would be hit hardest. A sales tax is inherently regressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from those who can least afford it. For someone earning $20,000 a year, even a modest sales tax could mean the difference between making rent or facing eviction.
- Seniors and Fixed-Income Individuals: Retirees living on fixed incomes would also suffer. With limited ability to increase their earnings, they would have no way to offset the additional tax burden imposed by a national sales tax.
- Small Businesses: While large corporations might benefit from the elimination of corporate taxes, small businesses would face higher costs as they pass the sales tax on to consumers. This could stifle entrepreneurship and exacerbate economic concentration in the hands of a few mega-corporations.
How the Rich Would Benefit
In contrast, the wealthy would see significant advantages under a national sales tax regime:
- Lower Effective Tax Rates: High-income individuals spend a smaller proportion of their income on taxable goods and services. Much of their wealth is tied up in investments, real estate, and other assets that would not be subject to a sales tax. As a result, their effective tax rate would drop dramatically.
- Tax Avoidance Opportunities: The wealthy have the resources to exploit loopholes and offshore accounts, further reducing their tax burden. A sales tax system would make it even easier for them to avoid contributing to public services and infrastructure.
- Privatization of Public Services: As government revenue declines due to the elimination of income taxes, public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure would likely be privatized. This would create lucrative opportunities for wealthy investors while leaving ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.
Historically, regressive tax policies have exacerbated inequality and undermined social cohesion. In Chile, for example, the Pinochet regime’s embrace of neoliberal economic policies—including a flat tax and the privatization of social services—led to widespread poverty and unrest. The parallels to Trump’s agenda are impossible to ignore. By dismantling the IRS and replacing it with a national sales tax, Trump could further entrench economic inequality, creating a society in which the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
Lessons from History: How Authoritarians Consolidate Power
To understand the potential trajectory of Trump’s presidency, we must look to history. Authoritarian leaders often follow a similar playbook: they undermine democratic institutions, suppress dissent, and use violence to maintain control.
- Vladimir Putin: Putin’s rise to power in Russia was marked by the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions, the suppression of political opposition, and the use of state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion. Trump’s attacks on the press and his efforts to delegitimize the judiciary bear a striking resemblance to Putin’s tactics.
- Viktor Orbán: In Hungary, Orbán has used constitutional changes and legal reforms to consolidate power, effectively turning a democracy into an authoritarian state. His attacks on civil society, the judiciary, and the media mirror Trump’s efforts to undermine checks and balances in the United States.
- Adolf Hitler: Hitler’s rise to power in Germany was facilitated by the erosion of democratic norms, the use of paramilitary groups to intimidate opponents, and the exploitation of economic instability. While the historical context is different, the parallels to Trump’s use of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are deeply troubling.
Confronting the Challenge: How Do We Push Back?
The question facing Americans is not whether Trump poses a threat to democracy, but how to confront that threat. History offers some guidance:
- Defend Democratic Institutions: The judiciary, the press, and civil society are the bulwarks of democracy. We must resist efforts to undermine their independence and hold those who attack them accountable.
- Build Coalitions: Authoritarians thrive on division. By building broad-based coalitions that transcend partisan lines, we can create a united front against authoritarianism.
- Promote Civic Education: An informed citizenry is the best defense against authoritarianism. We must invest in civic education to ensure that Americans understand their rights and the importance of democratic institutions.
- Use Nonviolent Resistance: History shows that nonviolent resistance is often more effective than violence in challenging authoritarian regimes. From the civil rights movement to the fall of the Berlin Wall, nonviolent action has proven to be a powerful tool for change.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The emergence of an authoritarian regime in the United States is not inevitable, but it is a real and present danger. Trump’s actions, supported by figures like JD Vance and funded by anti-democratic elites like Peter Thiel, represent a clear and present threat to the foundations of our democracy. The influence of thinkers like Curtis Yarvin, with their explicit calls for dismantling democratic institutions, only deepens the urgency of this moment.
We must not be complacent. The lessons of history are clear: authoritarianism can only be defeated through vigilance, courage, and collective action. The time to act is now.
Sources:
- How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
- The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder
- The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer
- Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025
- Writings of Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug)
- Interviews and writings of Peter Thiel
- Economic analyses of regressive tax policies by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)
