Five Scenarios
In the Age of Trump, we might need to ask ourselves the ultimate hard question
History must guide the reform of American democracy
If you read, please support
I had planned to write today about the mechanisms by which executive-level corruption erodes liberty, freedom, and the rule of law, according to Trenchard and Gordon.
But I’m feeling the heat. After last week's essay, I got several requests to step up to the plate. The complaint was that while I am blithely sailing the shores of history and metaphysics, both the American ship of state and the U.S.-led rules-based world order are sinking before our very eyes.
Therefore, I should map out concrete steps that citizens can take now to counter the march of Trump's domestic and global authoritarianism.
More precisely, here’s what a gentleman named Clif said:
Surely [last week’s] Oval Office disaster is the low point of American diplomacy: a President choosing a dictator over democracy. I can’t weep over this slow motion train wreck any longer. Might you have a suggestion or two how those of us who truly understand what’s at stake can fight back until the day is done?
Fight Like Hell or Play Possum?
Clif’s energies and instincts are similar to those of Robert Reich, economist and former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, who recently wrote a piece entitled, “Democrats! Wake the hell up!” and to those of Dan Pfeiffer, former Obama aide, who made the claim, “Democrats have two choices: roll over or fight like hell for everything we care about.”
Yet there’s also the twangy voice of James Carville, lead strategist for Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, who recommends in interviews and in print that Democrats “play possum,” adopting a strategy of waiting, watching, and preparing for the moment when democracy-loving citizens “come in and save the day.”
Carville elaborates:
Already, many Democrats across the party are itching at their seams for a showdown. Instead of gearing up to fight them—as we love to do—the most radical thing we can do is nothing at all.
Generally speaking, I agree with Carville because hopefully the Trump administration will self-implode without Democrats further damaging their reputation by engaging in catfights. Such a measured approach, at least for a while, might spawn success in the midterms—and possibly the presidential election of 2028.
More to the point, however, I believe that democracy-loving citizens should use this precious time to engage in careful self-examination followed by systematic decision-making about the approaching tender months of November 2028 through January 2029.
In the end, the fate of the United States will boil down to one question:
Who’s willing to die for our democracy?
Five Scenarios
I believe the presidential election and transfer of power scheduled to take place in 2028-29 will be the next major inflection point for our democracy. Therefore, in a spirit of strategic foresight, let’s explore five scenarios for those years.
Will the next presidential election bring about the restoration of ethical leadership and salutary reform, putting the republic back on its feet? Or, are we headed for a post-election sham democracy defined by sham elections and sham rule of law?
Think of the seventy-four days between November 7, 2028, and January 20, 2029, as a critical test. We don’t yet know what will be on the test. Therefore, we have to study all the relevant information in order to be ready for all contingencies.
What we “do” now is study hard—and prepare.
Here are five scenarios for 2028-29 we must anticipate and prepare for:
Peaceful Transfer of Power I: The Republicans lose in 2028 and a public servant like J.B. Pritzker, current governor of Illinois, becomes president. The Republicans either surrender the White House gracefully, or fitfully, after losing repeated court cases, similar to 2020-21. At this point, the fight for a safe, just, multiracial, gender-equal constitutional democracy continues apace, hopefully fortified by intelligent structural reform.
Peaceful Transfer of Power II: The Republicans win in 2028, and executive-level authoritarian corruption continues.
These scenarios represent an update to my “Worse Case Scenario, If Trump Wins.” I continue to hold the conviction that Trump will not remain in office after January 20, 2029. However, he might help engineer a coup for a fellow Republican through corruption and election denial.
Crisis Followed by Reform: The Republicans lose in 2028 but, demagoguing lies about election fraud, refuse to give up power. They declare a state of emergency. A constitutional crisis worse than January 6 ensues. Yet, the crisis ends in the inauguration of the Democratic victor. Now scared straight, the United States enters an era of much-needed reform, renewing and updating the constitutional order.
Crisis Followed by Revolution: The Republicans lose in 2028 and, as in Scenario #3, refuse to give up power, declaring a state of emergency. Unprecedented crisis ensues, but the outcome is different. The Republicans remain in power in an auto-coup. The military, bewildered by the cacophony of lies, disinformation, demagoguery, and contradictory court cases, backs the Republicans. Now we are in a state of what is known in political history as “arbitrary power.” Democracy-loving citizens protest and request foreign diplomatic intervention, and, finally, if nothing else works, they execute the “right of revolution”—that is, withdrawal from arbitrary government, following the model set by the founders of the United States in 1776.
Crisis Followed by Sham Democracy: Alternately, the Republicans lose in 2028 but remain in power, setting up arbitrary government. Instead of fighting back, the “flaccid Democrats,” as Maureen Down recently described them, zip their lips and keep their heads down. Democrats don’t read history. They are not possessed of the “spirit of liberty” or the “spirit of self-sacrifice.” They go along to get along. This moment of capitulation to arbitrary government heralds the advent of a new Era of Sham Democracy in America.
I will be writing more about the “Right of Revolution” in coming months.
If you are curious to learn more now, here’s a link to a piece I wrote for the Los Angeles Times on July 4, 2023:
Self-Examination
In the end, I believe the fate of the United States will boil down to one question.
Are we willing to die for our democracy?
History invites us to self-examination. Clif, Eli, and others, what are you going to do if the current corruption of the executive branch ends up in arbitrary government?
That’s the crux. That’s the question we should be exploring in our own psyches and at the breakfast and dining room table with friends and family.
Imagine the difference in this man and woman: We ask the man, “Are you willing to die for your democracy?”
“Hell, no,” he replies, retreating to his iPhone to review his stock portfolio and his application for citizenship in Canada.
The woman, on the other hand, steps up like Joan d’Arc, declaring from the depths of her fiber, “Hell, yes, I will die for my democracy.”
Which one of these two citizens, the man or the woman, is going to save our republic? Who is going to carry the flag into the danger zone? Which of these two spirits is going to deter bad actors from installing arbitrary government in the first place?
For the moment, the best answer I have to Clif’s question is a Socratic counter question. Are you and I willing to die for our democracy, Clif, walking and singing forever for liberty, freedom, and the rule of law—until the day is done?
In the Age of Trump, this is the ultimate question we should ask ourselves as we study, prepare, and strategize for the future.
American Commonwealth is a reader-supported publication. If you read, please support:
*******
Eli Merritt is a psychiatrist and historian who writes about the origins of our present political discontents and solutions to them
More articles by Eli Merritt
Books
The Curse of Demagogues: Lessons Learned from the Presidency of Donald J. Trump
Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution
To aid the educational efforts of American Commonwealth, take the next step:
Gift a subscription to a friend or family member
Share, Like, Comment, or Restack below:
I am unclear where exactly we might even have the opportunity to "die for democracy"? Perhaps you will elaborate in the future?
Meanwhile, I wonder if you saw this comment in Paul Krugman's post of 3-7-25? It is very relevant to your opinion that SCOTUS might save us.
Kim Lane Scheppele
"Yeah, well, there's a few things about what's been happening in the last, I guess, six weeks into the Trump administration, as we're speaking. A couple of things that look exactly like what Orban did and a couple of things that are quite new, as I've looked at other countries. So what Orban did at the beginning, there were three things that enabled him to capture his government really fast. So one was that he moved very quickly to capture the Constitutional Court which was the referee of the whole process. And if you capture the refs and you can do all kinds of unconstitutional things and there's no one around to tell you. So now that was something Trump did in his first term. He's basically captured the refs. I'm talking to you Paul on the day after Trump's session, his joint session of Congress speech last night. And I don't know if you saw on the way out the door, the Supreme court only sent four judges this time, fewer than usual, but John Roberts was there and on the way out the door, Trump shakes his hand and says, “Thank you. Thank you again. I won't forget.” Okay? So that is, I mean, if it weren't evident already by the decisions of this court, particularly the immunity decision, which was outrageous, unprecedented, lawless, and just stunning, jaw-droppingly supportive of a lawless executive."