Donald Trump has a good chance of being reelected as US president this year. What would that mean for American democracy? An interview with Harvard political scientist Daniel Ziblatt.

This interview by Daniel Binswanger & Elia Blülle was originally published in Republik on 30.11.2023. Edited for context purposes by the UBS Center.

The US presidential election is a year away and Donald Trump is ahead in key states according to the latest polls. How is this even possible?

For the time being, great caution is required when it comes to polls. But the figures show that Donald Trump has a real chance of winning. That is worrying. If Trump becomes the Republican presidential candidate, we will be dealing with a candidate who has tried to undermine the orderly transfer of power. He is a serious threat.

Is Trump really a threat to democracy? We've been hearing this for so long: it's become an almost obligatory, clichéd chant.

Let me explain it in more detail. When does someone become a serious threat to democracy? There are a number of criteria: We should be concerned when a politician rejects the rules of democracy, denies his opponents legitimacy, seeks to curtail the civil liberties of his opponents, or tolerates or incites violence. Donald Trump fulfills these criteria, all at the same time. In his first term in office, however, he had little idea how to use his power. He was incompetent, remaining reliant on entrenched personnel to help him run the country. Over time, he began to distrust these people. He marginalized them and brought his loyal supporters into government. This is typical of populist demagogues. Trump would start a second term with much more experience, and he could put his own people in key positions from the start.

So, the second Trump presidency would be worse than the first?

Much worse. Think of Viktor Orbán, who was elected prime minister in Hungary in the late 1990s but was later voted out again and subsequently decided to do everything he could to never suffer defeat again. He came back for a second term and was now much better equipped. Today, he has brought the country under his authoritarian control. The general rule is that the second attempt to seize power is in many ways more dangerous.

You believe Trump would try to secure his power for a longer term in a second term.

To remain president for longer than eight years, he would have to change the constitution. That is very difficult in the USA. But even four more years would be enough for Trump to greatly expand and abuse his power. He has already announced that he wants to use the judicial system to take action against his political opponents. I'm not the one saying that, he says it himself. At the same time, he is talking openly about his plans for migration policy. He wants to set up an authority that will seek out illegal immigrants and deport them without due process. Autocrats always try to hold back the judiciary, the arbiters of the state - or abuse it for their own purposes.

But do you not have any faith in the resilience of US democracy?

I fear that if Trump is re-elected, the US will experience high levels of instability, protest, violence, and dysfunctionality. However, I don't think Trump would be able to establish a Vladimir Putin-style regime or a one-party state like Viktor Orbán. Unlike in Hungary or Russia, there is a strong and well-funded political opposition to Trump in the USA. At least half of Americans do not support him. And there are various states, such as New York and California, that form a counterweight. Even if Trump were to become president again, power would remain decentralized. And in the civil service, as in the courts, there is a pronounced professionalism. These are all forces of resistance: people who will make it more difficult for Trump to do what he would like to do.

In your new book "The Tyranny of the Minority", you also write that institutions alone cannot protect democracy. What makes you say that?

American institutions are vulnerable to a person like Trump seizing power. On the one hand, because any person can become president without having to convince a majority at the polls, and on the other, because elections are a convoluted process. Instead of an election being held and the person with the most votes winning, there is an incredible drama: first there is the Electoral College procedure, and then Congress has to meet to confirm the election. At each of these steps, there are opportunities to abuse the system, or to distort or derail the process. Until the Trump era, it mostly worked smoothly because almost everyone followed unwritten rules. But then along came Trump, who flouts all norms. What's more, our electoral system has massively radicalized the Republican Party over the past forty years.

Why?

Because of the electoral system, voters cannot punish the party if it sends anti-democratic politicians into the race. This has made the party more tolerant of extremists. The Republicans have never won a majority with Trump in a single election, and yet he remains their presidential candidate.

Isn't this simply because Trump is still very popular?

In most Western democracies, in Switzerland, Germany, Poland, the United States, and Sweden, around 20 to 30 percent of citizens vote for far-right parties - our societies are very similar in this respect. In the US, the "Make America Great Again" core of the Republican Party makes up only about 30 percent of the electorate. The difference between Western democracies is not how big the mobilization potential of right-wing populism is, but how much power they get. This depends entirely on the political institutions. The American two-party system neutralizes and dilutes extreme positions at best. They are drowned out by the huge parties. It becomes dangerous when extremists succeed in taking over a party. This is the case in the USA today. The extreme right thus unintentionally gains much more influence than it would be entitled to given its size. In a multi-party system like Switzerland, power is much better distributed.

After Trump lost the last election and his supporters tried to storm the Capitol, one might have expected the Republican Party to distance itself from him. Why didn't that happen?

Because it failed. The usual explanation is: politicians are careerists. They go where the voters are - and the Republicans assume that the voters are with Trump. That's why they don't distance themselves from him: they believe it could damage their careers. But in recent weeks, I've realized that there's another reason for this behavior.

Namely?

Republicans who oppose Donald Trump sometimes fear for their own lives and the lives of their families. They receive death threats. In a new biography about former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, he tells how threats of violence have affected Republican politicians. How Republicans in Congress were in favor of impeachment proceedings against Trump but did not dare to expose themselves - out of fear. When threats of violence characterize the behavior of politicians, American democracy has a serious problem.

There have always been Republicans who dared to stand up to Trump. Mitt Romney was one of them. However, they all failed. Why?

Politicians like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger ruined their careers with their criticism of Trump. The problem is that there has never been a collective uprising by the Republican establishment. A second problem is timing. At this point in time, a Republican leader would stand no chance if she were to organize an uprising against Trump. But between November 2020 and January 2021, right after the election, there would have been a window of opportunity to put an end to this madness. If the Republicans had stood together against Trump's election lies and convicted him at that time, the troubles would have been over for good. He would now be legally prohibited from running for office again. But even people like Mitch McConnell, the former Republican caucus chairman who himself had said Trump was responsible for the storming of the Capitol, voted against impeachment. I think many Republicans regret that today.

The Fox News television channel, which played a major role in his rise, also turned its back on Donald Trump. Why is all this having no effect?

Too little, too late. Trump has enormous support among the Republican electorate. There is no way around that now. All attempts to counter this today are doomed to failure. Now only the Democrats can beat Trump. The Republicans have given up.

But what explains this seemingly indestructible popularity of Trump with the party base?

The Trump base - predominantly white and Christian - is experiencing how American society has changed demographically and become more diverse. What has not changed and does not want to change is the Republican Party. The hard core of its base is reacting to the changes with fear of loss. They say: we are losing our country. And Donald Trump is still good at exploiting these fears.

Similar political movements are occurring in many Western democracies, even in Switzerland or Germany. But why does it seem to be so much more radical in the USA?

The AfD is certainly no picnic either. But you are right: the transformation to a multi-ethnic democracy is more advanced in the USA than in many other societies. The historical legacy of slavery still plays a role here today. All of this is bringing the race into political focus and contributing to polarization. Gender-specific differences are also becoming increasingly important: white men suddenly fear for their status in society. And when people feel that their way of life is fundamentally threatened, it is difficult for them to accept political change.

On the other hand, Trump is gaining support among Latinos and blacks in the polls.

Even though they are increasing, his popularity ratings in these communities are still very low. The Latinos who support Trump almost all come from the same districts, rural regions in Texas or Florida. The majority are former migrants from countries like Venezuela who have had bad experiences with socialism and perceive Joe Biden as a kind of Hugo Chávez. However, the overall picture is different: it is astonishing how few supporters the Republicans still have among these population groups.

How do you explain this?

Most parties adapt when they lose. When they lose repeatedly, they try to reach new groups of voters. The Republican Party realized in 2013 that it was in danger of losing elections and therefore wanted to win over more Latinos. That was ten years ago - but to this day, the Republicans have barely won more than 30 percent of the Latino vote. Yet the potential for a conservative electorate is there.

Would you welcome it if the Republicans could broaden their base?

It would be a big step forward if the Republican Party had a multi-ethnic electorate. Then it could win real majorities again. And if it had a chance of winning real majorities again, it would no longer be so afraid of democracy. But this change remains difficult as long as the party is led by white nationalists and racists.

Trump has a potent challenger in Ron DeSantis, who is much smarter and has the same political agenda. The natural progression would be for him to replace Trump in the campaign because he is very burdened with all his court cases. But that's not happening. There is an unprecedented cult of personality around Donald Trump.

There is a core constituency that likes Trump's personality. But I hesitate to speak of a cult. That would suggest that Trump's support is irrational. That's not true - at least not for the party leadership. Shortly after losing the 2020 election, the Republicans met on Amelia Island off the coast of Florida and asked themselves: what should we do? They decided to focus their strategy entirely on Trump. It was a very cool, rational calculation: from their point of view, it was simply the best strategy to get back into power.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, wants to prevent another term in office for Donald Trump at all costs. Why is this so difficult for them?

The Democrats are doing a good job. They have won all congressional elections so far. Biden won the presidential election. But the Democratic Party is exposed to a danger that every democratic resistance movement faces when it comes up against an authoritarian opponent: in order to win, it has to be united. And this unity is always incredibly challenging in a two-party system where both parties are very heterogeneous. If it collapses, they risk losing important groups of voters. That's what worries me in particular. Take the example of Hungary: Viktor Orbán has only been able to repeatedly win elections in Hungary and consolidate his power because the opposition is so fragmented.

What could divide the democrats? The war in Israel and Gaza?

If Biden were to say: Okay, we'll cut all ties with Israel, then parts of the left wing would be happy, but the right wing would probably turn away. If, on the other hand, Biden leaves the bombing of Gaza uncommented on, he will lose left-wing supporters. A tragic dilemma. My concern is that other issues with divisive potential could become virulent.

What are you thinking of? The polemics about the justification or excesses of wokeness, for example?

I think they are an unnecessary distraction. In the debates about wokeness culture, the problems are inflated - and these debates do indeed have the potential to divide the Democratic Party. If you were to ask people: What do you think, what is the greater threat to democracy, the woke culture on college campuses or Donald Trump, everyone would agree that Trump is the real threat.

What do the Democrats need to do to prevent a split?

Generally speaking, Democratic counter-powers can prevent autocrats if they look past the political differences they have with each other and set clear priorities. American Democrats need to understand that the biggest threat is losing to Trump. There is this song from the American civil rights movement of the 1950s that describes well what the necessary strategy is in such a case: "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize".

So only Biden's re-election counts. Won't Donald Trump as political villain-in-chief automatically unite his opponents?

I hope so. That is the prerequisite for preserving democracy. It needs a coalition from the left-wing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the right-wing Republican Trump opponent Liz Cheney. This coalition must go beyond the Democratic Party. Mitt Romney wrote his wife's name on the ballot in the presidential election, as he recently revealed in his biography. In 2024, even someone like him has to understand that he has to vote for Biden.

Trump is facing legal prosecution in several court cases. Could these further damage him?

We should not underestimate how much Trump is driven by the worry that he might have to go to prison if he loses the election. The stakes for Trump are incredibly high, and that is bad news. He will do anything to stay out of jail.

You mentioned Viktor Orbán a few times. Recently, Javier Milei, an eccentric and libertarian right-wing extremist, became president of Argentina. In the Netherlands, the right-wing populist Geert Wilders recently won the national election. Donald Trump is no longer an exception.

There is a rebellion against established politicians - no matter who is in power. Perhaps this is a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic and its economic impact. Citizens have been voting out incumbent politicians in many countries in Latin and North America, as well as Western Europe. This rejection of existing governments may actually encourage the rise of the radical right.

Is there a patent remedy for these developments?

These movements arise from a deep-seated and persistent fever. Sometimes the temperature of our politics rises. Sometimes it drops. Democracies are fragile. We must understand that it is important to defend them, that their values and institutions cannot be taken for granted. But - and this is also important - in almost all democracies, the democratic forces remain in the majority. Their coalition must not break up and they must not lose their self-confidence. Otherwise, it will be dangerous.