Do Americans Understand What ‘Authoritarianism’ Means?
The misuse of this and other terms has diluted their significance and rendered genuine threats to democracy harder to recognize.
I spent the first 15 years of my life behind the Iron Curtain, under totalitarian rule — an extreme form of authoritarianism. Not surprisingly, Bulgaria’s communist regime didn’t use these terms to describe the country’s political system at the time. So I didn’t truly understand what they meant until the system collapsed in 1989 and the Cold War ended.
Until then, I was used to a reality in which a single political party, guided by an all-encompassing ideology, controlled every aspect of public and private life, including the state, society, economy, judiciary, education, culture, media, religion and even personal beliefs. The absence of political opposition and freedom of speech was simply a fact of life, as was total censorship. When a philosopher published a book about fascism, whose parallels with communism were unmistakable, it was banned within three weeks.
The regime’s collapse affected my life more profoundly than anything else before or since. I never expected it to happen. Nor could I have imagined that, 35 years later, as a longtime citizen of the United States, I would think twice before publishing an article and watch in disbelief as the government takes away fundamental freedoms and openly ignores judicial decisions.
Not too worried
Most Americans don’t seem alarmed by what is obvious to me: that the country has moved into authoritarian territory. In fact, a sizable minority appears to welcome this shift. Even before last year’s election, 32 percent of respondents in a Pew survey expressed support for authoritarianism, and a survey by another pollster, PRRI, found that 40 percent of participants are susceptible to authoritarian appeals.
These findings make me wonder how many Americans truly understand what “authoritarianism” means. Have they studied it in school? Have they ever imagined what it’s like living under such a system? Do they confuse it with totalitarianism?
Do they know that, even though authoritarianism isn’t as all-consuming as totalitarianism, and authoritarians don’t necessarily seek to control every aspect of life, they still wield power without constitutional accountability? Authoritarians are often elected and formal opposition is not officially banned, but it’s severely restricted or co-opted. An authoritarian regime may be non-ideological or even pragmatic, and some personal freedoms — religion or private enterprise, for example — are allowed, as long as one doesn’t challenge the government. Dissent isn’t automatically criminalized, but it comes with real risk.
Semantic erosion
Some of the above questions are, of course, rhetorical. It’s no secret that most Americans don’t study authoritarianism in school. Still, I assume that at least some of those survey respondents know exactly what it means. But for many, it has become a political epithet, rather than a precise term describing a specific form of government. Along with words like “tyranny” and “autocracy,” they use it to label any behavior they deem undemocratic, disagreeable or simply different. This casual misuse dilutes the term’s significance and renders genuine threats to democracy harder to recognize.
This semantic erosion is hardly new or unique. Both Republicans and Democrats have been accusing each other of “destroying” the country for so long that, when someone is doing that for real, we have no adequate way to describe it. Words like “fascist,” “communist,” “illegal,” “corrupt” and “weaponize” are so overused that they now carry little weight. When it comes to authoritarianism, if more Americans understood what it means, they might be more attuned to the warning signs in their own country.
Part of the problem is political tribalism. For some partisans, the definition of “authoritarianism” depends not on behavior, but on who is exhibiting it. If their side takes repressive actions, they are justified in the name of “national security” or “saving the country.” But if the other side does it, it’s “tyranny.” The danger of this selective outrage is hard to overstate.
How do we know?
Earlier this month, three political scientists who study how democracies die —
, and Daniel Ziblatt — proposed a test for whether a country has crossed the line into authoritarianism: the cost of opposing the government. “In democracies, citizens are not punished for peacefully opposing those in power,” they wrote. “Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposition comes with a price. Citizens and organizations that run afoul of the government become targets of a range of punitive measures.“When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government, because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy. By that measure,” Levitsky, Way and Ziblatt concluded, the United States has, indeed, crossed the line into what they call “competitive authoritarianism” — “a system in which parties compete in elections, but the systematic abuse of an incumbent’s power tilts the playing field against the opposition.”
In her book “Twilight of Democracy,” historian
makes a sobering observation: “Given the right conditions, any society can turn against democracy. Indeed, if history is anything to go by, all of our societies eventually will.”Like millions of others, I was drawn to the United States by its reputation for freedom, democracy and equal opportunity. Not questioning that image at the time may have been naive, but the country’s soft power at the end of the Cold War — not only in Europe but in most of the world — was truly without precedent in history. So immigrants like me saw no reason to doubt the conventional wisdom.
Some of those immigrants, who had suffered under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes in their homelands, are now embracing the descent into authoritarianism in the United States. Personally, that unsettles me more than anything else.
What’s your take?
Do you see signs of authoritarianism in the United States?
Leave a comment below.
Nicholas Kralev is the founder and executive director of the Washington International Diplomatic Academy, and a former Financial Times and Washington Times correspondent. His books include “Diplomatic Tradecraft,” “America’s Other Army” and “Diplomats in the Trenches.”
The 2025 Administration is Authoritarian. President Trump promised that in his campaign. Dismantling America's Institutions, Eliminating Independent thought in Higher Learning Institutions, Attacking Law Firms of Opponents, removing access to the Courts, eliminating thousands of Civil Servants because they don't understand their role, slashing Scientific Research so our next generation moves overseas to pursue knowledge, is a recipe for Arrogance and Authoritarianism. The public fears raising their voice.