Could red lines help preserve the red, white and blue?

Trump's attempt to flood the zone calls for a counter-response

I know I’m not the only one to notice that the Trump administration is deliberately “flooding the zone”, coming out with bad and sometimes crazy proposals that they presumably know will cause a backlash. But if that’s the strategy, we have to avoid getting caught up in the latest details (falling into the trap), and instead develop a counter-strategy. So while I review a short list of recent announcements at the end of this, let’s consider some possible responses, such as whether a concerted action by civil society to assert redlines help prevent the erosion of democracy in the US?

Possible Trump Administration Strategies

First, let’s consider some reasons why the Trump administration might try the current “shock and awe” assault:

1. Kid in a candy store: Trump isn’t playing 11-dimensional chess, he just has crazy ideas and in the exuberance over his victory they just come spilling out. I can’t prove that this is false, but it is perhaps the least dangerous possibility, so it won’t be my focus

2. Playing to the base: he could just do a lot of things his supporters like because it strengthens his hand within the party

3. Screening officials for loyalty: He is currently in a strong position but he might realize that someday that could change and so to solidify his position he wants to install loyal sycophants. But of course anyone who wants a leadership will claim to be a supporter (cheap talk). But if Trump announces crazy ideas, it is a costly signal for people to defend him - those that do are clearly loyal, because they’ve tied their reputation to his craziness, and thus harm their prospects of survival in a non-Trump regime.

4. Manipulating the democratic backstop: Many of us think that Trump in the election was fairly good at talking to people’s sense of dissatisfaction about the economy and other issues, but we also think that he has few if any actual policy solutions that would improve the situation. So if Trump is thinking ahead, he should realize that over time it will become apparent that he has no magic wand to improve the situation of the average worker, for example (if he isn’t outright harming them by policies that favor the rich…) and support for him will wane. One way to prevent this, then, is to find someone or something to blame. Basically, he will say, “Sure, you’re not any better off now than before, but it’s not my fault - remember all those extreme measures I announced - they would have helped, but the ‘deep state’ prevented me from implementing them.

5. Flood the zone: An assumption here is that he wants to get some policies enacted, perhaps to please the base, ensure his reputation as an influential president, or even to try to stay in power beyond his second term (see Politico here for some thoughts on how it could happen, and note that a proposal to change the Constitution to allow it has already been announced by Rep. Andy Ogles). It’s a bit like missile defense - if you assume that the opposition has limited resources to respond, you simply try and overwhelm the defenses. Even if many proposals get shot down, some will go under the radar or slip through and get passed.

Counterstrategies

Of course the above reasons are not mutually exclusive, and the most likely situation is a murky intuition that the approach has some positive effects due to the reasons above. But the strategy is also not without pitfalls. First, let’s consider how the opposition best exploit these pitfalls.

There’s presumably a reason other leader’s haven’t adopted this strategy, other than just they didn’t think of it. In general, politicians avoid doing things that are (a) unpopular and (b) are seen as failures, and many of these are both. Conventional thinking is that leaders doing this use up their political capital, although I think the idea needs closer inspection.¹ The opposition needs to ensure effective messaging on highly unpopular and terrible ideas. That is obvious but not always easy. Not every bad Trump idea will necessarily resonate with average voters or be possible to explain in a soundbite. I personally find the idea of sending 30,000 immigrants to Guantanamo abominable for many reasons, but you likely have some other policy that you find even more problematic.

Red lines

As Levitsky and Ziblatt argue in How Democracies Die, the greater fear may not be a violent coup but rather the concerted erosion of democracy and rule of law. Many of the recent moves are in line with this recipe (see list below). The basic version of US democracy students are taught is that the separation of power, checks and balances, and the Constitution ensure that democracy stays on track, as if there were a kind of programmatic auto-pilot to keep the car in the right lane. The reality is of course murkier, and depends on the coordination of people’s expectations through the free media, civil society, and these institutions. Even impeachment around Watergate, for example, (where the President lied but they got the tapes proving it!), only worked because some Republicans decided to vote against their own party. And that decision was not automatic either - it was a calculus many thought would go the other way, even if in the end they cared too much about the rule of law or thought it would harm their reputation.

As Barry Weingast wrote, “Self enforcing limits on the state result when members of a society resolve their coordination dilemmas about the appropriate limits on the state.”² So perhaps rather than being reactionary and passively dragged into every new news cycle trying to respond to the latest crazy proposal, perhaps those of us who want to defend democracy need to establish a list of clear democratic red lines, and vow to organize massively any time these red lines are crossed. Below I list some examples from other countries that illustrate how this can work. The idea obvious, but perhaps it needs to be said in the current climate where anti-Trump activists seem to be caught on their heels and strangely quiet.

But the red lines approach may also have weaknesses:

1. There needs to be broad agreement what the set of red lines should be. Public perceptions of infighting about the content may undermine the intended effect.

2. If the red lines are clear and public, as they have to be, then the Trump administration can build its strategy around them, finding any holes in them or proposing policies that fall just short of the red line but which are still dangerous.

3. Obama famously tried to make the use of chemical weapons in Syria a red line, then when it was crossed, was criticized for failing to bomb the country to make the point. Not that bombing would have really helped, so it was a bit absurd, but if there was a lesson it is that one should not claim red lines that you’re not prepared to defend.³

Play the long game

If the strategy is to dominate the media cycle and exhaust the opposition, a more effective response might be to focus on the long term, at least conditional on preserving the democracy that could make possible a transition of power in two to four years. If the Trump administration spent the last four years planning these measures, how does the opposition plan for real policy solutions that could improve democracy and conditions on the ground in the US when they return to power? One thing is for sure, the opposition needs to start organizing fast.

Examples of mobilizations against democracy backsliding

1. Poland (2017): When Poland’s ruling party moved to undermine judicial independence by giving politicians power over the courts, mass protests erupted under the slogan “Defend the Courts.” Nightly demonstrations in Warsaw and over 100 cities eventually led President Andrzej Duda to veto key portions of the judicial overhaul. [NYT, Civicus]

2. Romania (2017): The Romanian government attempted to pass an emergency decree decriminalizing certain official corruption – widely seen as a blatant rollback of rule-of-law safeguards. In response, an estimated half a million citizens took to the streets in the largest protests since the fall of communism, and after five consecutive days of demonstrations, the government repealed the decree. [DW]

3. Serbia (2000): When strongman Slobodan Milošević refused to acknowledge his loss in the September 2000 election, citizens organized massive rallies and strikes. On October 5, hundreds of thousands of Serbians from across the country converged on Belgrade. The "Bulldozer Revolution" not only removed an authoritarian ruler but also restored electoral democracy. [Global Nonviolent Action Database]

4. Philippines (1986): The People Power Revolution. After President Ferdinand Marcos rigged a snap presidential election, a civil society backed protest movement removed Marcos from power and restored democracy. [Amnesty]

5. Others/ caveat: Of course there are many other examples, not all of which turn out ideally. Protests in Israel in 2023, and arguably especially the threat of a general strike, led the government to postpone (but not cancel) a proposed overhaul of the judiciary that would have eviscerated its role as a check [OSW]. A peaceful civilian movement in Sudan tried to ensure transition to democracy [International IDEA] but the country fell into civil war. I don’t mean to argue it automatically works, but we should think critically about the conditions under which it could be effective.

Incomplete List of Recent Trump Policies to Undermine Democracy

Undermining Federal Institutions

• Suspension of Federal Grants and Loans – Attempted to unilaterally suspend all federal grants and loans, a move violating the Constitution, as Congress controls federal spending.

• Firing Inspectors General – Dismissed 17 independent watchdogs tasked with ensuring executive accountability, weakening congressional oversight.

• Firing a National Labor Relations Board Member – Removed an NLRB member in what was seen as an illegal act aimed at crippling workers’ rights protections.

• Firing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Members – Ousted EEOC members, disrupting the only independent body protecting workers from discrimination.

Attacks on Media and Free Speech

• Intimidation of the Press – Used lawsuits and regulatory pressure (e.g., FCC investigations) to target critical media outlets, challenging First Amendment protections.

Subverting Justice and National Policy

• Pardoning January 6 Insurrectionists & Investigating FBI Agents – Granted clemency to individuals involved in the Capitol riot while targeting law enforcement officials who uphold federal law.

• Shutting Down USAID – Forced the closure of USAID by removing officials, despite the agency being legally established by Congress to oversee foreign aid efforts.

Radical Policy Proposals

• Ending Birthright Citizenship – Pushed to revoke automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, contradicting the 14th Amendment.

• “Taking Over” Gaza Strip – Proposed displacing two million Palestinians and converting Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East,” contradicting international law and his own previous opposition to democracy-building abroad.

• Expanding Guantanamo Bay Detention – Ordered preparations to detain 30,000 undocumented immigrants at the controversial military facility.

For more see for example this list of Executive orders.

1. One reason is the logics I highlight above, e.g. 2 and 3. Perhaps a policy is a failure publicly and unpopular, but it works for energizing his base or creating loyal collaborators. But if the news cycle moves on quickly (and if right-wing media frames it differently…) it’s not clear that the cost is very high.

2. Weingast, Barry, 1997. “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law.” The American Political Science Review, 91(2), p.2.

3. Ultimately, the US, Russia and Syria negotiated that Syria give up its chemical weapons, and fewer humans were killed by US bombs. Others would argue the incident harmed the US reputation in the world, as if the big problem with the US reputation in the world is people thinking “they just aren’t willing to bomb foreign countries to show that they are serious…” rather than more moral clarity and consistency.