Chances of Despotism in America

Economics is interested in despotism and tyranny if only because the profile of government intervention depends, at least in part, on the nature of the political state. In addition, the recent school of constitutional political economy analyzes other constitutional systems. Economists have analytical tools to study the effects of government intervention or non-intervention. So it’s no surprise that the latest issue of The Economist he tried to explain “Why America is in Danger of a Despot” (May 16, 2024).

It is true, on the other hand, that the separation of the American government will make it difficult for the depot to take over the system in violation of the Constitution. For the same reason, rigging the results of national elections is very difficult if possible. State and local governments (not to mention civil) are armed, although not as heavily as the federal government. Most police officers are employed by local and state governments. The federal government itself is a diverse combination of power centers that may not all yield to the despot’s will. As The Economist he notes, “getting any organization that employs 25,000 lawyers to do what one person wants is difficult.” Add to this the fact that the 4,540 economists working at different levels of government may not all be willing to ignore their methodology or falsify their numbers, just as Mussolini’s government did not find economists to agree easily.

An attempt by a federal despot to control America might produce a civil war, which, at least in the long run, would be no worse than the French dictatorship and succession that followed the Revolution of 1789.

On the other hand, the magazine The Economist reviews how an elected official can overcome the checks and balances of the American system. It often seems that the American presidency has amassed almost the power of a czarist empire. The president is undoubtedly more powerful than his colleagues in many European countries. Apparently on the contrary, he has more power than the prime minister in the affairs of the British parliament. His power in case of an emergency declared by him is almost immeasurable. The Sedition Act of 1807 allows him (the entry “his” would not be better) to send an army or navy into a country if federal law is ignored. The Economist notes:

The Brennan Center, a think tank at New York University, has identified 135 legal powers that the president receives when declaring a national emergency. These include things like the power to freeze Americans’ bank accounts or, under a law giving the president emergency powers over communications passed in 1942, shutting down the Internet (which would be very difficult to implement). In theory, Congress is meant to review and revoke presidential proclamations after six or 12 months. In practice it is not common to stop. More than 40 emergency situations are currently active. Some of them are more than ten years old.

Abraham Lincoln established habeas corpus. Franklin D. Rosevelt included American citizens of Japanese descent with a grand command. The temptation has not disappeared. President Joe Biden was able to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on student loans by invoking an emergency. The Defense Product Act is often invoked by US presidents, including Donald Trump during the Covid crisis. By declaring a state of emergency, real, held, or created (pressing the red nuclear button would be the main reason), the would-be ruler could become the real prosecutor. The majority of Americans may support it in the long run, especially if the Supreme Court gives the president immunity from prosecution. Despotism is hard to imagine without tyranny.

Free press can be a big obstacle. However, part of the media may side with the despot. All others would be accused of being “enemies of the people” and their “fake stories” would face veiled threats or legal restrictions. What business can now survive without appeasing Leviathan? Courts will be attacked as they are against the “will of the people.”

Perhaps that is all too pessimistic. America is probably the country with the largest proportion of natural-minded people individual freedom and some understanding of two words of speech. Individual freedom represents a threat to despotism whether on the right or the left. However, a potential oppressor is unlikely to relate to tyranny, injustice, and slavery; he seemed to defend democracy, justice, freedom, and sovereignty. He would hide a lot. The tyranny of the majority is, at the very least, oppression of the masses.

Classical liberals and libertarians have been crying wolf for over a century, but the hidden wolf keeps growing. The danger threatens not only America.

******************************