Can This Democracy Be Saved?
United States Versus Hungary
Until recently, Hungary seemed poised to become a western-style democracy. Since 2010, however, the nation’s government under Viktor Orbán has shifted from democratic to autocratic. The European Parliament has described contemporary Hungary as a “’hybrid regime of electoral autocracy’, i.e. a constitutional system in which elections occur, but respect for democratic norms and standards is absent.”1
Some observers have compared Hungary to the USA today. John Shattuck, former president of Central European University, sees parallels between the tactics employed by Viktor Orbán and U.S. president Donald Trump, who in 2016 endorsed Orbán. Among other things, both have done – or at least attempted -- the following: the takeover of their respective parties, using threats and intimidation to crush party dissent; vilification of immigrants and political opponents; replacement of the rule of law with their own law; the elimination of checks and balances and executive dominance over the other branches of their respective governments; and alliances with authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin against European leaders (like Volodimir Zelensky) who are trying to maintain and defend democracies.2
In short, democracy has weakened in Hungary, as well as facing challenges elsewhere in Europe. Some would pose the question: If democracy has unraveled in other countries, why should America be any different?3 To that question, my immediate, instinctive response is, “Of course America is different, because America is America.”
Admittedly, this response comes more from the heart than from the head. However, in defense of American democracy, two facts merit reflection: first, to date the two countries have had vastly different histories, with governments that have evolved in two sharply contrasting directions. Second, only one of those countries’ democracies – not Hungary’s -- has stood the test of time. To be sure, recent developments in the U.S. feel new and unprecedented, to say nothing of downright scary. However, our democracy has faced major challenges before. Thus far, for all life’s uncertainties, American democracy has always prevailed in the end.
Let us now take a stroll down history lane.
The Case of Hungary: Monarchy Rule, Communists, and Strongmen
The 9th century saw the establishment of the Principality of Hungary. This central European monarchy, in one form or another, lasted from 1000 to 1946 – most of Hungary’s history to date. Toward the latter part of this period, 1867 to 1918, Austria-Hungary, a.k.a. the Austro-Hungarian Empire, ruled as a dual monarchy.
The 20th century would prove a time of rapid change, though not necessarily in the direction of democracy. In 1914, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand sparked off the First World War. The end of that conflict in 1918 saw the breakup of the dual monarchy and the establishment of the short-lived Hungarian Democratic Republic. In 1919, this unrecognized country gave way to the Hungarian Soviet Republic, a communist state which would likewise enjoy only a brief heyday. During their short time in power, the communists drew up a temporary constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly, as well as suffrage for people over 18, clergy excepted. This, however, would not prove a golden age for democracy. The government, known for expropriating grain from peasants, resorted to arbitrary violence. Revolutionary tribunals ordered around 590 executions, including some for “crimes against the revolution.” Oops, not exactly pro-democracy.
By late 1919, counterrevolutionaries had had enough of communism. An anti-communist authoritarian government seized power and unleashed a “white terror” leading to the imprisonment and execution without trial of communists, socialists, Jews, and others viewed as a threat to the traditional political order. Nearly 100,000 survivors responded by fleeing the country.
Between 1919 and 1944, Hungary, described as a “rightist” country, rejected the liberal and socialist ideologies of 19th century and stood against Bolshevism. Meanwhile, what about democracy? In the early 1920s the country briefly enjoyed a form of government one might almost consider a democracy-monarchy hybrid. In 1920, for the first time in the nation’s history, an election took place with secret ballots. Though in theory monarchy was restored and elected offices could have included that of king, the election of a king never occurred. To be sure, for a time Hungary’s most recent king, Charles IV, hoped to retake the throne, but in the end his efforts came to naught. After trying but failing twice in his bid for the throne, he died in 1922. So ended the last serious campaign for a king in Hungary.
Did the end of rule by kings usher in an era of democracy? Hardly. Enter elected regent4 and strongman Admiral Miklós Horthy, the Viktor Orbán of the period between world wars. From 1920 to 1944, authoritarianism, not democracy, marked his time as Hungary’s head of state. Among other things, he had the power to appoint a prime minister, veto legislation, convene or dissolve the parliament, and command the armed forces.
In 1929, the Wall Street crash marked the start of the Great Depression. Hungary, like much of the rest of the world, fell on economic hard times.
The 1930s saw Hungary shifting further to the right, establishing close relations with fascist Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Hitler’s aid brought about economic improvement as well as the expansion of Hungary’s territory, but that aid came with a price. With Hungary increasingly dependent economically on Germany, Hitler gained leverage over Hungary. Using a combination of economic pressure and threats of military intervention, he enforced Hungarian support of his policies, including those targeting Jews. With Nazism and antisemitism on the rise, Jews found themselves subject to quotas on their admission into business and the professions.
Ultimately, Hungary’s attempts to appease Hitler proved for naught. In 1944, German forces invaded and occupied Hungary. The Nazis promptly proceeded to depose Horthy, the elected regent, from power and deport the Jews and Roma to Auschwitz. Hungary, already characterized by authoritarianism, had moved about as far away from democracy as a country can get.
In 1945, the Soviets and Rumanians defeated the Germans in Hungary. Shortly thereafter, Germany surrendered and World War II came to an end.
Post-World War II, Hungary had little time in which to regroup. The Soviet Union, fresh from its wartime victory, soon exerted its influence over eastern Europe. In 1949, three years after monarchy’s official end in Hungary, that country entered into a forty-year period of Soviet domination. In keeping with its new status as an Eastern Bloc nation, Hungary became known as the People’s Republic of Hungary.
To be sure, not all Hungarians embraced life under the Soviet regime. In 1956, revolutionaries fought to overthrow the pro-Soviet government. The Soviets soon crushed the revolution, killing thousands. Some 200,000 Hungarians fled into exile.
From 1957 on, Soviet-imposed restrictions gradually eased. Among other things, the government rolled back – but didn’t eliminate – the state secret police and also eased restrictions on Hungarian travel abroad.
The late eighties marked a major turning point for Hungary. The Soviet Union was not just weakening; it was disintegrating, a process that would end with its dissolution in 1991. Meanwhile, its hold on eastern European countries loosened. The political winds in Hungary were shifting – toward democracy. In keeping with this change, in 1989 Hungary officially adopted a new name which it retains to this day: the Republic of Hungary. That same year, the Constitution in effect since 1949 underwent a major overhaul, thus laying the groundwork for a transition from communism to democracy. A Constitutional Court, established at that time, has since then served as Hungary’s counterpart of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1990, parliamentary elections took place, the first free and competitive ones in Hungary since 1945 and the second ones providing for universal suffrage. The Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF) became the largest political party in parliament, with József Antall as prime minister. Other emerging political parties included the Federation of Young Democrats (Fidesz), which in coming years would gain increasing influence. Initial signs looked promising for this fledgling democracy, but could it achieve staying power?
For the next two decades, Hungary underwent a succession of several different prime ministers, including Viktor Orbán from 1998 to 2002. He ran in but lost the following two elections. However, the political winds, having shifted once, were about to shift again.
In 2008, a global financial crisis struck. Given Hungary’s involvement with foreign companies and reliance on foreign investment, economic repercussions inevitably made themselves felt. The country’s economic growth took a hit. Debt and poverty loomed large. Ready to turn to any leadership that promised a way out, in 2010 voters returned Viktor Orbán to power. He has served as the nation’s prime minister ever since.
Once back in office, Orbán wasted no time in making major changes. Zsuzsanna Zselényi, representative of the centrist-liberal party, who became a member of parliament in 2014, observed, “I witnessed firsthand how Orbán took revenge for his previous defeats and developed the perfect playbook of votes, ideology, and money to change Hungary’s democracy into an illiberal system, to ensure that he would win the elections again and again.”5
The election law was modified. Gerrymandering followed. “The will of Hungarians was in no way represented by the outcome of the elections any longer.”6
The changes under Orbán included the elimination of checks and balances. “[T]he once-independent state institutions … became the pillars of the one-party regime.“7
The old Constitution gave way to the Fundamental Law plus “transitional provisions.“ The new laws violated the principle of separation of powers, freedom of religion, and fair competition of political parties. The Fundamental Law underwent repeated amending, “allowing the governing party to abuse power while appearing to … (follow) the law.”8
In view of the above changes, can Hungary even still call itself a democracy? Here’s what Zselényi has to say:
“Democracies depend on an institutional framework and on a cultural background: the acceptance of democratic norms. In Hungary, the institutional framework is formally still there, but Orbán’s government gave up on democratic norms and used government power to capture the institutions, which are not fulfilling their roles as checks and balances. In political fights, half of the political elite do not accept that sometimes they can’t get their way. It is highly questionable that democratic institutions and elections are still meaningful in my country.
“Still, the level of freedom has remained much higher in Hungary than in a classic dictatorship. There is no open violence, journalists are not in prison, and, as long as there are elections, the opposition always retains some chance to win and bring about a change of power.”9
That is not to say democracy watchers can afford to become complacent in the face of changes of the sort that have occurred in Orbán’s Hungary. Zselényi warns of the ever-present possibility of Hungary falling deeper into Orbán’s autocracy. “Illiberalism is dangerous,” she maintains. “Democrats in Europe and the United States should define in what system they want to live and prevent illiberalism before it is too late.“10
And on that cautionary note, we shift our focus to …
United States: The Challenges of Maintaining a Democracy
The Start of a New Republic
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” declared Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, in 1776, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”11
To be sure, the idea of all men as equals would not go unchallenged in the decades to come. In the meantime, however, Jefferson and a number of his contemporaries clearly did not feel that the King of England’s government, then in charge of the thirteen American colonies, had earned their allegiance. A revolution broke out. The end result? An independent United States of America, no longer ruled by a king.
Once freed from the rule of the British king, citizens of the newly formed United States had to take up the question: what kind of nation would they have? “A republic, if you can keep it,” said Benjamin Franklin, fresh from attending the Constitutional Convention held in 1787.12
Two years later, George Washington became the nation’s first president, a position he would hold for two four-year terms. So far, so good, but would the fledgling democracy hold together?
In 1794, a crisis put American democracy to the test. An armed insurrection, now known as the Whiskey Rebellion, broke out in Pennsylvania over the whiskey tax. How would President Washington respond? Could he meet this challenge and still save democracy? A practiced hand at military leadership long before becoming president, the one-time General Washington organized and commanded the Pennsylvania state militia but also sent commissioners to meet with the rebels. The rebellion ended with minimal violence. The new democracy survived.
The young nation faced early civil liberties challenges with the passage, in 1798, of the Alien and Sedition Acts, a set of four laws that restricted both immigration and free speech. Passed by Federalists in Congress, the Alien Enemies Act granted the president the power “to detain foreigners during times of war, invasion, or predatory incursion.”13 This measure, still on the books today, would be invoked a total of four times but – until President Trump’s second term – only in wartime.
Meanwhile, the Sedition Act, aimed at criminalizing “false and/or malicious statements about the federal government,”14 clearly presented a test of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and freedom of the press. Directed against the Democratic-Republican Party, typically favored by new citizens, this law was used to suppress publishers affiliated with that party. Several journalists faced arrest for their criticism of the Federalist-backed Adams administration.
Backlash against these acts led to defeat of the Federalists in the 1800 election. Under Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican administration, the Alien Enemies Act remained on the books, but the Sedition Act, having expired in 1800, was never re-enacted. Democracy – and the First Amendment – survived.
A House Divided
So far, so good. However, as time passed, slavery and differing views of race threatened to tear the young nation apart. By the 1850s, elite southerners were challenging the idea that all men were created equal. Some maintained that “a few superior men should rule the rest.”15 Slavery interests, a force from the beginning of the republic, remained powerful. “Southern politicians [maintained] that some people were better than others and had the right—and the duty—to rule. The Founders of the United States had made a terrible mistake when they declared, ‘All men are created equal,’ southern leaders said. In place of that ‘fundamentally wrong’ idea, they proposed ‘the great truth’ that white men were a ‘superior race.’ And within that superior race, some men were better than others.”16
“’We do not agree with the authors of the Declaration of Independence, that governments ‘derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,’” enslaver George Fitzhugh of Virginia wrote in 1857. “’All governments must originate in force, and be continued by force.’”17
Senatorial candidate Abraham Lincoln saw the writing on the wall. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” he warned in 1858. “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”18
Unsuccessful in his bid for the Senate, Lincoln fared better when he ran for president in 1860. However, he was not to enjoy a peaceful presidency. In April 1861, one month after he assumed office, Fort Sumter fell, an event marking the start of a four-year-long Civil War. Battle lines had been drawn, not just figuratively but literally, in a bid to determine whether freedom or slavery would prevail.
As wartime president, Lincoln continued to speak out on behalf of American ideals. In an 1862 address before Congress, he described democracy as the “last best hope of earth.”19 As war raged, Lincoln, in his now famous 1863 Gettysburg Address, upheld the idea that all men are created equal.20
Post-Slavery Challenges and the Struggle for Civil Rights
In 1865, the Civil War came to an end. So, too, did slavery. The postwar Reconstruction era offered promise as newly freed African Americans, granted citizenship rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments, began to vote for the first time and, in some cases, even win elections to public office.
However, the new order could not last. In 1877, the federal troops tasked with enforcing freedmen’s rights began to withdraw from southern states. White supremacists swiftly took over, driving African Americans out of office. A combination of intimidation campaigns and voter suppression laws paved the way for African American disenfranchisement. Technically, the USA was still a democracy – at least for whites. However, those who made the mistake of being born with the wrong color of skin could not enjoy the benefits of that democracy.
Jim Crow laws, designed to keep African Americans in their place, became the new reality. Segregation prevailed in schools, housing, and public facilities. In 1896, the Supreme Court, in its ruling in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, upheld the separate but equal doctrine. Not until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling would this doctrine be overturned.
In the face of widespread discrimination and second-class citizenship, African Americans could easily have become cynical and given up on America’s promise. However, they did not do so. Instead, they organized and spoke up, challenging America to live up to her ideals.
In 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a civil rights organization, was founded. It aimed to uphold the rights of all people, regardless of race, to equality under the law and also – for men at least – the right to vote.21
The outcome of the struggle for voting rights that all could enjoy, regardless of race, would play a critical role in the success of the American democratic experiment. Yet those who worked to secure those rights risked death. In the summer of 1964, now known as Freedom Summer, three young men, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Chaney, were murdered in Mississippi just for trying to register people of color to vote. Many other voting rights activists met with a similar fate. This was indeed a dark moment for democracy, but all was not lost. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act became law. This measure outlawed voting restrictions based on race. African Americans not only voted in large numbers, they began winning elections, one even making it to the White House in 2009.22
World War I, the First Red Scare, and Civil Liberties Challenges
Civil rights gains, of course, still lay in the future. Meanwhile, as the 20th century began, world events would challenge the nation in new ways. In 1914, war broke out in Europe, sparked by the assassination of the archduke of Austria-Hungary and escalating from there as first Austria-Hungary declared war against Serbia and then other countries joined the conflict. Under the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. initially stayed out of the war but was finally drawn into it in 1917, in response to German submarine warfare. President Wilson called on Americans to enter the war in order to counter autocratic Germany and make the world safe for democracy.23
U.S. troops might be fighting abroad for democracy, but democracy at home faced an uncertain future. The Russian revolution that would ultimately give rise to a communist state sparked fears of a Bolshevik revolution and communist takeover in the U.S. 1917 to 1920 marked the period now known as the first Red Scare, a wave of fear “characterized by exaggerated rhetoric, illegal searches and seizures, unwarranted arrests and detentions, and the deportation of several hundred suspected radicals and anarchists.”24 Immigrants – especially those from either Southern or Eastern Europe25 – and leftist dissidents came under suspicion. Communists, organized labor (seen by many as promoting communist revolution) and anarchists became chief targets.
Matters came to a head with the anarchist bombings that occurred in April and June 1919. Enter U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Determined to suppress radical organizations, he authorized raids against anarchists, whether guilty of violence or not, in July 1919 and against the Union of Russian Workers in November 1919.
The biggest sweep of all occurred in January 1920. In a series of raids, the Justice Department went after anyone found in organization meeting halls, including visitors not belonging to targeted organizations. Not only foreigners but, in some cases, U.S. citizens found themselves caught up in the dragnet. In all, some 3,000 people were arrested, in many cases without warrants.
These extreme measures did not go unchallenged. Civil libertarians fought back. The National Civil Liberties Bureau, originally founded in 1917 as an antiwar organization headed by Roger Baldwin, broadened its focus to address civil liberties threats of all kinds. In keeping with this shift in focus, the NCLB was dissolved and a new organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, came into being in 1920.26 Once established, it published its Report Upon the Illegal Practices of the United States Department of Justice, in which it documented the unlawful arrests and detentions of targeted individuals. A number of legal professionals agreed with the ACLU’s assessment of the Justice Department’s actions. Later that same year, Massachusetts District Court Judge George W. Anderson, denouncing actions taken by the Department, ordered the discharge of 17 arrested aliens. His ruling effectively put an end to any further raids.
Not all civil liberties challenges took the form of raids. Freedom of speech came under fire when individuals spoke out against the war. In 1918, socialist leader Eugene V. Debs, several times a candidate for president, gave a speech in which he denounced U.S. involvement in the war in Europe. For his outspokenness, Debs, convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918, received a ten-year prison sentence. That same year, Rose Pastor Stokes learned how risky writing to a newspaper editor could be when her letter criticizing the war appeared in the Kansas City Star. Charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, she too was tried, convicted, and sentenced to ten years’ prison.
In the end, however, the war’s critics received vindication. In 1920, the government dismissed the case against Stokes. A year later, in December 1921, Debs’ sentence was commuted. The outcomes of both cases represented a victory for freedom of speech. Once again, American democracy and the Constitution had prevailed.
Depression and World War II
If the decade that followed the war became known as the Roaring Twenties, the 1930s stood in marked contrast. The 1929 stock market crash marked the start of a worldwide depression. The depression ushered in an era of hunger, and hunger gave rise to desperation – a state of affairs which posed a grave threat to democracy at home and around the world.
“Democracy,” observed President Roosevelt in 1938, “has disappeared in several … great nations--not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity…. Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat. We in America know that our own democratic institutions can be preserved and made to work. But in order to preserve them we need to act together, to meet the problems of the Nation boldly, and to prove that the practical operation of democratic government is equal to the task of protecting the security of the people.”27
When it came to dealing with economic challenges, Germany might have Hitler and Nazism, but the United States of America had Roosevelt and the New Deal. Under that program, economic conditions in the USA gradually eased and unemployment inched downward.
To be sure, despite FDR’s efforts to boost the economy and protect democracy at home, a few Americans flirted with Nazism. In February 1939, seven months before the start of World War II in Europe, more than 20,000 people attended a Nazi Party rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden. However, the anti-Nazi protesters gathered outside outnumbered the Nazi sympathizers five to one.28
President Roosevelt continued to speak out in support of democracy. Arguing for U.S. aid to Britain to help that country in its war with Germany, Roosevelt, in his January 6, 1941 State of the Union Address, spoke of the importance of defending the Four Freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.29
Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the U.S. committed troops to fight in World War II. The war ultimately ended in victory for democracy at home and abroad, but problems remained at home. Even during the war, racism persisted and segregation remained the law of the land. Apart from that, the Constitution wasn’t always heeded. Despite the Fifth Amendment text stating that “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,”30 the government rounded up Japanese Americans and sent them to internment camps. Those affected suffered financial and property loss, even if they had U.S. citizenship. Former internees finally won compensation in 1988.
Post-World War II Challenges: Cold War and McCarthyism
The war over, the new world order presented challenges of its own. If the U.S. emerged from that conflict a superpower, so did the Soviet Union. With mounting concern, U.S. observers watched as the Soviet Union, its influence expanding, played a key role in the spread of communism in Eastern Europe. This development was clearly at odds with the goals of the U.S., which preferred a more capitalist approach to aiding countries – notably those in Western Europe – in their postwar economic recovery. The U.S. sought ways to contain communism. So began the Cold War.
From the late 1940s through the 1950s, a growing number of people feared not only the spread of communism abroad but also the prospect of it taking root at home. In a move reminiscent of the post-World War I Red Scare, communism’s foes began taking counter-measures. In February 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) announced that he had a list of Communist Party members who were working in the State Department. In the months that followed, McCarthy and other anti-communist activists targeted government employees, entertainment industry figures, academics, and left-wing politicians. As Sen. McCarthy conducted investigations of suspected communists, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) held hearings. Meanwhile, employers and institutions compiled blacklists. Regardless of the impact of all these measures on communism, they clearly left lasting repercussions throughout the nation as many hapless individuals suffered job loss and careers and reputations were destroyed.
From the beginning, McCarthyism, as the anti-communism crusade came to be known, had its critics. President Harry Truman wrote, "In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have."31 He described McCarthyism as follows: “It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.”32
Opponents of McCarthyism included conservatives as well as liberals. On June 1, 1950, Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), in her Declaration of Conscience speech, addressed her fellow senators on this issue. While making no secret of the fact that she didn’t care for Truman’s Democratic administration, she went on to add, “I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny – Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.”33
Matters came to a head when the Army-McCarthy hearings took place in 1954. Welch firm employee Fred Fisher, formerly a member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and therefore suspected of having ties to the Communist Party, came under fire from Sen. McCarthy. Army counsel Joseph N. Welch, outraged at this attack, rose to the defense of Fisher. In his now-famous confrontation with the senator, he demanded to know, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”34
By now, Sen. McCarthy’s influence was beginning to wane. In December 1954, the Senate voted to censure him. Three years later, the once powerful anti-communist crusader died. In the end, democracy and Americans’ sense of decency outlasted Joseph McCarthy and the anti-communist movement named after him.
Vietnam, Nixon, and Watergate
By the 1960s, the Vietnam War was in full swing as the U.S., first with advisors and military aid to South Vietnam against the Communist North Vietnam, then with troops, entered into the conflict. The war, never formally declared by Congress before President Johnson opted to increase the U.S. military presence there, dragged on with no end in sight. By 1968, many Americans had come to the conclusion that the war was unwinnable. The war, increasingly unpopular in the U.S., drew protests. By the early 1970s, U.S. troops had begun to withdraw from Vietnam, a process that was finally completed in March 1973.
Meanwhile, trouble of a different sort was brewing back at home. In 1972, the final year of President Nixon’s first term, members of a group working for his reelection broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C.’s Watergate Hotel and planted listening devices. The subsequent arrest of those burglars marked the beginning of an investigation which uncovered a campaign of political spying directed by White House officials.
Nixon, dismissing the accusations as political smears, won his campaign for reelection by a handy margin. However, his troubles didn’t end there. The burglars, promised a reduction in their prison sentences if they cooperated with authorities, provided further details. In 1973, the Senate established a Watergate Committee whose televised hearings soon attracted nationwide attention.
For President Nixon, matters went downhill from there. Investigators learned he had installed a taping system in the Oval Office. Prosecutor Archibald Cox ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes. Nixon not only refused but managed to have Cox fired. Cox’s replacement, Leon Jaworski, renewed the order for the release of the tapes. Nixon responded by releasing only edited transcripts of the tapes -- not the tapes themselves. The third order calling for Nixon’s release of the tapes came in July – this time from the Supreme Court. At last investigators gained access to the evidence they had long sought, including the recording in which Nixon called on his aides to tell the FBI to stop its investigation.
In light of these developments and revelations, the House Judiciary Committee recommended Nixon’s impeachment for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Knowing the matter would likely not end well if he chose to contest such an action, Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974. So ended an unsuccessful attempt on the part of a president to rig an election in his favor. Once again, democracy prevailed.
Following Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford, having granted Nixon a pardon, served a brief but uneventful two years as president. The 1976 election victory went to the Democrats, with President Jimmy Carter serving for what would prove a single term.
911 and the War on Terror
On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked two airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center. A third plane crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth crash-landed in a field in Pennsylvania when passengers succeeded in preventing terrorists from flying it into yet another building.
These attacks, attributed to the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda, served as the prelude to the Global War on Terrorism, or simply the war on terror, the name given to the U.S. global military campaign aimed at stopping terrorism. The initial anti-terrorist operation would take U.S. troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. (The last of the U.S. troops pulled out of Afghanistan in August 2021.) Further military operations included the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and, ultimately -- despite the lack of evidence that such weapons existed in that country -- the Iraq War (2003-2011) which helped bring about the capture and execution of Iraq leader Saddam Hussein.
From the start, the so-called war on terror was not without its critics. Security analysts pointed out that terrorism was not an identifiable enemy. These analysts believed the problem of terrorism didn’t lend itself to a military solution but, rather, required an approach based on conducting negotiations and working to address the conditions that could give rise to terrorism.35
Concerns grew over human rights violations committed in the name of fighting against terrorism. The Abu Ghraib prison complex (Iraq) and the newly established Guantanamo Bay detention facility (Cuba) began housing terrorism suspects. Evidence came to light showing that those intent on extracting information from the prisoners were engaging in “enhanced interrogation” techniques (a euphemism for torture), a practice widely condemned by organizations that included Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.36
Meanwhile, the USA Patriot Act, enacted following the September 11 terrorist attacks, stirred up controversies of its own. Aimed at boosting national security in the fight against terrorism, its provisions included an expansion of law enforcement surveillance abilities such as phone tapping and searches of property and records without the owner’s consent or knowledge, an expanded list of activities qualifying for terrorism charges, and the indefinite detention without trial of immigrants.
The Act contained numerous sunset provisions, at least some of which were extended with modifications. In November 2019, the Act came up for renewal. By the end of March 2020, those seeking the renewal had failed to secure its passage by both houses before Congress departed for recess. Thus, the Patriot Act was no longer in effect.
All Hell Breaks Loose: A Vice President’s Dilemma
“The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.”
(U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, par. 3. See also 12th Amendment.37)
By early January 2021, Mike Pence was nearing the end of his term as Vice President under Donald Trump. Self-described as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order,”38 when approached by Donald Trump in 2016 to serve as his running mate, Pence had readily agreed. Throughout Trump’s embattled presidency, Pence had stood by him, not only defending him through the scandals that dogged him throughout his time in office but also opposing the House’s impeachment of him in 2019 over Trump’s alleged pressure on Ukraine to conduct an investigation against Joe Biden as a condition for receiving aid from the U.S.39 In October 2020, when COVID sidelined the president just a month before the general election, it was Mike Pence who had pursued Trump’s reelection campaign with full vigor. Yet, despite the efforts of Pence and Trump’s other loyal supporters, Trump had lost his bid for a second term in the White House.
In the face of this defeat, Trump refused to accept the election results. He and his supporters, convinced the election had been stolen, began a concerted campaign to overturn those results.40 Numerous lawsuits ensued – all to no avail. Despite Trump’s strenuous efforts, he could not alter the outcome of the election.
In the midst of all this, Mike Pence faced a situation that troubled him. January 6, the day set aside for the certification of the election results, was rapidly approaching. As Vice President, Pence would be expected to play a role in that process. His job was to open the sealed certificates in order to enable the counting of the votes. Normally, this step would be a mere formality. Yet now Donald Trump, the president toward whom he had always given his unconditional loyalty, was calling on Pence to take an action whose legality struck Pence as dubious at best. Trump wanted Pence to halt the certification.
Pence called former Vice President Dan Quayle, described his predicament, and posed the question, “What should I do?”
Quayle’s reply left no room for comfort or compromise. "Mike,” he said, “you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. ... I do know the position you're in. I also know what the law is. ... You have no power.”41
On January 5, Mike Pence once again got together with Donald Trump. Over lunch, Pence stated his belief that he had no legal authority to prevent the certification of the election results.
January 6 arrived -- certification day. Soon Pence would need to appear before Congress, which would be holding a joint session to mark the occasion. Before Pence’s departure, Trump contacted him and made one last attempt to get him to comply with his wishes. Said Trump, “You can either go down in history as a patriot, or you can go down in history as a pussy.”42
Trump and Pence reached no agreement. Pence, resolute in his bid to perform his constitutional duty, departed for the joint congressional session. He could not have known then that the campaign to derail the certification process was about to take a deadly turn.
That morning, Donald Trump addressed a crowd that had gathered at the Ellipse to hear him speak. Reiterating his belief that the election had been stolen, he urged them to march on the Capitol. He told them, “We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”43
Moments later, a mob stormed the Capitol. The Congress members who had gathered in the Senate chamber had to evacuate. So too did Mike Pence. Fourteen minutes after the report of the initial breach of the Capitol, Pence’s security team escorted him and his family to a second-floor hideaway. One minute later, the mob reached a stair landing just 100 feet away. Pence had made it out just in time.
The danger was not yet over. By now the crowd had taken up the chant, “Hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence.”
Pence’s security team advised him to accompany them out of the Capitol building altogether, but this he declined to do. In his secure location within the Capitol he would remain, until the danger was past.
At last, the siege of the Capitol came to an end. After a delay of nearly six hours, Congress certified the 2020 election results. Mike Pence declared Joe Biden and Kamala Harris the winners.44
Mike Pence, the Congress members, and those peaceful Capitol visitors unwittingly caught up in the tumultuous events of the day, survived. However, not everyone was as fortunate. The storming of the Capitol ultimately claimed seven casualties, including a Capitol officer and four Trump supporters. Two officers subsequently committed suicide.45
God Save (Us from) the King
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he … will be insulated from criminal prosecution…. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law…. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
(Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor)46
Despite Donald Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election, Joe Biden was inaugurated president on schedule on January 20, 2021. This event, taking place two weeks after the storming of the Capitol, proved peaceful.
During Biden’s presidency, the U.S. reentered the Paris Agreement. Noteworthy legislation he signed into law included the American Rescue Plan Act, designed to provide relief in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Inflation Reduction Act. He authorized aid to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion of that country and supported Israel in the Gaza War that followed the October 2023 Hamas terrorist attack and the taking of hostages. The latter policy drew criticism from those who held Israel responsible for massive civilian casualties in Gaza.
Other controversies presented challenges to Biden as president. Public frustrations over inflation dogged much of his term, as did opposition on the part of some critics over his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan in August 2021.
Though Biden had initially planned to run for reelection in 2024, public concerns about his age and cognitive ability (he was the first president to turn 80 while in office), especially after his troublesome performance in the debate against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, ultimately led him to pull out of the race. Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee but lost to Donald Trump in November.
In contrast to the January 6 storming of the Capitol, the certification of the 2024 election results proved peaceful and uneventful. Two weeks later, Donald Trump moved back into the White House to begin his second term as president.
Once back in office, Trump:
Granted universal pardons to all those who had stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, including those who had killed or injured Capitol police officers and made an attempt on the life of the then-Vice President.
Issued a flurry of executive orders, many of questionable constitutionality.47 These orders precipitated a series of lawsuits, many of them still in progress.48
When it comes to direct challenges to U.S. Constitution, it would seem that immigrants have become the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Below are just three examples of how far Trump has seen fit to go in that regard:
Birthright citizenship, covered in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
On January 20, Trump issued Executive Order 14160, ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. Federal judges granted temporary injunctions barring enforcement of the order. However, the Supreme Court ruling June 27 that limits nationwide injunctions has left the whole issue in doubt, with observers wondering whether the granting of citizenship will now depend on the state in which a child of undocumented parents is born. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor, making no secret of her opposition to Trump’s executive order, warned that the majority ruling “is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.”49
Note: The Supreme Court only ruled on the procedural aspects of the citizenship issue and not on the merits, leaving open the possibility of a later Court ruling enabling the nationwide preservation of birthright citizenship. How will the ruling go? Stay tuned.
Freedom of speech, covered in the 1st Amendment
Warning: if you’re an immigrant looking to speak out on a potentially controversial issue, you can’t automatically count on the First Amendment to protect you from an administration bent on deporting you. To date, outspoken foreign students who have found themselves subject to detention and threats of deportation include Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil, arrested March 8 following statements he made at protest demonstrations,50 and Rümeysa Öztürk, whose co-authoring of an op ed critical of Israel’s role in the Gaza war led to her March 25 arrest by ICE officials and subsequent detention.51
Due process, covered in the 5th Amendment
In the weeks leading up to mid-March, authorities began going after Venezuelan men, singling out those who appeared in court on routine business. They would show up for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-ins only to find themselves facing arrest. Around the country, ICE agents in search of suspected gang members began questioning and rounding up other Venezuelans. The agents took a particular interest in men sporting tattoos.
On March 15, the Trump administration rushed nearly 300 people onto three planes bound for El Salvador. These included 238 Venezuelans accused of belonging to the infamous Tren de Aragua gang and 23 Salvadoran alleged members of MS-13. Their destination? The Centre for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a Salvadoran prison notorious for human rights violations. It would seem the U.S. government had no plans for allowing their release, much less a return to the U.S. The men in question never had a chance to plead their cases in court.
The story doesn’t end there. Due process had an ally in federal judge James Boasberg. Upon learning of the three planes’ takeoff for El Salvador, Judge Boasberg ordered U.S. authorities to halt or turn around the deportation flights. His order went unheeded. In justification of the action taken to remove the migrants, President Trump cited his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a law used previously a total of three times, and then only in wartime.
The Supreme Court later ruled that those targeted for removal under the AEA had the right to challenge their designation as an enemy of the state. Judge Boasberg, citing that ruling, maintained that it should apply to those sent to El Salvador. Nonetheless, the administration took no action toward securing the release or return of the deportees.
Regarding deportees to El Salvador, no case has attracted more attention than that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national and apprentice sheet metal worker who had been living in Maryland. At the age of 16, he fled from El Salvador to escape gang violence. It was not until 2019, some eight years after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, that he acquired legal status. At that time, an immigration judge, mindful of the threats he faced from gang violence if forced to return to El Salvador, granted him withholding of removal status. Thereafter he lived and worked legally in the U.S. but had to check in annually with ICE, a requirement with which he dutifully complied.
So far, so good. Abrego met and married a U.S. citizen woman who had two children from another relationship. After tying the knot, they went on to have a third child, a son. While working to support his family, he remained on the lookout for better job opportunities. In September 2024, he became a sheet metal apprentice and began to pursue his journeyman’s license.
On March 12, 2025, Abrego finished his work shift for the day and picked up his son from his grandmother’s house, intending to take him home. However, he never made it. En route, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent stopped his car and then informed him that his immigration status had changed. The reason? Abrego’s alleged membership in the MS-13 gang – the ultimate irony, considering that he had originally fled from El Salvador to escape from gangs.
It was Abrego’s wife who came and took their son home. Abrego, meanwhile, was placed under arrest. Three days later, he and the aforementioned other accused gang members were flown to the CECOT prison in El Salvador.
Response was swift. Abrego’s wife sued the government in an effort to compel authorities to facilitate his return to the U.S. As the case, assigned to Judge Paula Xinis, proceeded, the U.S. government acknowledged "[a]lthough ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error."52
The admission of the error should have ended the matter, but, alas, it did not. In the face of court orders – including from the Supreme Court April 10 -- that the U.S. government facilitate Abrego’s return, the White House dug in its heels, maintaining they could not return him to the U.S. as they no longer had custody over him. They furthermore insisted that he was an illegal immigrant (not true since 2019) and -- despite the lack of either evidence or due process -- an MS-13 member. And so the legal battle continued.
The ongoing saga did not escape the attention of concerned Congress members. On April 18, Abrego, who by now had been transferred to another Salvadoran prison, got a visit from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Subsequently several representatives also attempted to see him.53 All sought to bring attention to his case in the hope of helping to secure his release and return from El Salvador.
On June 6, Abrego was finally returned to the U.S., but not to freedom. The DOJ announced he had been indicted in Tennessee on charges of human smuggling, an apparent reference to a 2022 traffic stop in that state in which Abrego, along eight passengers, was pulled over for speeding. At the time, Abrego had told the Tennessee Highway Patrol officer he was transporting his passengers to a construction site in Maryland. The officer, however, had suspected human smuggling due to the lack of luggage in the vehicle. Despite ICE being contacted, no charges were ever filed against Abrego.
Fast forward to June 2025. Initially Abrego’s lawyers hoped to secure his release while he awaited trial, but then the case took a truly bizarre turn. The government threatened him with immediate deportation to a third country if and when his release came about. His lawyers, concerned over that prospect, persuaded a federal judge in Tennessee to delay his release until a court ordered otherwise. At this writing, Abrego remains in a detention center in Tennessee. His fate, as well as that of the imprisoned deportees still stuck in El Salvador, hangs in the balance.
In view of the above constitutional violations committed against immigrants, including imprisonment abroad, will citizens be next? That is a question worth pondering in view of Trump’s below comment to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele:
"The homegrowns are next, the homegrowns. You've got to build about five more places."54
Recent executive actions like those described above have met with opposition not only in the courts but in the streets, as concerned citizens organize demonstrations and remind all who will listen that the USA is a democracy and not a nation headed by a king.
This Is What Democracy Looks Like55
What does all the above tell us? In light of recent events, we should not become complacent. On the other hand, we should not be too quick to succumb to despair either. Had our democracy not proven resilient over time, it is doubtful we would still have a democracy today. Nonetheless, if history has a key central lesson to teach us, it is this: we should never, ever take our democracy or our Constitution for granted.
Parting note:
Earlier this year, in Wisconsin, billionaire Elon Musk spent $20 million in an effort to help Brad Schimmel win his race for a seat on the state supreme court, even going so far as to pay voters to sign a petition he circulated against “activist judges.” Despite Musk and his bankrolls, on April 1 his opponent, the Democratic-backed Susan Crawford, managed to defeat him, a win that could impact cases involving congressional redistricting and even potentially affect the balance of power in Congress.
The moral of the story: It’s never a safe bet to bet against American democracy.
Notes
2Shattuck, John. The Orbán precedent. In Coda, Mar. 21, 2025. (https://www.codastory.com/rewriting-history/the-orban-precedent/). See also Robert Reich’s commentary at
3Edwards, Andrew V. The World Does Not End in 2025. In Digital Disinformation and Beyond, July 7, 2024.
4Regent: “a person who rules a country for a limited period, because the king or queen is absent or too young, too ill, etc.” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/regent)
5Zselényi, Zsuzsanna. How Viktor Orbán built his illiberal state. In New Republic, Apr. 5, 2022. (https://newrepublic.com/article/165953/viktor-orban-built-illiberal-state)
(This article has been updated from the version appearing in the May 2022 print issue of The New Republic.)
6Ibid.
7Ibid.
8Ibid.
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
11https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
12“A republic if you can keep it”: Elizabeth Willing Powel, Benjamin Franklin, and the James McHenry Journal . In Unfolding History: Manuscripts at the Library of Congress. Library of Congress Blogs, Jan. 6, 2022. (https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2022/01/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it-elizabeth-willing-powel-benjamin-franklin-and-the-james-mchenry-journal/)
13https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
14Ibid.
15Cox, Heather Richardson. Letters from an American, Mar. 9, 2025.
16Cox. Letters from an American, Apr. 9, 2025.
17Ibid.
18https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/housedivided.htm
19https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/congress.htm
20https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
21Women gained national suffrage in 1920, when the 19th Amendment became law.
22Admittedly, the future of this Act remains unclear at this writing, given that recent Supreme Court rulings have had the effect of limiting its application. (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-act-explained)
Barack Obama, the first African American president, served from 2009 to 2017.
23https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
24https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare
25The Anti-immigrant nativist movement gathered steam. Given the activism of the notoriously anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s, this was by no means the first time anti-immigrant sentiment reared its head in the U.S., and, sadly, it would not be the last.
Examples of immigrants targeted included Italian anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, convicted of murder in 1921 and executed several years later despite the fact that many in the U.S. and around the world believed them innocent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti)
26The ACLU, long a champion of civil liberties, still exists today.
27https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fireside-chat-15
28https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden
29https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms. However, at least one commentator identified a fifth freedom not cited by Roosevelt. See Bitton, Mijal. Things Worth Remembering: The Freedom to Be Different. In Free Press, June 8, 2025. (https://www.thefp.com/p/freedom-to-be-different)
30https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
31https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/veto-of-the-internal-security-act/
32https://spartacus-educational.com/USAtruman.htm
33https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Conscience. See also Richardson, Heather Cox. Letters from an American, May 31, 2025
34https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army%E2%80%93McCarthy_hearings
35https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
36Constitutional issues and court rulings concerning prisoner treatment are covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse and https://www.britannica.com/topic/Guantanamo-Bay-detention-camp
37https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript. The President of the Senate is typically the Vice President.
38https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mike-Pence
39President Trump in conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: “I need you to do me a favor though.” (https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/msnbc-live-with-ari-melber/2019-11-13-msna1304236). Trump’s subsequent impeachment, the first of two, ended in acquittal. For information on his 2nd impeachment, see #43 and 46.
40Trump’s failed bid for reelection. Trump to Georgia Secretary of State following ballot count showing Trump lost in that state: “I need you to find me 11,700-plus votes.” (CNN Live Event/Special, aired Jan. 20, 2021. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2021-01-20/segment/13)
41Late December 2020 conversation between Mike Pence and Dan Quayle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election)
42https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence
43https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
44In April 2025, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation granted Mike Pence the JFK Profile in Courage Award in recognition for his role in standing firm to ensure the peaceful transfer of presidential power. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence)
45https://www.demlist.com/demdaily-the-capitol-attack-aftermath-and-accountability-the-update/
46Trump v. United States (July 1, 2024), heard before the Supreme Court, arose over charges against former President Trump related to his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that Trump, as president, had “absolute immunity” for his “official acts” conducted while in office. Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion appears in Ms. Magazine, July 1, 2024. (https://msmagazine.com/2024/07/01/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-trump-immunity/)
47For further info on constitutional violations, see U.S. Constitution versus Donald Trump (https://cynthiajcoan.substack.com/p/us-constitution-versus-donald-trump).
48For a complete, updated list of lawsuits filed against the Trump administration since his return to the White House, see https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation.
49https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-immigration-trump-89be4f8457dd69312abc8427d4194cb9
50As of June 20, Khalil is now free but still faced with possible deportation. The government claims that he made false statements when applying for his green card, a claim which Khalil denies. His case is ongoing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil)
51Öztürk, charging that her First Amendment and due process rights had been violated, was released on May 9. Her immigration proceedings remain ongoing; she too is fighting against deportation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk)
52https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia
53Ibid.
54https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/nx-s1-5366178/trump-deport-jail-u-s-citizens-homegrowns-el-salvador
55A declaration often heard these days at pro-democracy rallies, including No Kings Day rallies held across the country on June 14.
Other Sources
Hungary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Hungarian_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interwar_Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV_of_Hungary%27s_attempts_to_retake_the_throne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_in_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_People%27s_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Hungarian_parliamentary_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n
https://newrepublic.com/article/165953/viktor-orban-built-illiberal-state
Attitudes toward Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: what recent polls have shown:
“Hungary’s largest opposition party surged ahead of right-wing populist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Ahead of an election season, the liberal opposition party now has a 15-point lead over Orbán, capitalizing on a sluggish European economy. A conservative culture warrior, Orbán is a hero to many on the American right, in large part because of his criticism of Western liberals.”
“Hungary’s largest opposition party Tisza surged to a 15 percentage point lead over Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s governing Fidesz in an opinion poll, ahead of elections due next year.
“Tisza leads 51% versus 36% for Fidesz among decided voters, according to a poll by Median published in news website HVG. In March, the same pollster measured a nine-point lead for Tisza.
“Political upstart Peter Magyar’s Tisza has put the government on the back foot with relentless campaigning around the country and savvy social media skills. Orban’s Fidesz is struggling to regain momentum due to a sluggish economy and a cost of living crisis.”
Kasnyik, Marton. Hungary’s Opposition Tisza Surges in Poll Against Orban’s Fidesz. In Bloomberg, June 18, 2025. (https://archive.is/FEK4M#selection-1149.0-1149.64)
U.S. and Hungary compared:
2008 economic crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_financial_crisis
Democracy breakdown warning:
Remington, Max. Update: It’s Time to Contemplate the Unthinkable. In We’re Not at the End, But You Can See It from Here. (https://substack.com/home/post/p-147863661?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
United States:
Founding documents:
Declaration of Independence: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
U.S. Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Background on Alien and Sedition Acts, 1978:
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/sedition-act-of-1798/
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
Civil Rights:
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP): https://naacp.org/about/our-history
Know Nothings/Anti-Immigrant Movements, Pre-Civil War:
First Red Scare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
Civil liberties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civil_Liberties_Bureau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
Crackdown on dissidents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Pastor_Stokes
Depression:
https://livingnewdeal.org/the-new-deal-worked/
Japanese American internment camps:
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation#background
Cold War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
McCarthyism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
Margaret Chase Smith:
Vietnam War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Watergate scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:
https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/september-11-2001-terrorist-attacks
https://www.britannica.com/event/September-11-attacks
War on Terror:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Trump’s first term:
Attempts to overturn 2020 election results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/dan-quayle-pence-trump-january-6-woodward-costa-book
Trump’s second term:
On birthright citizenship:
Deportations without due process:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/05/1163181
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5333555-venezuelans-deported-prison-judge-ruling/
https://www.readtangle.com/kilmar-abrego-garcia-returned-charged-indicted-tennessee/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia
Addendum:
Nomia Iqbal in Milwaukee & Max Matza. Democratic-backed judge wins Wisconsin race in setback for Elon Musk. Apr. 2, 2025. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8km3zg3kyo)