The New York Times published a
think piece last week strategizing how leftists might be able to thwart the will of American voters and rescue democracy from President Donald Trump should he win on Nov. 5.
Using the term “democracy” euphemistically for a state of things in which Democrats or leftists of other stripes are in power, the authors — a pair of Harvard University professors
hostile to Trump, the Constitution as written, and the Electoral College — recommended “societal mobilization” should the powers that be fail to get their way.
Daniel Ziblatt and Steve Levitsky‘s call to action, which critics have noted sounds a lot like color revolution, appears to be the desperate finale following a series of failed efforts by Democrats to remove Kamala Harris’ opponent from the ballot or to kneecap him with lawfare.
The duo, working under the assumption that Trump would “dismantle” the republic’s electoral system of which they themselves are
critics, identified “five strategies that pro-democratic forces around the world have employed” against so-called “authoritarian threats.”
The first four are as follows:
laissez-faire — the “self-correcting power of electoral competition,” which the Harvard authors say is “distorted by an 18th-century institution, the Electoral College”;
militant or defensive democracy, whereby public officials who self-identify as pro-democracy censor supposedly undesirable speech, outlaw undesirable groups, and criminalize opponents — a tactic Germany’s leftist establishment is presently bringing to bear against the popular right-leaning populist party Alternative for Germany;
partisan gatekeeping, whereby establishmentarians neutralize popular candidates deemed “antidemocratic” or prevent their ascent through the ranks; and
containment, where establishmentarians form coalitions across party lines to deny voters the option of a choice deemed “antidemocratic” by the ruling elite.
Ziblatt and Levitsky, convinced that these four strategies have failed, noted that there is yet a fifth way by which supposed champions of democracy could rob the electorate of their desired outcome: “societal mobilization.”
“Democracy’s last bastion of defense is civil society,” wrote the duo, who made no mention of the antidemocratic provenance of Harris’ candidacy. “When the constitutional order is under threat, influential groups and societal leaders — chief executives, religious leaders, labor leaders and prominent retired public officials — must speak out, reminding citizens of the red lines that democratic societies must never cross. And when politicians cross those red lines, society’s most prominent voices must publicly and forcefully repudiate them.”
‘It was always a Color Revolution.’
The Harvard duo’s
German and Brazilian examples suggest that they are advocating far more than for Americans simply to “speak out.” These examples, when coupled with their other other coercive strategies, call to mind violent demonstrations — not just those of yesterday, such as the Black Lives Matter riots, but the bloody roundup executed by the republican radicals ahead of the Spanish Civil War.
The duo wrote,
The U.S. establishment is sleepwalking toward a crisis. An openly antidemocratic figure stands at least a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency. The Supreme Court and the Republican Party have abdicated their gatekeeping responsibilities, and too many of America’s most influential political, business and religious leaders remain on the sidelines. Unable to rise above fear or narrow ambition, they hedge their bets. But time is running out. What are they waiting for?
Jeffrey Tucker, president of the Brownstone Institute,
said of the piece, “That is one chilling article: abolishing democracy to protect it. Amazing. Harvard. Notice how at the end, they tip their hand and call for a defense of ‘the U.S. establishment.’ Every single one of the cases they mention concerns a populist movement against elites.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded to the Times piece,
writing, “Once again, NYT publishes something fundamentally un-American.”
“This op-ed is advocating pure authoritarianism under the guise of guarding against authoritarianism,”
wrote Jeremy Carl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. “It’s amazing how far Harvard’s Government department has fallen that it would have professors express such views.”
The Federalist’s editor in chief, Mollie Hemingway,
noted, “I just read a bat guano insane NYT op-ed that said four ways to stop MAGA had failed (hoping it loses, banning the GOP/Trump from ballot, having GOP overturn its voters, establishment resistance) and now recommends what sounds like a color revolution.”
“It was always a Color Revolution,”
wrote Blaze News senior editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford.
Color revolutions —
such as the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004 — are political upheavals aimed at toppling supposedly illegitimate or abusive regimes and replacing them with supposedly liberal democratic regimes. Blaze News previously highlighted that in many cases, the revolutionaries appear to have been afforded help and direction by state actors and/or by non-governmental organizations.
Christopher Rufo
noted in April, “The West’s favored methods of supporting Color Revolutions include fomenting dissent, organizing activists through social media, promoting student movements, and unleashing domestic unrest on the streets.”
New Hampshire state Rep. Mike Belcher
tweeted, “Communist have no qualms about a (any) solution to the paradox of toleration. Our republic tried, but failed to solve for this problem re: Communist subversion about 80 years ago and failed. Recognize that, even in a Trump victory, we are still counter-revolutionary to the established Marxist Regime.”
In June, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck detailed the seven conditions that must be met for a color revolution to successfully topple a government.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Color revolution, Leftism, Leftist, New york times, Daniel ziblatt, Steve levitsky, Election, President donald trump, Trump, Anti-democratic, Democracy, Politics
