This isn’t a typical EA topic, but we aren’t in a typical period. Over the next few years the United States of America could be in danger of slipping away from its traditional liberal democracy and towards a more authoritarian form of government, in ways that could be long lasting in more negative scenarios.
I am curious if anyone in the EA community has any insightful thoughts on what are the best actions we can take to avert the worst case scenarios.
If the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government were to degrade, I think it would be a major negative for a lot of the other issues EAs care about.
If anyone has read anything they have found to be particularly useful, I would be interested in those recommendations as well.
I am even considering allocating a portion of my annual giving to pro democracy causes if they clear a minimum bar of impact.
I'm willing to bet (and i already have one bet) against US democracy falling.
I have generally found the fears of democracy failing in the US to be hyperbolic and without much good evidence. The claims are also very "vibes-based" and/or partisan rather than at the object level.
Perhaps, to quell your concerns, you should make concrete what you are concerned about and I will try to respond to that
For starters, we have already had a Trump presidency and while the transition was not ideal, it happened and thus should make you less concerned about a Trump dictatorship/autocracy. US institutions help up strong against a real overturning of the election.
Again, happy to formalize a bet on this.
I agree it’s not >50% probability, but it’s high enough of a probability that we should be very concerned about it.
I’m sure I won’t do a good job of describing all the evidence in this comment, but here’s a link (https://youtu.be/dwtUoJfkHlQ?si=80d8M4e5e1y0P9UF) to a recent podcast in which a historian specializing in authoritarianism outlines how Trump is following the standard playbook of leaders, like Putin and Xi, who have consolidated power and made their countries less democratic for a prolonged period of time.
A key difference between the last time Trump was president and this time is that last time the military, the DOJ, and other government departments opposed his illegal requests on the grounds that their highest loyalty was to the U.S. Constitution. Trump has stated specifically he wants to avoid that resistance this time, which is why he is appointing his most die hard loyalists to the top positions in defense, intelligence, and Justice. That should be an enormous red flag.
Democracy is actually quite rare in the historical context, and there are many example of democratic governments turning into authoritarian governments. We should not assume that history is on our side.
Finally, it is clear that the current global trend is toward less democratic and more authoritarian governments. That may be because of information manipulation, globalization backlash, or other reasons. But it is the current direction of things.
Sure, we don't have to bet at 50/50 odds. I'm willing to bet at say 90/10 odds in your favor that the next election is decided by electoral college or popular vote with a (relatively) free and fair election comparable to 2016, 2020 and 2024.
I agree that Trump is... bad for lack of a better word and that he seeks loyalty and such. But the US democracy is rather robust and somehow people took the fact that it held up strongly as evidence that... democracy was more fragile than we thought.
This strikes me as too optimistic/not taking the evidence from the last two elections seriously enough.
In both of them a leading contender for the Presidency did not commit to a peaceful transfer of power. In one of them he incited an insurrection. In both of them, more severe outcomes were prevented by contingent factors.
how about 99/1? pretty wild to me that you would say
and then only offer 90/10 odds. Are you saying you think there is a ~1 in 20 chance the next election is not going to be free and fair? I would not consider freaking about about 1/100 to be hyperbolic, much less 1/20.
Also It would be nice to break this up a little bit more. Here are some things I would probably bet you on, though they need to be clarified and thought out a bit more.
If I'm willing to bet, I need to take "edge". I am not going to bet at my actual odds since that gives no profit for me.
1/2. I think nearly every president committed crimes, for example, war crimes. This mainly depends on what he is prosecuted for as opposed to what is committed.
If the constitution is amended that seems fine. I'm fine to bet on something like this though.
I'm not sure why that matters. People can elect people you and I disagree with ideologically.
I don't think I understand this one. Can you clarify?
I feel like people are converting their dislike of Trump into unwarranted fears. I don't like Trump but it's not helpful to fear monger.
This is pretty patronizing. You don't know me but do you really think the average person on the EA forum needs that explained?
hence why I wrote 1/20 (95-5). If you believe the chance is <1/100 you are 10x. Given the asymmetry of my/other users knowledge of your internal probability, I understand offering the best possible odds for yourself that you still think the other side would take, but it's a bit of an icky norm to come on here and play poker when people might assume you would be happy to take a 2x-5x bet. More importantly the bet you offered proves nothing in my mind since anywhere between a 1-5% chance of the next election being rigged would still be really really bad and worth hyperventilating about.
If you want, read my comment to lark. I don't think my resolution criteria are good. It's rather that I don't personally expect the next election to be rigged ( I would be on the same side of the 90/10 bet as you) but I do expect trump to continue to denigrate the checks and balances that we have in this country, whether it be official laws or unofficial norms, hence why I am trying to pose intermediate questions. I'll try to improve the original questions though.
1/2 - just specify a specific crime that we think most presidents don't commit and would obviously be worth prosecuting.
3 - really? You think this wouldn't be a clear step towards autocracy?
4 - The general position of MAGA's is that the 2020 election was stolen.
5- Admittedly a Pretty awful market, just ignore this one
Again I don't think even these modified versions are good, but I think we can still do better.
These seem like poor things to bet on:
I think the best thing to bet on is the probability of winning the next election. Unfortunately this doesn't work nearly as well as it would have a few weeks ago, but I think think it is the best approach.
Completely agree - I think all of my markets are bad. However the direction I'm trying to move in by proposing these questions is to operationalize steps along the way towards autocracy. You could semi replicate this but saying ok well will one of the next 5 elections going to be rigged (if you believe you can operationalize this), but even if you could set up a futures market for it I don't think you will get all that much market efficiency from it.
Betting on the prob of next election is going to paint a very incomplete picture. There is a world in which we are 99% the next election is not going to get rigged but acts during this admin would credibly increase the chance of future riggings by a lot. For instance lets assume trump himself as no interest in being an autocrat. Then he wouldn't rig the election purposely right? And yet the fact that we now have a precedent that you won't be prosecuted for essentially anything if you win the presidency surely changes the incentives of future politicians who are considering meddling.
This is literally my position. I think the next election is >90% to be "relatively fair", but I also think trump is going to do a ton of stuff that paves the way for a future election to not be fair. Picture below to help explain thesis.
My problem with this is that it's not falsifiable.
Read a history book?
edit: this was super rude but yea my point is there is lots of literature you can comb through to think about if my graph is accurate.
edit 2: What exactly are you saying is not falsifiable?
As we discussed at EAG B, the material change between the 1st term and 2nd term is that there were many "adults in the room" who kept the former president from fulfilling his worst instincts. Whereas now there has been a 4-year effort to cultivate a pipeline of loyalists to staff the government. Ezra's episode on Trump and his disinhibition is a good piece on the topic.
The nominations for the national security apparatus are the strongest signal that he wants power consolidated and will test GOP Senators out the gate if they will be a check on his power.
I think Ezra's start to the podcast that Michael linked was apt. If someone two months ago said that Gaetz, Gabbard, and Hegeseth were going to be nominated for DoJ, DNI, DoD, it would have been framed as hyperbolic doomer Liberal talk. However that is the universe we are in.
Have the nominations and the proposal to purge military generals updated your priors at all since EAG B?
I find the Gaetz and Hegeseth picks to be a bit worrying. I struggle to find a reason that the Gabbard is bad at all. In fact, I think she is probably good? She's a former congresswoman, city councillor, hawaii house rep and member of the national guard, etc. She seems like a good pick who is concerned about the US tendency to intervene in foreign countries.
Now, to be clear, I find the Gaetz and Hegeseth picks to be bad but I thought Trump would do these types of things and I think there is a whole universe of things that Trump could have done and so he did some mildly-moderately bad ones.
So, he did some bad things but it was around expectation and nothing yet in the tails and thus I shouldn't update in the direction of totalitarianism.
I'm still not finding anything to really be alarmed about other than people I know being alarmed.
I hate Trump as much as anyone but it seems unlikely EA can make much difference here, given how many other well-resourced, powerful actors there are trying to shape outcomes in US politics.
A post/submission I wrote to OP two years ago has some thoughts on this:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kmx3rKh2K4ANwMqpW/destabilization-of-the-united-states-the-top-x-factor-ea
It has some recommended readings and outlines potential interventions.
I'm still distilling what I would add to it in the present day.
The top thing on my mind is the proposed board to purge generals. (Note: presidents already have the authority to dismiss generals, however the implication of this proposal is that they want to purge so many generals that they need a systematic vehicle to do it.) As I wrote in my piece, our biggest bulwark against an authoritarian power grab is that the United States Military is very strong, professional, competent, and apolitical. Any changes away from that status quo should raise alarm bells.
The nominations to the military/national security apparatus are clearly about total loyalty over competence. These are the military and intelligence services that when captured in other countries by authoritarians have cemented regimes.
Interventions in the immediate term targeted at disrupting the consolidation of power (in the aforementioned moves) could be very high leverage.
For a longer-term intervention that focuses more on the upstream drivers of our political dysfunction which enables authoritarians, I still back the idea of doing local/state ballot initiatives to reform the political system. A gap I see in the space is that political system reform via initiatives is pursued piecemeal instead of comprehensively. Also, anti-establishment sentiments poll very high amongst Americans including the Left and Right, yet that bi-populist agreement is not being effectively tapped. Not only could mobilizing it help get initiatives over the line, but it would create depolarizing interactions between regular citizens.
I take the perspective that the United States is just tending towards the more typical behavior of presidential electoral systems. America will start acting more and more like Latin American presidential regimes, because the of the deadlock that presidential systems create. The checks and balances aren't protecting us. Instead, the checks and balances are what drive the public to elect "strongmen" who can "get things done" - often through illegal and unconstitutional measures.
Trump for example is celebrated for "getting things done" - things that are often illegal and unconstitutional. That's the selling point. Therefore I'm not the only one who has suggested that presidential regimes are unstable. Yet as we look across the world, parliamentary systems also have their own problems with authoritarian takeovers.
I write about what I think the solution is here.
In short, I think we can create a smarter democracy using a system called "sortition". Please take a read of the article I linked for more information.
...
Even if sortition might be an interesting policy to you, it's not particularly clear if implementation is politically feasible. The inertia of the US political system is so vast it's hard for any money to budge it. Any financial investment will yield highly nonlinear results. Policy might not change for years, or decades, until suddenly one day policy changes. Yet just because the response to investment is extremely nonlinear doesn't therefore mean it's unwise to invest. (There's also the question if America is the wisest place to invest in. Pro-sortition movements also exist in Europe. Could pro-sortition movements be launched more easily in African and South America?)
In terms of what you can impact in terms of an idea such as sortition, your investment can be used to drive "public awareness" and "lobbying". Money can be used to persuade local governments to adopt pro-sortition policies. Or money could be spent raising public awareness of sortition - public awareness that might lead to movement growth.
Side note - I think you will not get full honesty from many people here (more likely they just won't comment). Anyone with a public reputation that wants to interact with trump's admin is not going to want to comment (for good reason), plus this subject can be a bit touchy anyway.
This seems to overstate how important the ea forum is
It has very little to do with the forum. I don't think most people here that think they might be interacting with the executive branch would post anything super negative on the internet if they are thinking clearly.