ICYMI: Why a Rightward Shift is the Wrong Solution
The only way to stop authoritarianism is with real change.
Thank you for subscribing to my Substack! On Fridays I share a weekly “recap” style newsletter that dives into a specific topic and compiles the best content I’ve found over the week. In addition I share longer pieces a couple of times each month. Thank you for reading! These articles take a lot of time to research and write, so if you’d like to support my work, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. In any case please be sure to like, comment and share!
✌🏾Quote of the week:
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
🤔 This week’s topic:
Why a Rightward Shift is the Wrong Solution to Rising Authoritarianism
In recent years, American politics has increasingly been marked by authoritarian tendencies on both the right and the left. While Donald Trump’s presidency provided a clear example of right-wing authoritarianism, the Democratic Party’s response—particularly its rightward shift in the name of protecting democracy—also reflects a deeply concerning move toward control and suppression. Jamie Raskin and other Democratic leaders have argued that moving right is necessary to prevent future threats like Trump, but this argument overlooks the structural causes of authoritarianism. In other words, it misdiagnoses the root cause of the problem. A rightward shift will not only not cure the deeper socioeconomic issues driving authoritarianism, but in fact, will likely worsen them.
The Legacy of January 6th
The January 6th Capitol riot offered an eye-opening display of authoritarian insurrectionist tendencies on the right. Donald Trump’s rejection of the results of the 2020 election, and his active encouragement for his supporters to take violent action reflected his broader pattern of challenging democratic norms, consolidating power, and presenting himself as the only legitimate leader.
Trump’s authoritarianism is rooted in populism, combining an "us vs. them" narrative with a disdain for institutions that limit executive power. His attacks on the media, labeling it “fake news" and his refusal to accept any electoral defeat are textbook examples of authoritarianism in action.
But what’s too often left out of this conversation is how the Democratic party’s response to January 6th, while framed as defending democracy, has also opened the door to authoritarian methods of control. In the wake of the riot, Democrats increasingly supported measures to regulate speech—particularly so-called misinformation—on social media platforms. These actions, while they claim are intended to curb the spread of harmful disinformation, give rise to serious concerns about censorship and the suppression of dissenting voices. By framing misinformation as an existential threat, the Democrats are inching toward a soft form of authoritarianism themselves.
But the authoritarianism emerging from both sides isn’t simply a reaction to current events. It’s the result of much deeper structural problems within American society.
The Long and Steady Shift to the Right from the “Left”
The Democratic Party’s current rightward shift didn’t begin with the Trump era—it’s been building for decades. Remember how under Bill Clinton, the Democrats embraced a centrist, pro-business approach that became known as the “Third Way,” which sought to attract moderate voters while maintaining liberal social values. Clinton’s presidency saw the party adopt policies such as welfare reform, financial deregulation, and a tough-on-crime approach that devastated communities of color and accelerated mass incarceration. This was a significant departure from the party’s New Deal and Great Society roots.
Barack Obama, though celebrated for his progressive rhetoric, largely continued this centrist trend. His signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act, kept private insurers at the center of the healthcare system rather than pursuing more progressive reforms such as a single-payer model. Obama's expansion of drone warfare, surveillance programs, and his handling of the financial crisis reflected a more conservative stance on national security and economics than his public image suggested.
Under Joe Biden, the rightward drift has aggressively continued. Despite promises to restore the “soul of America,” Biden has largely maintained or expanded the pro-corporate, militaristic approach that has defined Democratic policy for years. Biden’s administration has provided substantial military aid to Ukraine, supported increased defense spending, and continued many of the centrist economic policies that have favored corporate interests over meaningful reforms for workers, freelancers, and small businesses. Though he has promoted some progressive climate and infrastructure investments, these remain incremental compared to the scale of change needed.
In many ways, the Democratic Party’s rightward drift has gone unnoticed, obscured by rhetoric that still positions the party as a defender of liberal values. But while the Democrats may speak the language of progress, their policies reflect a party that has moved closer to the right than many realize.
Why Jamie Raskin’s Argument is Wrong
Jamie Raskin, a prominent figure in the Democratic Party, has argued that the left must move toward the center, or even right, to effectively counter authoritarian threats like Trump. Raskin’s argument is based on the belief that moderate, centrist policies will appeal to a broader swath of voters, thereby creating a stronger coalition against far-right authoritarianism.
But this argument is deeply flawed. Empirical evidence from other countries shows that rightward shifts often fail to prevent authoritarian regimes from rising. Brazil, for example, saw its leftist Workers’ Party moderate its positions in the face of growing far-right sentiment, yet this didn’t prevent Jair Bolsonaro from winning power. Hungary’s center-left similarly struggled to counter Viktor Orbán’s authoritarian consolidation.
Moving rightward risks alienating progressive voters, while failing to address the deeper structural issues that give rise to authoritarianism in the first place. Economic inequality, corporate power, and political corruption are the actual drivers of authoritarianism—not ideological extremism on its own. And without addressing these root causes, a rightward shift can only hope to put a bandaid on an open wound.
The Deeper Structural Causes of Authoritarianism
At the core of the authoritarian drift in American politics is a series of structural problems that neither the right nor the left are adequately addressing. These problems have allowed authoritarian tendencies to grow on both sides, manifesting in different ways but ultimately stemming from the same root causes.
Economic Inequality and Corporate Power
One of the most significant factors driving authoritarianism is rising economic inequality. Over the past few decades, wealth has become increasingly concentrated among a small elite, while wages for most of us have stagnated. Economic inequality, coupled with the enormous political influence of corporations, has created a political system that prioritizes the interests of the wealthy over the needs of the majority. Both Republicans and Democrats have catered to corporate interests, further alienating working-class and middle-class Americans.
Almost nobody thinks this economic system is fair. This concentration of wealth and power fuels resentment, which authoritarian leaders, particularly on the right, are quick to exploit. But instead of addressing the issue, Democrats have largely continued policies that protect corporate power, offering only incremental reforms rather than the structural changes needed to reduce inequality.
Weakening of Democratic Institutions
American democratic institutions have also been weakened over time, contributing to the rise of authoritarianism. From gerrymandering to voter suppression, both parties have engaged in practices that undermine the democratic process. Corruption and the ever increasing role of money in politics continue to erode public trust in our institutions.
Weakening of democratic institutions opens the door for authoritarian leaders to consolidate power. Trump’s attack on the legitimacy of the 2020 election is just one example of how this dynamic plays out, but the underlying vulnerabilities are bipartisan.
Social Polarization and the Rise of “Us vs. Them” Politics
Our society is deeply polarized, and this polarization is a breeding ground for authoritarianism. Trump’s populist rhetoric created a stark “us vs. them” dynamic, but the Democrats have also played into this polarization by demonizing the right. This kind of tribalism is dangerous because it justifies the erosion of civil liberties in the name of protecting democracy.
As each side views the other as an existential threat, authoritarian measures—whether in the form of censorship or aggressive policing—become more acceptable to the public. Polarization deepens the cycle of authoritarianism, making it difficult to address the real structural issues.
Media Control and Censorship
Another key driver of authoritarianism is the increasing control over information. Media consolidation means that fewer corporations control the flow of information, limiting the diversity of perspectives. Both parties have played a role in this: Republicans with their attacks on the press and Democrats with their push for social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation.
And what makes today's suppression of speech particularly concerning is the way governments and private entities work together to control online discourse. Unlike traditional media—where the government might directly censor or fine newspapers and broadcasters—the internet introduces a new layer of repression through corporate control. Social media platforms, controlled by a few large companies, act as gatekeepers of information, moderating what billions of people see. Governments exert pressure on these platforms to remove "misinformation" or "hate speech," creating a soft form of censorship that bypasses legal scrutiny. The use of algorithms to de-prioritize or promote certain content is another modern form of subtle control, shaping what narratives gain traction without the overt appearance of government interference.
This consolidation and control of information, whether through corporate influence or government regulation, is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. It stifles dissent, reduces accountability, and makes it easier for those in power to manipulate public opinion.
How Authoritarianism is Impacting Policy
The authoritarian tendencies of both parties are perhaps most visible in their policies. Here are just a few examples:
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Bodily Autonomy
The Democratic Party’s push for vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic was framed as a public health necessity. But for many, these mandates represented an infringement on bodily autonomy, a core principle of personal freedom in a democratic society. The mandates also raised concerns about the influence of Big Pharma, as pharmaceutical companies profited enormously from the widespread use of vaccines.
Immigration Policy
On immigration, both parties display authoritarian tendencies. Republicans have pushed harsh border policies, including family separations and increased militarization of the border. While Democrats have promised immigration reform, they have continued to engage in mass deportations and detentions. This bipartisan approach reflects a broader trend of using state power to control marginalized populations.
Surveillance and Censorship
Both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to the erosion of civil liberties through surveillance and censorship. Democrats have advocated for greater regulation of tech platforms to curb misinformation, while Republicans push for increased government surveillance under the guise of protecting national security. Both approaches expand state power at the expense of individual freedoms.
The Downward Spiral of Blame
As the political right and left point the finger at each other, they justify their own authoritarian measures as necessary to protect democracy. This cycle of blame only deepens polarization, creating a feedback loop where authoritarianism on one side fuels authoritarianism on the other.
This dynamic isn’t unique to the United States. Countries like Hungary and Brazil have experienced similar cycles, where growing authoritarianism on one side leads to increased repression from the other. In the U.S., the more polarized the political climate has become, the more willing each side has been to embrace authoritarian measures to defeat the other.
A Path to Breaking the Cycle
The solution to rising authoritarianism isn’t a rightward shift. Instead, we need to address the structural issues that are driving authoritarianism in the first place. And for that, voters will need to look beyond the two-party system.
The Green Party, often dismissed in mainstream politics, actually offers a platform that directly tackles the root causes of authoritarianism. Their focus on wealth redistribution, corporate accountability, anti-militarism, racial justice and environmental sustainability provides a genuine alternative to the center-right policies of the Democratic Party.
Unlike the Democrats, who have made a cynical hard right shift while claiming to defend democracy, the Green Party advocates for economic justice, decentralized power, and a commitment to both civil liberties and environmental sustainability. These policies would break the cycle of authoritarianism by addressing the underlying inequalities and power imbalances that fuel it.
Yet, most Americans remain trapped in the belief that they must choose between two increasingly authoritarian parties. Until more voters recognize that they don’t have to accept this false choice, the U.S. will continue to oscillate between two forms of control—right-wing populism and centrist authoritarianism—without addressing the real problems at its core.
📚 This week’s reads:
‘Uhuru 3’ found not guilty of being Russian agents
The "Uhuru 3" case, which came to a head this September, is a chilling reminder of the increasingly thin line between political dissent and state repression in the U.S. The acquittal of Omali Yeshitela, Penny Hess, and Jesse Nevel on charges of being Russian agents offered a symbolic victory for free speech and political organizing, but the broader implications of the case are far from celebratory. This case was really about the weaponization of foreign agent laws to stifle critiques of U.S. imperialism and undermine movements challenging the status quo.
For years, the African People's Socialist Party (APSP) has been outspoken in its criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially toward Africa. Their unapologetic stance on issues like imperialism and racial capitalism has always set them apart from mainstream political discourse. And while the U.S. government claims this case was about protecting national security, the prosecution's focus on the APSP's supposed ties to Russia were more like a political witch hunt than a legitimate security concern.
The fact that the Uhuru 3 were acquitted of being foreign agents speaks volumes about the thinness of the government’s case. The idea that a grassroots, Black-led political organization was acting at the behest of a Russian businessman is more like Cold War paranoia than credible legal reasoning. But the conviction on conspiracy charges is where the real threat lies and we need to pay attention.
The conspiracy charge rests on the claim that because the APSP had some financial dealings with Alexander Ionov, a Russian businessman, they were acting under his direction. But where is the hard evidence that these activists were following foreign orders? The prosecution only had circumstantial connections, but that was deemed sufficient to get a conviction. If any organization that receives international support or expresses favorable views of a so-called adversary can be painted as conspiring against the U.S., then the line between solidarity and sedition becomes dangerously blurred.
At a moment when criticizing U.S. hegemony is increasingly framed as treasonous, the Uhuru 3 case exposes the fragility of free speech protections in a nation that allegedly prides itself on democracy. It’s no secret that organizations rooted in anti-imperialist, socialist, or Black liberation politics are often the first targets when the state feels threatened.
Unfortunately, this case is not an anomaly. It’s part of a broader trend where foreign agent laws—once intended to track legitimate security threats—are being manipulated to clamp down on movements that expose the underbelly of U.S. power. The fact that a conviction on such a thin conspiracy charge could stand shows how vulnerable activists are to the shifting political winds. The fact that the Uhuru 3 could face five years in prison for their activism should sound alarms, especially for those committed to social justice work.
The government's partial victory in convicting them of conspiracy ensures this battle is far from over. Their lawyers will appeal, but the message has already been sent.
Hamas are not terrorists, EU Court said
In her outstanding article, Norwegian journalist and Palestine expert, Marianne Bergvall makes the case for why the label of "terrorist" applied to Hamas requires serious reconsideration in public debate. She argues that this oversimplification dehumanizes Palestinians and only deepens the conflict. By branding Hamas a terrorist group, the narrative erases the broader context of Israeli occupation and aggression, shielding Israel from accountability and limiting any nuanced discussion about the root causes of violence.
“It has to be the voters in the West that changes everything for the better. We can start by stating that the goal of defeating Hamas is a recipe for endless murder, and demand decency of our politicians. It has to be us.”
Take time to read this excellent article and be sure to subscribe to Marianne’s Substack.
In an era where digital platforms control the flow of information, censorship is threatening free speech and stifling creators. My latest piece explores how the rise of deplatforming, shadowbanning, and content moderation impacts the digital economy—and why protecting creators as workers is a key to safeguarding free expression. Dive in to understand how these issues affect us all and what we can do to fight back.
🔔 Other links to explore:
To understand Israel’s illegal, terror attacks on Lebanon earlier this week, it helps to understand Hezbollah. Watch this exceptional Democracy Now! interview with the editor of The Public Source.
It’s hard to think about the environmental impact of Israel’s genocide right now, but in both short and near term it is catastrophic.
Almost two thirds of the UN General Assembly voted for Israel to end its’ illegal occupation in the next 12 months. Israel’s response? Escalation with Lebanon.
2 babies killed per day by Israel. 710 babies under 1 year. 649 pages of named dead. A horrific record of genocide that Israel will never live down.
Powerful comments from the Pope: “Both are against life, be it the one who kicks out migrants, or be it the one who kills babies.″
Some helpful information to better understand Hamas and Yahya Sinwar.
One of my favorite places that I’ve visited is Cuba. It’s rare that we are shown the impact of our sanctions: Your Trash, Marnia’s Treasure
Glenn Greenwald used to be on Substack, but now he’s on Rumble and I followed him there. His reporting on censorship is not to be missed, if you can handle the cheesy commercials: Australia Poised to Punish Social Media Companies Which Refuse To Censor
And just for fun the NY Times has published it’s 50 top recipes. I made the Marry Me Chicken last night. Happy cooking!
Thanks for reading! Please like, comment and share. See you next week!
Pamela, again another outstanding narrative that goes deep in explaining much of what we are witnessing in regards to our flailing democracy. Not only a timely analysis but also a no nonsense look at a solution. Without a third party, us here in the USA will indeed be forced to make the now cliche vote for “the lesser evil” candidate in a viscous cycle of obstructive politics.