The May 18, 2024, issue of The Economist reflected upon the vulnerability of the United States to becoming a dictatorship. But while the writer’s focus was on another Donald Trump presidency, I think our closest encounter with dictatorship was in our not-so-distant past.
A “dictator” is defined as a leader who has absolute power, may rule in an authoritarian manner, and is unconstrained by constitutional restrictions. In the U.S., we rely upon the Constitution, political norms, and three co-equal branches of government to protect us from rule by a dictator.
The Economist, and most liberals, sees Trump as the potential dictator. Trump did little to dispel such thinking when he promised to “not rule like a dictator after his first day in office.”
To find our closest encounter with a dictatorship, we need to go back to liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first two terms as president.
At that time, the U.S. was in the throes of the Great Depression, and people were growing increasingly desperate and willing to support radical measures. Roosevelt enjoyed vast popular support and total control of both houses of Congress, and passed a series of radical measures over Republicans’ objections. Such measures included Social Security; the FDIC; the Civilian Conservation Corps; the Work Progress Administration; National Recovery Administration; new regulations on employment, banking, and the stock market; and lots of spending on public works. Prior to the 22nd Amendment in 1951, there was no limit to the terms a president could serve, and Roosevelt managed to get elected to four terms.
The only resistance to Roosevelt’s aggressive agenda came from the Supreme Court, which found that some of his legislative programs unconstitutionally delegated excessive power to the president. Following his landslide reelection in 1936, FDR threatened to “pack the court”—to use his control of Congress to add more justices and provide him with enough votes to approve his agenda. Intimidated by this threat, the justices approved Roosevelt’s agenda.
Voilá! We had a situation in which a single charismatic leader had assumed effective control of all three branches of government by threatening the Supreme Court, and he was using his power to further expand the powers of his office. Roosevelt was effectively functioning as a dictator. Eleanor Roosevelt even opined that we needed a “benevolent dictator.”
I recognize that much of FDR’s legacy and agenda remain popular and are often credited with lifting the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Still, there is no reason why a dictator cannot enjoy popular support and produce successful policies.
In echoes of the past, we again are hearing calls to “pack” the Supreme Court, as well as witnessing a liberal campaign against the conservative justices who frustrate the progressive agenda. The doctrine of a “living constitution,” which can be interpreted as needed to accommodate a popular agenda, further weakens the ability of our Constitution to protect us. The erosion of political norms in stunts to achieve momentary political advantage, such as the attempts to disqualify Trump from the ballot, further weaken our institutions.
My point? A future dictator need not be a brutal ogre and may be someone you really like, and to whom you are happy to give unlimited powers to advance some desired program.
While Trump might assume the role of dictator if he could, his support is too weak, and his institutional opposition too pervasive, to be a danger. FDR took us far closer to a dictatorship than Trump could ever dream of.
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach. Send comments to the editor at [email protected].
