By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Contrary to idealized notions of citizen-led democratic defense, democracies are primarily defended by elites. Recent electoral outcomes, where voters ousted incumbents leading to the rise of authoritarian figures, reflect voter discontent rather than a deliberate embrace of authoritarianism. This is primarily a failure of elites who failed to prevent such candidates from gaining traction and who did not sufficiently educate the public about the risks involved, especially compared to more successful counter-movements seen in Germany. Ultimately, the blame rests with elites for not more forcefully opposing the rise of anti-democratic forces.
Read the original article here
What if Trump does everything he’s promised, and the people don’t care? This isn’t a hypothetical question; it’s a chillingly plausible scenario rooted in the reality of his election. A significant portion of the electorate, perhaps as high as 50%, seem indifferent to the consequences of his actions. Their apparent apathy suggests a learned helplessness, a belief that economic hardship might overshadow even egregious human rights violations like the separation of families at the border.
What if the economy tanks? This is not an insignificant “what if,” as many economists predict precisely that outcome if mass deportations and sweeping tariffs are implemented. In such a case, indifference may transform into distress; the question then becomes whether that distress will be directed at the source, or whether blame will be deflected elsewhere.
What if the people *do* care—but only after experiencing direct, personal consequences? This seems more likely. The current level of public apathy stems from a detachment from the immediate impact of his policies. The belief that “they’ll feel the pain, and blame the Democrats” is a key concern. Individual suffering might occur, but a collective shrug is a plausible reaction, especially fueled by a steady diet of misinformation.
What if this indifference is reinforced by a cult of personality? Trump’s base, it’s widely believed, will remain loyal no matter what. Their unwavering devotion, coupled with the apathy of non-voters, would create a situation where accountability is virtually impossible. This is a clear recipe for disaster, for a system where culpability is shifted, and responsibility evaded.
What if those who do care are effectively silenced? There are legitimate fears that dissent will be marginalized, even suppressed. The erosion of democratic institutions and the normalization of authoritarian tendencies could lead to a situation where those who oppose Trump are effectively disenfranchised, or worse. This is not mere speculation; historical parallels exist and cautionary tales abound. The chilling poem by Martin Niemöller, recounting the incremental silence in the face of oppression, serves as a powerful reminder of the dangers of apathy.
What if the very fabric of American society is reshaped by the intentional dismantlement of its institutions? Many believe that this is not just a possible scenario but the intended outcome. The goal, the argument goes, is not simply to govern but to fundamentally restructure the nation, to replace existing systems with a new, radically different paradigm. And if the populace remains complacent, this transformation would occur largely unchallenged.
What if the blame falls on convenient scapegoats? The history of authoritarian regimes shows a propensity for diverting blame onto minority groups, immigrants, or political opponents. This tactic can successfully defuse public discontent and shift focus away from those truly responsible for the problems. In this context, the claim that “they’ll blame the democrats” is not just a cynical prediction, but a potential strategy.
What if Trump’s actions are rationalized by his supporters? The capacity to justify even egregious actions is a key element of cult-like loyalty. The ability to reframe even obvious failures as triumphs, or to dismiss criticism as “fake news,” is a well-documented phenomenon, and one that further fuels the cycle of apathy and inaction amongst those who might otherwise be concerned.
What if those who oppose Trump are actively discouraged from resistance? The comments regarding the exhaustion of those who oppose Trump highlight a critical issue: the sheer draining nature of continuous resistance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The cumulative effect of constant outrage can lead to burnout, disillusionment, and ultimately, a sense of powerlessness.
What if the current situation is deliberately designed to cause chaos? The “pickpocket creates a distraction” analogy perfectly encapsulates the potential strategy of creating confusion and discord, masking deeper actions of power consolidation and dismantling of democratic checks and balances. The aim would be to make it difficult, if not impossible, to coalesce opposition.
What if the current state of political polarization is not accidental but rather the intended outcome? This is a critical point to consider, as it suggests that the present level of division and apathy may not merely be a consequence of political events but an element of a broader, more sinister strategy. The current situation may be deliberately cultivated, to create a climate where significant resistance is difficult, if not impossible. The “split in the very *MORAL STANDARDS* of the American people” is not an overstatement; rather, it reflects a profound crisis of values and a disturbing lack of consensus on fundamental principles of governance.
In conclusion, the “what if” is not merely about Trump’s individual actions, but about the broader structural conditions that have allowed such a scenario to even be considered. The apathy of the electorate, the power of misinformation, and the fracturing of social cohesion represent perhaps the most significant threats to democratic stability. The question is not simply whether Trump will fulfill his promises, but whether the American people will be able to effectively oppose him, should he choose to do so. The possibility of a passive acceptance of authoritarianism presents a far more terrifying prospect than any individual policy decision.