By David K. Shipler 

            Back in thebad old days of Soviet Communism, a dissident in Moscow wassummoned for interrogation by the KGB, the secret police. As the agentticked off a list of charges, the dissident rebutted each by citing one guaranteeafter another in the Soviet Constitution, which protected free speech, privacy,and other rights. “Please,” the KGB agent interrupted. “We’re having a seriousconversation.”

            I havetreasured that story since I heard it decades ago. It dramatized the differencebetween the Soviet and American systems, between a constitution of fictionalrights and one of actual rights. Whenan American political scientist, Robert Kelley, taught for a semester at MoscowState University, he used to tell his students that if the United States had astate religion, it would be constitutional democracy.

            No more.

            PresidentTrump and his zealous aides do not blatantly mock the Constitution in words,but they do so in actions. They are ignoring some of its central principles,particularly the separation of powers, defying both the legislative andjudicial branches. And while I’m always diffident about drawing parallels sinceno analogy is perfect, I am feeling an uneasy sense of familiarity asWashington spirals down into a darker and darker place. Trump and hisallies—plus Americans who are capitulating in their businesses, politics, anduniversities—would have fit comfortably in Moscow, where they would havesurvived and prospered.

            The essenceof the American idea is the din of ideas, exactly what Soviet leaders founddistasteful, and what American leaders are now trying to muffle. There was away of thinking in the Soviet Union, which continues today in Vladimir Putin’sRussia, that eschewed pluralism and imposed conformity. Only a single truth wastolerated. Disagreements and debates were considered antithetical to thehistorical progress that Communist theory envisioned. Political irreverencemight be heard quietly around the kitchen table, but elsewhere it was punished.

            Thatcompulsion to dictate obedience was more about holding power than upholdingMarxism. In authoritarian structures, the high perch can seem so precariousthat legitimate disputes below look dangerously anarchic. Therefore, politicalloyalty is a prerequisite for key positions, which is Trump’s demand and erodesexpertise. An American scientist who grew up in Moscow told me recently thatTrump’s assault on academia reminded him of the Soviet Union in the 1970s, when“scientists were replaced by political appointees, which led to Chernobyl amongother disasters.”  

Even such loyalty can be empty. Beingaccepted into Communist Party membership was more careerist than communist;without that party card, you couldn’t be an editor, history professor, factorymanager, hospital director, and the like. As a result, cynicism prevailed. “Nobodybelieves in anything,” a 17-year-old girl told me in 1978. She was right. Sovietideology had become a hollowed-out shell that could not keep the country fromdisintegrating in 1991.

            Russia’sautocracy soon returned, though; its long authoritarian history prevailed. TheUnited States is only at the beginning of this chapter, which marks either anepisode or a turning point, depending on how devoted to democracy Americans proveto be. So far, it doesn’t look good. In merely weeks since Trump’sinauguration, committed ideologues with dogmatic views  have penetrated most government agencies,operating under a personality cult unique in the American experience. Like mostdictators, Trump covers his thin skin with toughness. He has forged an amalgamof lust for personal authority, revenge toward his opponents, white supremacy, anda totalitarian mindset that seeks a much broader remaking of America than isconventionally understood.

What is important tograsp—something the mainstream press has mostly missed—is that the beliefsystem reaches far beyond government spending cuts. It seeks to saturate theentire society with a set of worldviews, as outlined in the HeritageFoundation’s Project2025. Harnessing the investigatory power and funding leverage of multipleagencies, the Trumpists are using government to dictate behavior and speech touniversities, businesses, and law firms, and are gearing up to pressure newsorganizations, social media, secondary schools, and the arts.

All that was easier for Sovietofficials, because the government owned every institution and means ofproduction—every college and school, every newspaper and broadcaster, everystore and restaurant and mine and factory. The Kremlin could turn off citizens’phones, deny them travel abroad, fire them from jobs, and ultimately imprisonthem.

American society is not as easilytamed unless Americans allow it. But the goals are similar, and the USgovernment turns out to have more intrusive power than many citizens realizedover universities dependent on federal research grants, theaters reliant onarts funding, law firms depending on security clearances, businesses survivingon government contracts, hospitals kept afloat by Medicaid.

Trump’s zealots, who had four yearsout of office to prepare for this opportunity, are pulling those levers effectively,curtailing funds in one area to get changes in another. They threaten funds forlearning-disabled children in secondary schools to force anti-historicalteaching on race. They cut off medical research funds to force universities to suppressfreedom of speech and to abandon programs that combat anti-minoritydiscrimination. They ominously demand detailed data on minority and LGBTQ+ hiringat law firms. They sift digital files for the use of certain words by federalemployees, contractors, and immigrants, just as certain terms are avoided byAfghans under the Taliban.

These and many other Trump actionsare such obvious violations of the Constitution’s various protections thatmultiple federal judges, nominated by both Republican and Democraticpresidents, have peppered the administration with adverse rulings. There havebeen blatant violations of the Article I empowerment of Congress, the FirstAmendment’s protection of free speech, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’srequirement for due process, and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. Noneof the cases have yet reached the Supreme Court for substantive judgment.

Undermining an independentjudiciary is a key step in dismantling a democracy, as seen in Hungary,Venezuela, and elsewhere. And Trump seems intent on doing that. He and hisofficials have railed against judges, called for their impeachment, and ignoredmost of their rulings.

We are learning how little musclethe courts have to enforce their decisions. In the Soviet Union, judicial powerlessnesswas sardonically called “telephone justice,” meaning that the judge would callthe local Communist Party secretary for instructions in key cases.

In the US, the tactic is outright disobedience.That might produce a different form of acquiescence, one that evadesconfrontation with an executive branch that seems intent on defiance. As inmost power relationships, the American rule of law has depended on an unwrittencompact of willing acceptance of judicial authority between the courts on theone hand, and citizens and officials on the other. That voluntary relationshipis being shredded by Trump and his apparatchiks.

Acquiescing to the newauthoritarian norms, higher courts could rule on narrow grounds: that those whobrought the suits don’t have standing, or that the administration based itsaction on a legal basis different from the one the lower judge considered. Or,in certain areas, right-wing justices might give Trump victories, large andsmall, either because they agree to a so-called “unitary executive” withextensive authority or simply because they want their ruling obeyed.

Outside the myriad lawsuits,Americans have not shown much courage so far. Currying favor has emerged as atactic in the private sector. For example, Columbia University, attempting toget Trump to restore $400 million in funds suspended because of antisemitismand anti-Israel protests, hasagreed—at least on paper—to regulate demonstrations, combat antisemitismmore firmly, enlarge the campus police force with the power of arrest, scrutinizeand derecognize student groups for unspecified behavior, and increase the“intellectual diversity” of the faculty—which probably means hiring moreconservatives.

Some lawyers have also caved. Underauthoritarian regimes, it’s hard to find lawyers willing to defend the victims,and so Trump is intimidating firms that represent his opponents or sue thegovernment. He has issued a memorandumto the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to “seek sanctions againstattorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatiouslitigation against the United States.” He has removed security clearances andaccess to federal buildings from some firms, which have lost important clientsas a result. One of them, Paul, Weiss, agreedto do $40 million worth of pro bono work to support Trump’s agenda.

            Giving in reinforces autocracy. Without broadresistance, the day could come when an American citizen complains to anofficial about a violation of the Constitution, and the answer will be:“Please, we’re having a serious conversation.”