On Tyranny - Lesson 2: Defend Institutions

 Welcome back to the series I'm committing to 20 Lessons From the 20th Century On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, inspired by ! Lesson 2 is to Defend Institutions. This is difficult, because I have some distrust of institutions so it's hard to want to defend them, even as they fail us. 

Snyder begins by asserting that institutions will not defend themselves. He contends that we have to boost them up, stand behind them, and work to keep them strong. A German newspaper published an article after Hitler was elected, expressing hope that he would not do what the Nazi newspapers had been circulating. It was about decency, reputation, and even personal growth. Surely, Hitler wouldn't take the country in such a horrific direction. It essentially asserted that checks and balances would hold true, and he would be forced to take a more palatable approach to his time in power. Clearly that's not how Nazi Germany played out. The journalist who wrote that article clearly gave more credit to Germany's institutional checks and balances than was due. Hitler devolved the nation into a one-party country within a year and began to do exactly what the Nazi newspapers had projected, and worse. 

We absolutely see this type of denialism in today's political media. Surely Trump won't sign a national abortion ban! Certainly we won't see the Department of Education collapse completely! No way RFK Jr will destroy vaccine accessibility altogether! Checks and balances in the US have been eroded so badly that they seem to be dangling by a thread. From judicial power grabs and bribery schemes, to presidential immunity, to legislators bowing to the executive, it feels like our checks and balances are simply untenable. And we have major institutions in the US that have cowed to capitalist pressure and formed for-profit models to the absolute detriment of the people in our country. The healthcare and media and correctional ecosystems are three that spring to mind as corrupt and capable of doing great harm to us all. There aren't enough checks on these systems to ensure they're serving the public good, rather than executive profit margins. 

So how do we know which institutions to defend, and which we should allow to fall? Healthcare and media are both crucial to human life and progress, so how do we defend institutions which are diseased from the inside? Our system of three branches, each with checks on the others, is necessary to prevent power from concentrating on one branch, department, or person. But what protects this system from itself when the three branches align to destroy themselves? Is a constitutional convention looming? Will we get the chance to pass some amendments to address this rockslide towards tyranny? Or would holding a convention now only benefit the Republicans holding all three branches of government? How do we keep the Republican party from breaking America down to a one-party government?

Do we have to defend the institution of the Democratic party? Is it worth defending? I mean, the last several Democratic presidents have pulled us out of messes the previous Republican left us in. If the choice has to be binary, the Democratic party is the better ticket. But binary options are insufficient, while third party options are unviable. Much of the discussion after the election was around Democrats needing to jump ship on trans issues. People said it was too far left and cost too many voters. But it's the right thing. Supporting trans rights supports human rights. It's never a net positive to shy away from human rights. I would argue that it wasn't trans rights that tanked this campaign, It was Democrats' unwillingness to meet people where they were, rather than where the party thought they should be. Gaza was another big issue and I think a ton of people would have more readily defended the Democratic institution if it had more readily defended Gaza and more staunchly rejected civilian casualties. And yet, it's being asked whether Kamala was too far left in her support of trans people to win. There's hardly a whisper in mainstream political analysis about what a stronger stance for Gaza might have achieved.

So maybe instead of defending the Democratic party, we use this time to finally bolster a third party? I feel like we've been vying for a third party for so long, and it never seems to spring forward. To be honest, I don't have a lot of faith that a third party can take us into a more stable era. Perhaps it's not a party system we should defend, but a means of accountability in public service. Accountability certainly isn't the direction our country seems to be running toward, and maybe that's the problem. Still, if now is our chance for a solid third party, I'd love to see a leftist party instead of (or even in addition to) Libertarian former-Republicans. 

There are also smaller institutions which are unquestioningly worth defending. Libraries are an underrated national treasure and we should always defend public access to libraries. Independent media is able to create massive followings for political education and awareness, but I've yet to find a podcast that can compete with the likes of Joe Rogan. We also have micro-institutions like cities, towns, neighborhoods, and families. We should defend each other with the same fervor that we defend any form of government or public institutions. More than anything else, we need to build on relationships and count on each other, and do the right thing for our friends and neighbors. Those social institutions may be our last line of defense if all else fails.