The historical idea of equality in the United States supports inclusivity.

Richardson argues that the Declaration of Independence provides a historic precedent for the idea of extending equal rights to all. In the early years of the United States, the rights of citizenship were limited to white, property-owning men. Although the Founders may not have envisioned women, people of color, or people without property as citizens with the right to vote, Richardson says that the Declaration makes a case for including them as equals. The Founders argued that U.S. independence from Britain was justified because a government must reflect the will of the people it governs. The Declaration also claims that people are created equal, a fact that supports legal arguments for expanding citizenship rights to marginalized people. At the time of the Revolutionary War, some enslaved people successfully sued for their freedom using this assertion of universal equality, arguing that slavery was inconsistent with the ideals of the new nation. Later, movements supporting women’s suffrage and rights for Indigenous people also called upon the ideals expressed in the Declaration. Richardson asserts that efforts by political factions to limit the rights of citizenship based on race, class, or gender run contrary to the intentions of the Founders. 

Movement conservatism can lead to authoritarianism.

Over the course of Democracy Awakening, Richardson argues that Donald Trump was an authoritarian president. She also asserts that authoritarianism is not a break with the history of movement conservatism but rather a natural outcome of it. She traces the ways movement conservatism has historically embraced divisive rhetoric and a mythologized version of American history in order to convince supporters to vote against their own best interests. According to Richardson, movement conservatives have also historically undermined the mechanisms of democracy to achieve their political goals. These tactics, Richardson argues, are key tools of authoritarians. As Trump rose to political prominence, many mainstream Republicans maintained that his style of politics did not represent the party’s principles. However, in Richardson’s analysis, the roots of Trumpism have long been present in movement conservatism. 

Richardson argues that, in his campaigns and during his presidency, Trump followed familiar patterns that brough the country to the brink of authoritarianism. By demonizing immigrants, Muslims, people in urban areas, and women seeking abortions, Trump’s rhetoric aimed to inspire anger and fear in his political base, leading them to vote for him to protect the country. Richardson argues that this strategy, common in authoritarian regimes, is a natural extension of former President Richard Nixon’s “positive polarization” efforts, in which Nixon sowed division to gain the votes of angry and fearful people. Like many authoritarians, Trump positions himself as a strongman uniquely able to save the country from degradation. According to Richardson, this is how Trump claims the movement conservative tradition of the cowboy: the self-reliant man who promises to return the country to an imaginary and morally pure past. Richardson points out that Trump and his advisors have continued anti-democratic tactics of voter suppression, which were typical of earlier movement conservative campaigns. She argues that Trump has taken these strategies further than past movement conservatives by openly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 

Fear is an antidemocratic tool.

In her analysis of the tools of authoritarian regimes, Richardson explores the use of fear as a tactic to undermine the normal workings of democracy. She argues that a key element of the rise of authoritarian regimes is the manipulation of groups that have lost cultural power. These groups fear they will become less important in the national discourse, and authoritarians prey on these feelings, stoking fear and promising to restore these groups to power. Authoritarians also often establish adversaries whom the leader claims are responsible for the groups’ struggles, encouraging them to attack and blame these enemies. This tactic, Richardson argues, distracts the groups from the actual circumstances that have made them less powerful.

Richardson draws parallels between authoritarian patterns and Donald Trump’s efforts to convince white, working-class, and rural people, especially men, that their declining standard of living is due to the efforts of immigrants and other marginalized people to displace them. In reality, Richardson argues, the working class’s reduced standard of living comes from decades of Republican policies designed to put the needs of the wealthy and big business first. While the immediate response to Trump’s claims is often anger, as seen in the violence of groups like the Proud Boys (an all-male, conservative militant organization), Richardson claims that the root of that anger is fear. Richardson describes the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as the response of a group of people convinced to be afraid for their futures. Richardson argues that the attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power to then-President-elect Joe Biden is an example of how fear can be used to undermine democracy. By inducing people to be fearful and then giving them a target for their resulting anger, authoritarians create a group that is willing to attack democracy.

Take a Study Break