A rigorous application of Levitsky & Way’s 'competitive authoritarianism' test finds the U.S. does not currently meet core thresholds like systematic electoral manipulation, media control, or persistent rule‑breaking that disables opposition. The authors argue today’s conflicts look more like fights over bureaucratic 'capture' versus 'reform' within a still‑democratic framework.
— Overusing the 'authoritarian' label can delegitimize elected governments and dull public vigilance against real autocratic moves, so debates should be grounded in clear, testable criteria.
Noah Smith
2025.10.07
75% relevant
The article argues the U.S. is not in a civil war and cites declining terrorism data, aligning with the claim that applying strict 'authoritarianism' labels is often overstated; it cautions against war‑like framings absent the thresholds that would justify them.
Scott Alexander
2025.09.18
60% relevant
The article advances definitional clarity akin to the 'competitive authoritarianism' test by arguing democracy necessarily includes constraints that preserve future fair elections. It directly addresses rhetoric that labels any constraint on an elected leader as 'undemocratic' and supplies a principled boundary for when 'defending democracy' is not a bait‑and‑switch to liberalism.
Tyler Cowen
2025.09.07
65% relevant
Cowen argues current illiberal behaviors fit a long American pattern of liberal ends pursued with illiberal means, echoing the caution against overusing 'authoritarian' labels absent clear thresholds and suggesting today’s conflicts remain within a democratic framework.
Dima Kortukov and Julian G. Waller
2025.08.20
100% relevant
American Affairs (Aug 2025) rebuttal by Dima Kortukov and Julian G. Waller to Levitsky & Way’s Foreign Affairs essay labeling the U.S. 'competitive authoritarian.'
Charles Haywood
2025.07.17
50% relevant
Like the critique that 'authoritarian' is overused without meeting clear thresholds, Gottfried/Haywood argue 'fascist' has become a flexible slur detached from its historical referent, urging criteria‑based use rather than rhetorical inflation.