The article posits a practical litmus test: U.S. media call a leader 'authoritarian' when he fires, defies, or chills upper‑middle‑class professional institutions (civil service, universities, media, law firms). This reframes 'defending democracy' as defending a specific class’s institutional dominance. It suggests the charge tracks whose ox is gored, not neutral democratic standards.
— If 'authoritarian' is a class‑protection label, debates about institutional reform, free speech, and executive power need clearer, non‑class‑coded criteria.
2025.10.07
60% relevant
The article argues populism performs a status inversion by elevating 'common sense' over experts, echoing the idea that establishment labels like 'authoritarian' often track assaults on professional‑class authority; both frames center class status and expert institutions as the contested terrain.
Haisten Willis
2025.09.07
80% relevant
The article shows Trump defying a professional gatekeeper (WHCA) by seizing the press pool rotation and ejecting the AP, moves promptly framed as assaults on 'press freedom.' This fits the pattern where actions that threaten upper‑middle‑class institutional prerogatives are labeled 'authoritarian,' even when legally within executive discretion (no First Amendment right to Oval Office access).
Dima Kortukov and Julian G. Waller
2025.08.20
60% relevant
By disputing the rush to brand Trump‑era governance as 'authoritarian' using Levitsky & Way’s own framework, the piece aligns with the idea that the 'authoritarian' label is often deployed without clear, neutral standards—functioning as a class‑coded alarm rather than a rigorously met threshold.
eugyppius
2025.08.04
100% relevant
The New York Times piece on Trump firing BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer and Steven Levitsky’s quote about 'societal actors' changing behavior to avoid government wrath are presented as emblematic triggers.
← Back to All Ideas