Trump : The Totalitarian Turn
The contemporary discourse surrounding American democratic backsliding has fixated predominantly on the language of authoritarianism, a framework that emphasizes the concentration of executive power, the erosion of institutional checks and balances, and the enforcement of obedience through coercive state mechanisms. Yet this analytical lens, while capturing certain dimensions of recent political developments, fundamentally mischaracterizes the nature of the transformation underway. What we are witnessing is not merely the exercise of authoritarian control over actions, but rather a more profound and insidious phenomenon: the emergence of totalitarian impulses that seek to penetrate the realm of thought itself, to police not just what citizens do, but what they think, believe, and express.
The phrase "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls" is famously attributed to Queen Elizabeth I, and it means that a government should not intrude upon the private beliefs and conscience of its citizens. Instead, the focus should be on outward conformity, and individuals should be judged on their public actions and loyalty, not their private thoughts. This quote is also sometimes mistakenly attributed to others, such as Sir Francis Bacon. While frequently attributed to Elizabeth I, the phrase may have originated in a letter by her spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, who was describing the queen's intentions.
The quote signifies a policy of religious tolerance, where citizens are required to conform to a state-sanctioned religion (in this case, the Church of England), but their inner beliefs are their own private business. The statement was made in the context of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement, which aimed to find a middle ground after the religious turmoil of the reigns of her father, Henry VIII, and her siblings. Historical Application: The policy was a pragmatic approach to maintain stability, though it did not mean the elimination of all religious persecution. Catholics were still persecuted, particularly when they were seen as a threat to national security, but for some, this policy was still seen as not going far enough to "purify" the church.
Distinguishing Authoritarianism from Totalitarianism
The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, while often elided in popular discourse, represents a fundamental difference in both scope and ambition. Authoritarian regimes, historically understood, concentrate power in the hands of a leader or small elite and eliminate meaningful political opposition. They control the mechanisms of the state and use them to maintain power, often through violence or the threat thereof. However, classical authoritarianism is primarily concerned with political compliance and the suppression of organized opposition. It demands obedience in the public sphere while often remaining indifferent to private beliefs, cultural practices, and personal convictions. Citizens under authoritarian rule learn to distinguish between their public conformity and their private consciousness.
Totalitarianism, by contrast, represents an attempt to achieve total control over all aspects of human existence. It is characterized not merely by the concentration of political power, but by the aspiration to remake society entirely, to penetrate every sphere of life, to colonize consciousness itself. Where authoritarianism asks only that you obey, totalitarianism demands that you believe. Where authoritarianism is satisfied with external compliance, totalitarianism requires internal conviction. The totalitarian impulse seeks to eliminate the distinction between public and private, between the political and the personal, between state ideology and individual conscience.
The Apparatus of Thought Control
Recent developments in American politics reveal the activation of what can only be described as an apparatus of thought control, one that extends far beyond traditional exercises of executive authority. The systematic investigation of military personnel, civilian workers, and contractors for their online comments represents not merely an attempt to maintain discipline or enforce codes of conduct, but rather an effort to police the boundaries of acceptable thought and expression. When nearly three hundred individuals face investigation for their words, for their expressions of opinion about political events, the message sent is clear: the danger lies not in what you do, but in what you think and say.
The framing of this enforcement regime is particularly revealing. The distinction drawn by administration insiders between what they mockingly term cancel culture and what they champion as consequence culture represents not a meaningful philosophical difference, but rather a rhetorical sleight of hand. The assertion that critics are being held to account for what they say or threaten, not what they think or believe, collapses upon examination. Speech is the external manifestation of thought; language is the expression of belief. To police speech is necessarily to police thought. To punish expression is to punish consciousness itself.
The Prosecution of Dissent
The pattern of selective prosecutions against high-profile critics reveals the weaponization of the justice system not simply to punish specific actions, but to send a broader message about the costs of intellectual and political dissent. The indictments of former senior officials, each of whom had publicly challenged or contradicted the administration's narrative, serve a dual purpose: the ostensible enforcement of law and the more significant function of demonstrating the reach and consequences of opposition.
Consider the temporal proximity between public demands for prosecution and actual indictments, the explicit connection drawn in social media posts between political grievance and legal action. This is not the careful, deliberative process of justice blind to political consideration. Rather, it is the deployment of prosecutorial power as an instrument of ideological enforcement. The message transcends the specific charges: it communicates that dissent, criticism, and opposition carry personal costs that extend beyond political defeat to encompass financial ruin, legal jeopardy, and public humiliation.
The Chilling of Expression
The rapid disciplining of over one hundred and forty-five individuals in the immediate aftermath of a political assassination for their expressions of opinion, whether condoning violence or merely criticizing the victim's work and rhetoric, demonstrates the velocity and scale of thought policing in the contemporary moment. The speed with which employment was terminated, professional relationships severed, and careers destroyed for the crime of expression reveals the existence of a surveillance and enforcement infrastructure specifically designed to monitor and punish speech.
This represents a qualitative shift from traditional concerns about workplace conduct or professional standards. The investigation and discipline of individuals for their social media posts, for their private communications, for their expressions of political opinion, constitutes an invasion of the sphere of personal conscience that is characteristic of totalitarian rather than merely authoritarian systems. The state no longer concerns itself solely with your actions in the public square; it monitors your thoughts as expressed in digital spaces, your opinions shared in what were once considered private forums.
The Ideological Totality
Perhaps most revealing is the explicit articulation of an ideological framework that posits not merely political differences but civilizational struggle. The characterization of those who advocate for institutional restraint and constitutional norms as naive, the dismissal of concern for democratic processes as weakness in the face of existential threat, reveals the totalitarian mindset at its core. This is not the language of political competition within a shared democratic framework; it is the language of total war against enemies both foreign and domestic.
This formulation demands examination. It suggests that democratic norms, constitutional constraints, and institutional limitations are not merely obstacles to efficient governance but existential threats to civilization itself. It positions political opponents not as fellow citizens with different views about policy, but as civilizational enemies whose defeat justifies any means. This is the essential totalitarian move: the elevation of political struggle to the level of absolute conflict, the transformation of democratic competition into existential war.
The Erasure of Private Conscience
The totalitarian impulse reveals itself most clearly in its refusal to recognize any legitimate sphere of privacy, any domain of thought or expression beyond the reach of political power. When administration officials explicitly acknowledge that no president has previously directed his government so publicly and with such specificity regarding whom to target, when the stated philosophy is to allow no free shots on goal, what is being described is the complete politicization of all aspects of life. There is no neutral ground, no private sphere, no domain of existence that stands outside political calculation and potential retribution.
This represents the dissolution of the boundary between state and society that is characteristic of liberal democratic orders and the assertion of total political control that defines totalitarianism. The administration does not merely govern; it seeks to occupy all social space, to make all relationships political, to ensure that every citizen understands that they exist under constant surveillance and potential judgment.
The Performance of Power
The symbolic dimensions of recent political theater reveal the self-conscious embrace of totalitarian aesthetics. The posting of imagery depicting political opponents kneeling before a crowned and robed leader, the explicit invocation of monarchical symbolism, the declaration of hatred for opponents at a memorial service that included religious ritual—these are not the trappings of mere authoritarian rule. They are the performance of total power, the assertion of dominion not just over the political system but over the social and cultural imagination itself.
The defense of such displays as mere trolling or political theater misunderstands their function. Symbols matter; performances shape consciousness; the repeated invocation of total power normalizes the aspiration to total control. When a sitting administration responds to mass protests against autocracy by leaning into autocratic imagery, by embracing rather than rejecting the characterization of the leader as king, the message is clear: resistance is futile, criticism will be mocked, and power will be displayed without shame or apology.
The Collapse of Irony
What makes these symbolic performances particularly effective as instruments of totalitarian aspiration is their strategic deployment of irony. By presenting authoritarian imagery as joke or provocation, the administration benefits from deniability while simultaneously normalizing the very concepts it claims to mock. This is a sophisticated propaganda technique: the assertion of total power dressed in the garb of humor, the claim to kingship presented as trolling. The effect is to make the unthinkable thinkable, to move the Overton window not through argument but through repeated exposure dressed as jest.
Yet the collapse of irony reveals itself in the simultaneity of these symbolic performances with actual exercises of power. When the jokes about kings coincide with actual investigations of dissent, when the trolling of opponents accompanies real prosecutions of critics, when the playful imagery coexists with systematic punishment of expression, the irony dissolves. What remains is raw power asserting itself while claiming to be something else.
The Expansion of Presidential Power
The contemporary moment represents not a break with historical trends but rather their culmination and acceleration. Presidential power has been expanding for generations, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, as the scope and scale of federal authority has grown. What distinguishes the present from the past is not the direction of travel but the velocity and the explicit abandonment of any pretense that such expansion should be limited by constitutional norms or institutional constraints.
The crucial transformation is the move from the gradual, often reluctant accumulation of executive authority to its enthusiastic embrace and explicit justification. Previous expansions of presidential power were typically defended as necessary responses to specific crises or challenges, accompanied by assurances that such expansions were temporary or limited in scope. What we observe now is the assertion that such power is not merely necessary but righteous, not regrettable but celebrated, not limited but expansive and growing.
The Precedent Problem
Perhaps most concerning is the recognition that these exercises of power, however novel or shocking in the moment, establish precedents that will constrain and enable future administrations. The frank acknowledgment that the principle at work is one of reciprocal escalation—that each expansion of power justifies and enables the next, that what is done to opponents today will be done by opponents tomorrow—reveals the fundamentally anti-constitutional nature of this trajectory.
Constitutional systems depend upon self-restraint, upon the recognition that the preservation of the system itself requires all actors to refrain from exploiting temporary advantages in ways that damage the long-term stability and legitimacy of institutions. The explicit rejection of such restraint, the celebration of norm-breaking as strength rather than weakness, the dismissal of concern for precedent as naivete—these represent the abandonment of constitutionalism in favor of power politics.
The Totalitarian Logic
What distinguishes totalitarianism from other forms of oppressive governance is not merely the intensity of control but its comprehensiveness and its ideological foundation. Totalitarian systems are animated by an ideology that claims total truth and demands total commitment. They do not merely ask for obedience to law or even loyalty to the state; they demand adherence to an all-encompassing worldview that defines truth, goodness, and reality itself.
The contemporary American variant of this impulse manifests in the assertion of civilizational struggle, in the claim that opponents are not merely wrong but dangerous, not merely mistaken but malevolent. It appears in the insistence that critics are not engaged in legitimate dissent but in civilizational betrayal. It reveals itself in the prosecution not just of actions but of expression, not just of opposition but of wrongthink.
The Enemy Within
Central to totalitarian ideology is the identification of internal enemies, the assertion that the greatest threats come not from without but from within. This is not the healthy skepticism of democratic culture or the reasonable concern about subversion; it is the systematic portrayal of political opponents, institutional critics, and ideological dissenters as existential threats to the social order itself.
The repeated invocation of the need to hold people to account, to investigate wrongdoing, to punish corruption—when directed almost exclusively at political opponents and institutional critics—reveals this dynamic at work. The problem is not crime in the abstract but opposition in the specific. The concern is not justice but loyalty. The goal is not accountability but compliance.
The Technology of Control
What makes contemporary totalitarian impulses particularly powerful and dangerous is their intersection with digital technology. Previous totalitarian systems required vast bureaucratic apparatuses to monitor citizens and suppress dissent. The digital age provides surveillance capabilities that earlier totalitarians could only dream of, the ability to monitor expression and identify dissent at scale, to track relationships and associations across digital networks, to build comprehensive profiles of belief and ideology based on online activity.
The investigation of hundreds of individuals for their online comments demonstrates this capability in action. The speed with which employers identified and terminated individuals for their social media posts reveals the existence of monitoring systems designed to detect wrongthink. The scale of these investigations—spanning military personnel, civilian workers, contractors, and private citizens—demonstrates the comprehensiveness of digital surveillance.
The Algorithmic Enforcement
The algorithmic nature of much contemporary surveillance creates a particularly insidious form of thought control. Unlike traditional surveillance, which requires human monitoring and therefore has practical limits of scale, algorithmic surveillance can be comprehensive and continuous. Every post, every like, every share, every comment can be captured, analyzed, and potentially used as evidence of wrongthink. The effect is to make all expression potentially dangerous, to create uncertainty about which statements might trigger investigation or sanction.
This uncertainty is itself a mechanism of control. When individuals cannot know with confidence what expressions are safe and what are dangerous, when the boundaries of acceptable speech shift unpredictably, when enforcement appears arbitrary or political, the rational response is self-censorship. The chilling effect extends beyond specific prohibitions to encompass entire domains of thought and expression. Citizens learn not merely to avoid obviously transgressive statements but to police their own thoughts, to internalize the surveillance, to become their own censors.
The Resistance to Totalitarianism
Understanding the nature of the challenge is the first step toward effective resistance. If we mischaracterize totalitarian impulses as merely authoritarian, if we focus solely on institutional checks and electoral accountability while ignoring the deeper project of thought control, our responses will be inadequate to the threat. Resisting totalitarianism requires defending not just political institutions but the sphere of private conscience, not just free elections but free thought.
This resistance must operate on multiple levels simultaneously. Institutionally, it requires the defense of constraints on executive power, the preservation of independent institutions, and the maintenance of rule of law principles. Culturally, it requires the assertion of spaces and communities that exist independent of political control, the cultivation of private life and voluntary association beyond the reach of the state. Individually, it requires the courage to think and speak independently despite the costs, to refuse the internalization of surveillance, to maintain the distinction between public conformity and private conviction.
The Defense of Pluralism
Totalitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with pluralism. It cannot tolerate competing sources of authority, alternative communities of meaning, or divergent visions of the good life. The defense against totalitarianism therefore requires the active protection of pluralism in all its forms: religious, cultural, ideological, and institutional. This means defending the rights of those with whom we disagree, protecting institutions we may not personally value, and resisting the temptation to use state power against our opponents even when such power is available.
The challenge is particularly acute in a polarized political environment where each side views the other not merely as wrong but as existentially threatening. The totalitarian impulse feeds on polarization, on the breakdown of shared commitments to democratic process and constitutional constraint, on the willingness of each side to justify extraordinary measures as necessary responses to extraordinary threats. Breaking this cycle requires both sides to step back from the brink, to recognize that the preservation of liberal democracy requires self-restraint even in the face of provocation.
Conclusion: The Choice Before Us
The American political system stands at a crossroads. The path toward totalitarianism remains open, paved with precedents and justified by the rhetoric of civilizational struggle. Each new exercise of power to punish critics, each investigation of dissent, each assertion of total control establishes the foundation for future expansions. The logic of reciprocal escalation promises that what is done today will be done again tomorrow, that each administration will inherit and expand the powers seized by its predecessors.
Yet the alternative path remains available. The choice to preserve constitutional constraint, to defend the sphere of private conscience, to resist the totalitarian impulse—this choice remains possible for both citizens and leaders. It requires recognizing that the greatest threat to American democracy comes not from any particular policy or political leader, but from the abandonment of the foundational commitment to limited government and free thought.
The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is not academic. It marks the difference between a system that controls actions while tolerating diverse beliefs and one that seeks to remake consciousness itself. It distinguishes between oppression of the body and invasion of the mind. It separates regimes that demand obedience from those that require belief. Understanding this distinction is essential to mounting effective resistance, to preserving the spaces of freedom that remain, and to preventing the complete transformation of American democracy into something fundamentally different and far more dangerous.
The surveillance of thought has already begun. The punishment of expression is already underway. The assertion of total power has already been made. Whether these developments represent merely a disturbing chapter in American history or the beginning of a fundamental transformation depends upon the choices made by citizens, institutions, and leaders in the months and years ahead. The totalitarian future is not inevitable, but it is possible. Preventing it requires first recognizing it for what it is: not authoritarianism, but something worse—the attempt to control not just what people do, but what they think, believe, and ultimately, what they are.
What is being imposed, with the full backing of the Republican Party, in the grip of a cult. There is no meaningful communication with a cult. Cults by their nature provide a single explanation for everything, a coherent internal set of beliefs, reenforced today by electronic and social media. Cult behavior provides no channel for dialogue or compromise; only for the repression of those who disagree.
The erosion of shared epistemic ground represents one of the most profound challenges facing democratic societies. When communities no longer agree on basic facts or legitimate sources of information, the foundation for democratic deliberation crumbles. This isn't merely about disagreement on policy, which has always been the lifeblood of democracy, but about the inability to establish common premises from which debate can proceed.
The comparison to cult dynamics, while provocative, points to specific mechanisms worth examining: the presence of charismatic leadership that demands personal loyalty rather than policy agreement, the reinterpretation of contradictory evidence as confirmation of the worldview, the treatment of dissent as betrayal rather than principled disagreement, and the creation of alternative information ecosystems that function independently of traditional fact-checking institutions.
Endnotes
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
