For those concerned with U.S. democracy, it should suffice to say that this year has been off to a tumultuous start. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, exhibiting his all too familiar chaotic bravado, the sphere of public discourse has been upended into a panicked frenzy. Yet, precisely because we live in a democracy–where a combination of various attitudes and opinions shape politics–it is essential for us to stay aware of prevailing narratives. One unlikely avenue we may consult here is a medium that, in its heyday, was among America’s favorite pastimes and a staple of its political culture: the late-night talk show.

Popular Media, Politics, and Perspectives

Despite having left its golden age, in part due to a general decline in general TV viewership, these programs continue to draw the attention of millions across the nation–a fact Fox News-Entertainment gloatingly highlighted in a recent press release. Moreover, as broadcasters adapt to the changing media landscape by distributing their shows online, they have reemerged as forums for community engagement.

Illustrative of this trend is Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, which regularly attracts viewership in the millions on YouTube, comparable to their network counterparts. Their recent success has been reinforced by the return of multi-award-winning comedian, writer, and producer Jon Stewart. In addition to his comedic talent, a major factor of Stewart’s appeal is his unreserved critiques, unafraid to cross mainstream and partisan lines. His departure from Apple TV–over disagreements about whether to cover controversial topics, including China and AI–is a testament to this quality.

In his first regular segment since Donald Trump took office, Stewart employed his signature satire to scrutinize, what he believed to be, a widespread overreaction to the newly inaugurated President. Focusing on Trump’s firing of Inspectors’ General, Stewart ridiculed medias’ reference to the move as a “purge.” He further discussed the legality of these actions, and reminded viewers that it was ultimately our votes which enabled Trump’s return to power. For his cunning critique, Stewart’s commentary is often met with fanfare. Yet, in this instance, the audience did not appear to share his view. 

The Case for Vigilance

Rejecting what they saw as a call for moderation, one user wrote cynically that “the road to fascism is paved by those who tell you not to react,” another that they were simply “disappointed.” It is not difficult to see why some may have felt disillusioned. By the time the episode aired, Trump had already signed a sweeping total of 37 executive orders. Among other things, these included the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, initial stages of his mass deportation campaign, a bid to end birthright citizenship, and an anti-transgender decree which may have inadvertently made Trump the first female president.

Many commenters were also sharp in articulating an apparent flaw in Stewart’s argument. Invoking various historical examples, ranging from slavery to Hitler’s rise in Weimar Germany, viewers challenged the notion that the legality of Trump’s actions meant they were not a threat to democracy. Here, theorists of democratic erosion tend to agree: The gradual process by which democracies are undermined is often ostensibly legal. Writing in the Iowa Law Review, Ozan Varol described this practice as “Stealth Authoritarianism”:

“The new generation of authoritarians cloak repressive measures under the mask of law, imbue them with the veneer of legitimacy, and render authoritarian practices much more difficult to detect and eliminate.”

Varol is careful to note that “Stealth Authoritarianism” is not a regime type, but rather a process by which non-democratic actors may hijack existing regimes. He argues that by exploiting legitimate mechanisms like judicial review, libel lawsuits, electoral laws, non-political crimes, surveillance, and “democratic” reforms, these actors can prevent themselves from being unseated.

Take judicial review for example. Varol argues that “judges are strategic actors” that do not “operate in a vacuum.” In practice, this means that quid pro quo arrangements often arise between incumbent executive bodies and their respective judicial branches. Varol points to Russia, where President Vladimir Putin implored favorable federal courts to nullify regional laws, thus eliminating vertical checks on his power. 

Stateside, given our historic six-to-three conservative majority in the Supreme Court, it is hard to feel reassured by conventional understandings of checks and balances. And, let us remind ourselves that judicial review is just one among many nominally legal tools a would-be authoritarian may weaponize. 

So, Did Stewart Get It Wrong?

Returning to Stewart, it is unclear whether the dangers of “Stealth Authoritarianism” negate his presumable stance against alarmism. The cautious perspective may still carry weight, especially if Trump’s threat to democracy turns out to be exaggerated. As Levitsky and Ziblatt suggest in their book, How Democracies Die, the proper functioning of democratic institutions strongly depend on informal norms. Attacking political opponents as existential threats could irreparably damage the unwritten rules we rely on for effective governance. For this reason, some experts have even suggested that anti-Trump alarmism may be a greater threat to democracy than Trump himself–though, importantly, Hamid wrote so during his first presidency. Nonetheless, it remains that we cannot ignore the real risk in overreacting.

But this may not have been what Stewart meant at all. The title of the episode, Whether Dems’ “Trump Is a Fascist” Accusations Are Warranted, is quite misleading: What Stewart explores is less the validity of these claims, but rather their political expediency. In The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, Linz and Stepan propose that democratic erosion occurs when existing regimes lose public legitimacy due to a perceived inability to solve problems. Recall how Stewart referenced the 2024 election in defining our current moment. His warning is likely for the Democratic party: to reflect on their defeat, recalibrate their platform, and reclaim their legitimacy–instead of trying to drum up anti-Trump votes. In fact, he nearly says as much in the closing moments of his segment:

“Tell people what you would do with the power that Trump is yielding, and then convince us to give that power to you as soon as possible.”