Photo by NASA: www.unsplash.com

“When the Wolf is Beyond Reproach: An Exploration of Stealth Authoritarianism in America”

Stealth Authoritarianism: How Will We Know?

Over the past few months, the political agenda of the United States has aligned with stealth authoritarianism in a manner that undermines democracy. Throughout this post, I will discuss the heightened frequency of political decisions made by the elite that narrow in on who is permitted to participate in a system that is intended to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” These changes fall under what author Ozan Varol describes to be ‘stealth authoritarianism’ including modern developments such as the SAVE America Act and exclusion of governors likely depending in part on their political affiliation. Alongside the growing division in America, a self-reinforcing ‘tragedy of the commons’ occurs, of which short-term partisan means are sought after in a manner that undermines shared democratic values. Thus, the state remains stagnant through its fight with one another. Over time, the growth of this ‘fight’ will aid in worsening the weak spots of the American state, providing the grounds for democratic erosion of which stealth authoritarianism can swoop in.

The SAVE America Act and the Mindset It Assumes.

In Stealth Authoritarianism by Ozan Varol, he elaborates that the new generation of authoritarians choose to hide their “repressive measures under the mask of law” (Varol 1677). He synthesizes the idea that modern authoritarianism does not openly reject democracy but rather, subtly accumulates power. Varol illustrates the danger to be “wolves [that] rarely appear as wolves” (Varol 1677). Varol’s observation corresponds with current modifications to the American political reality. His framework illuminates the undercurrent of recent efforts to modify America’s voting system. Within the Washington Post’s “Republicans Are Pushing to Drastically Change the Way You Cast Ballots,” the SAVE America Act is defined in addition to a summary of its proposal to require a strict proof of citizenship in order to vote. The SAVE America Act would disadvantage a significant number of citizens as, according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, “research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents.” Thus, the degree of documentation required risks creating arbitrary tiers of citizenship. Without easily accessed documents, the barriers to participation in the democracy grow. The concern grows into the question of how many more barriers to entry will be imposed before voting becomes conditional based on arbitrary criteria. The presumption may be that America has evolved from its exclusionary past; though, as Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer argues “what they’re trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting,” invoking concerns about the government restricting domestic participation. Deceptively, the SAVE America Act does not employ overt authoritarianism. Notably, overt authoritarianism includes “manipulating the vote count through vote buying, intimidation, and electoral fraud” and the SAVE America Act could be defended through a veil of legality of citizenship (Varol 1678). However, the act pulls on themes of Varol’s description of stealth authoritarianism. Through creating a burden to entry in participation in society, it dissuades an individual’s ability to practically exercise their political rights. The act does so whilst maintaining an externally ‘lawful’ system, falling into a prototype of stealth authoritarianism.

Democratic Retrogression: If Politicians Aren’t Safe, Who Is?

Evidently, the exclusion of members of the population through strict voting limitations points to one part of the overarching theme of gradual democratic retrogression. Within a democratic society, there exists a need for the voices of the people to be maintained and facilitated in order for cooperation to endure. Within the UCLA Law Review’s How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy  by Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg, the authors outline further factors of democratic decay to include the “deterioration of the quality of elections, speech and association rights, and the rule of law” (Huq, Ginsburg 96). Exclusion on a high level occurred as of this month with President Trump revoking invitations to “Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D), the NGA’s vice chair; and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) to attend a second White House event scheduled to occur around the summit: a dinner for governors,” as discussed in “Trump plans to keep Democratic governors out of traditionally bipartisan meeting.” Maryland Governor Wes Moore describes this as “particularly painful,” as he understands it to be a place he belonged in, and earned, and yet, coinciding with him being the only Black governor serving in the United States as well him being democratic, he watched partisan preferences exclude him from rooms he belonged in for the sake of a partisan agenda—indicating an erosion of democratic practices.

Are We One America, or Are We Our Own Worst Enemy?

Linked together, the work of Ozan Varol and the supporting argument of Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg encompass the larger issue of exclusion that the United States leadership is facilitating. Across various sectors including healthcare, living standards, and voting rights, individuals face a growing distinction between those who benefit from modern America and those who fall victim to the system’s favoritism. In “How America Got So Sick,” by Vann R. Newkirk II, he outlines the overwhelming issues plaguing America. These include disease outbreaks, gun deaths, and opioid deaths. Newkirk argues the root of these problems stems from “a declining sense of mutual responsibility among Americans.” He creates an analogy in which the population is “a single human body,” where the immune system depends on a “concert” of coordination between cells and if that stops, “the body dies.” With a lack of common consensus, collective action deteriorates and ‘a tragedy of the commons’ paralyzes society. The subtleness of the threat does not equate to its might. In the words of Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg “not every wolf bares its teeth and claws or stands outside the door growling for blood…some threats to constitutional liberal democracies do not announce themselves and are all the more dangerous for it” (Huq, Ginsburg 117). The use of stealth authoritarianism cultivates a system where the wolf appears beyond reproach.

References:

 “Republicans Are Pushing to Drastically Change the Way You Cast Ballots,” Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/10/republicans-are-pushing-drastically-change-way-you-cast-ballots/

“Trump plans to keep Democratic governors out of traditionally bipartisan meeting,” Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/08/trump-democratic-governors/

“How America Got So Sick,” Vann R. Newkirk II: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/03/american-public-health-democracy/685727/

How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy, Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:77e3205e-b496-4f6c-910a-7117249524d7

Stealth Authoritarianism, Ozan Varol: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:33dae08a-51ec-4e3f-8731-733f2bd12179