Donald Trump showed his autocratic desires in 2020 when he claimed that the election had been rigged against him before it had even been called. On the night of November 5th, 2020 President Trump delivered a speech about the status of his run for reelection. He detailed his campaign’s successes and outlined how he hoped key swing states would turn out moving forward. Mixed in with achievements and aspirations, however, was something more sinister. The votes were not done being counted, yet Trump was already proclaiming that the election had been stolen from him and his supporters. Does this mean he was a sore loser or an aspiring autocrat?

In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt detail how difficult it can be to recognize authoritarians before they become authoritarians. Their chapter “Fateful Alliances” draws on the work of Juan Linz, a prolific political scientist, to create a “litmus test” for identifying “antidemocratic politicians” (Levitsky, Ziblatt 21). The test is a set of four warning signs manifesting in political behaviors that can help identify authoritarians. Do they reject the “democratic rules of the game” through words or actions? Do they deny their opponents legitimacy? Do they encourage or tolerate violence? Finally, do they “indicate a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents,” which includes the media (Levitsky, Ziblatt 21)? 

All four questions distinguish potential authoritarians, but even answering yes to one is cause for concern. By Levinsky and Ziblatt’s standards, Trump’s November 5th speech should cause the potential autocrat alarm bells to ring. 

While President Trump’s entire presidency can be examined through the lens of these four questions, the first, regarding democratic institutions was the most relevant while Trump delivered his speech. 

“If you count legal votes, I easily win. If you count illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.” Almost immediately, he undermines the legitimacy of an election that isn’t even over yet. The refusal to accept election results is often followed by the attack on other established parties being “undemocratic or unpatriotic,” (Levitsky, Ziblatt 21).

Trump follows this pattern almost perfectly. He begins by attacking poll workers, voting machines, and mail-in votes as all being corrupted to work against him. He criticizes the election itself. Then, he takes it a step further and blames it on his political opponents, the Democratic Party. 

He tells the American public that the states that have yet to be decided “are run, in all cases, by Democrats.” The Democrats were able to manipulate the votes because “it’s a corrupt system.” They didn’t “believe they could win honestly.” He proudly exclaimed that the Democrats were “trying to steal an election” while he defended “the integrity of the election.”

His speech was notably devoid of any empirical evidence, but it was abundant with claims of fraud and corruption. The speech itself was one long attempt to discredit the sanctity of American elections, and therefore, American democracy. 

His speech takes on a call-to-action tone as he repeatedly claims “we can not let that happen!” His mobilization of his supporters in preparation to act is indicative of authoritarian behavior. He continues to fail Levinsky and Ziblatt’s litmus test as he attempts to gather his supporters. 

Whether or not he is calling for an antidemocratic response to losing the election, his speech is already cause for concern. By refusing to accept credible election results, he is indicating to the American people that he sees himself as above the democratic process. 

Levitsky and Ziblatt stress the importance of these warning signs in picking out potential threats to democracy. Their first question about the rejection of democratic institutions casts a dark cloud over his speech. The scary thing about Trump’s rhetoric is that, at the time, he was actively in office. He undermines the validity of American democracy while he has the opportunity to severely alter it. 

What does this mean? Trump’s November 5th statement indicates that he may have autocratic aspirations. If he were to be elected again, America would be at severe risk of democratic backsliding according to Levitsky and Ziblatt. This speech only falls under the first question of the litmus test. More investigation would be required to identify where President Trump has violated the other questions of potential authoritarianism, if he has. The remaining questions involve the denial of opponents’ legitimacy, the promotion of violence, and the curtailing of civil liberties. 

If Trump finds an issue with election results, who is to say he won’t find an issue with checks on executive power? His rhetoric in this speech underlines a concerning belief that he is above the law. A concerning implication voters should be aware of going into the 2024 election. 

All in all, America may have failed to prevent a potential autocrat from getting into the Oval Office in 2020. Furthermore, they may do it again in November.