We’re Talking About Authoritarianism All Wrong

Are we bringing people along with us or are we pushing them away?

These are uncharted waters, folks. In the midst of the Texas redistricting fight and federal takeover of the nation’s capital, we’re past authoritarian creep. Trump is doing something closer to an authoritarian speed-walk. But what’s striking to us about this political moment isn’t the fevered pace of his power play, but how our Democratic leaders and movements still don’t know how to talk about the problem.

We’ve responded, sure. But few of our messages seem to strike the right chord. We notice that most anti-authoritarian messaging falls into one of following three buckets.

The Maximalist

“Americans across races, backgrounds, and parties value our freedoms. But this MAGA regime of the bullies for the billionaires is occupying our communities, forcing the military and law enforcement on our families, and turning our government into a weapon against our people so they can seize more power and distract from their crimes. Families are joining together to Free America, demanding our leaders stop this assault on our freedoms, our families, and our futures.” (ASO Communications)

This sort of kitchen-sink approach from Anat Shenker-Osorio recognizes the severity of the threat, but feels overcooked to us—with its alliterative phrases, strained word choices, and self-conscious construction.

Our messages shouldn’t feel like they’ve been concocted in a lab or written by committee. While it may land with anti-Trump diehards, does it work with anyone beyond that audience? Imagine the blank stares and eye rolls if you said this to a less politically-engaged friend or family member.

What’s the Core Narrative?

The MAGA regime is an illegitimate, oppressive power structure that must be opposed through unified public action to reclaim democracy.

1. Americans agree on freedoms and this regime violates that consensus. Assumes that Americans agree that Trump is violating our founding principles.

2. Regime tactics mirror occupation and their power is illegitimate. Relies on some prior knowledge of historical repression and occupation.

3. Grassroots mobilization is rising and the resistance is justified and urgent. Speaks narrowly to those already part of our movement.

The Problem: This is, out of all the messages, speaking entirely to an aligned base of people. There is no premise that can be engaged with unless you are already in agreement with the conclusion.

---

The Conformist

“We can’t lose focus on what matters – right now, Republicans in Texas are trying to gerrymander district lines to unfairly win five seats in next year’s midterm elections. This is a power grab that undermines our democracy.” (Barack Obama on X)

“Trump is trying to pick up 5 Texas GOP seats through crooked congressional lines, instead of honest votes. Show us your crooked Trump map. Gov. Abbott and the GOP-led state legislature are mere accomplices. We will not give in to this assault on our democracy.” (Rep. Lloyd Doggett on X)

This paint-by-numbers approach makes vague appeals to fairness and democratic values, invoking phrases like “undermines our democracy” or “assault on our democracy.” It focuses heavily on process rather than outcomes, and fails to communicate any of the urgency that the moment demands. Ultimately, the message rings hollow.

What’s the Core Narrative?

The Texas GOP’s gerrymandering is an anti-democratic power grab, and opposing it is essential to preserving fair elections.

1. The issue of gerrymandering is a major threat. Requires you to already agree with, and understand, the impact of gerrymandering.

2. Republicans are rigging districts and their goal is unfair partisan gain. Indicates motive without making the case.

3. Outcome harms democracy and the act is illegitimate and destructive. Makes broad assumptions about the actions, leaving room for claims of hypocrisy.

The Problem: You have lost the audience by the very first premise. If they are unfamiliar with gerrymandering and the threat it poses, the rest of the argument is lost.

---

The Overachiever

“Donald Trump is federalizing control of the local police and deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C. to further his authoritarian and anti-democratic agenda.

“As autocrats commonly do, Trump is seeking control over the national capital in order to intimidate and squelch dissent. Like despots around the world and throughout history, Trump is also relying on the pretextual deployment of military force to intimidate and project power, to suppress protest and undercut democracy.” (Public Citizen)

The overachiever message is written exclusively for a professional managerial class. It drops ten-dollar words like “pretextual” or “autocrat,” and lingers on constitutionality and the rule of law—as if the rules still apply to people like Donald Trump.

But this approach fails to ignite people’s fire, and it plays into the GOP’s frame of people on the left as out-of-touch elites.

What’s the Core Narrative?

Trump’s actions follow the pattern of authoritarian leaders, using military force not for public safety but to crush dissent and weaken democracy.

1. Authoritarians stifle dissent by taking over capitals. By doing the same, Trump is, implicitly, an autocrat. Relies on historical context.

2. Dictators use military force to intimidate and Trump is deploying troops similarly. Once again, relies on prior historical knowledge

3. The justification is fake and the real goal is suppressing democracy. Requires that you have agreed with the case made in the first two statements.

The Problem: It relies so much on its own context and pre-knowledge. The presuppositions have lost the reader by the first claim.

---

A New Approach?

“The AFT has thousands of educators and employees who live and work in D.C. and the surrounding counties. We recently brought thousands of people here for a conference. This is our city. Obviously, we want it to be safe–just as we did on Jan. 6, 2021, when there was an actual riot on the streets. How ironic that the president was reluctant to deploy the National Guard then when asked by others to do so.

“The president’s move to federalize the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and deploy the National Guard, with total violent crime at a 30-year low, is a gross overreach, disconnected from actual conditions on the ground. It is also at odds with his administration’s decision to stop funding violence prevention programs in Washington, D.C.” (American Federation of Teachers)

Written in plain speak, AFT’s statement closes proximity and establishes credibility with its audience, before using simple logic to expose the contradictions in Trump’s actions. It’s not flashy, but it puts Trump immediately on the defensive by bringing up his role in January 6th and defunding of violence prevention programs. It communicates the union’s values without moralizing or making assumptions about its audience.

This statement comes closest to cracking the code.

What’s the Core Narrative?

The National Guard deployment is an unjustified overreach, possibly politically motivated rather than a genuine public safety measure.

1. AFT cares about D.C.’s safety because it has members in DC. Clearly establishes AFT’s credibility.

2. Past inaction vs. current overreaction. Points out hypocrisy in plain speak—everything you need to know is already here.

3. Crime data doesn’t justify the deployment. Gives a hard fact to back up the point they are making.

4. Trump’s decision clearly contradicts safety goals. Again…makes the case, points out hypocrisy based on the claims above.

This Works! It requires no prior assumptions or knowledge to make the case. They establish their credibility, make their claim, build the argument, and pique feelings of fairness that can reach beyond their base.

This exercise isn’t meant as a harsh criticism of the messages above. But we need to constantly be asking ourselves if we’re bringing people along with us when we talk about authoritarianism.

The AFT statement is particularly effective, because it avoids making broad assumptions about its audience’s prior knowledge and orientation to the issue. In doing so, it resonates beyond those already inclined to agree—a necessity for a union that must engage ideologically diverse memberships.

Yes, our messages should connect to shared values and stir emotions, but they also need to have on-ramps for people who are not already with us—and that requires logical stepping stones. (Zohran Mamdani is actually exceptionally good at this. He can make bold policies sound like the most common sense thing in the world.)

After all, we can’t expect to move people emotionally if they don’t believe us.