Steven Levitsky (Ithaca, New York, 1968) left the United States on Monday with Joe Biden still as president of his country and landed, hours later, in Mexico with Donald Trump sworn in as president for the second time. The first thing he did when he touched Mexican soil was read the speech with which Trump inaugurated a new era: “I was not surprised, he is the same populist with empty words,” he stated at the beginning of the conversation with Morning Express, on Tuesday tomorrow.
Professor at Harvard University and co-author of the influential book How democracies die Together with Daniel Ziblatt, Levitsky has dedicated his career to unraveling the complex mechanisms of modern democracies and the risks they face in the face of the rise of authoritarian leadership, such as Trump’s, something he never ceases to remember.
The talk quickly dives into the impact of the magnate’s second term on American democracy. Levitsky, a deep knowledge of Latin America, a fervent follower of the Argentine soccer team, speaks in fluent Spanish that he only abandons for English when he wants to emphasize some terms or aspects. At several points he admits that Trump’s resounding victory in November surprised him and emphasizes that Trump, more than a plutocracy, has created a “patrimonial government.”
Ask. What did you think of Trump’s first speech?
Answer. We must not get tired of saying it: this guy is an authoritarian. We have a government with instincts, with reflexes, with, with an authoritarian orientation. What caught my attention the most is the establishment’s response. Eight years ago, when he first won, the establishment responded with alarm. This time it’s totally different. He is positioning himself for the regime that comes with the idea that the president can use the White House to make a lot of money. The fact that Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is the second most important man in the United States, is hellish. Trump has been clear that he is willing to use the state as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies of the old regime. It is a heritage style. Zuckerberg only sees what impact Trump can have on his businesses; Bezos, Tim Cook, Harvard, Disney the same, they don’t want problems.
Q. From resistance they have moved on to homage, to embrace.
R. In many cases, it is a hug out of fear.
Q. How do you explain that in these eight years the United States has normalized Trump in this way?
R. Not just the United States, the whole world. I don’t know if there is a very scientific or very sexy explanation: it is the advantage that the extreme right has in many countries. They are taking advantage of a crisis of confidence in institutions and elites. Trump did not invent that discontent, but he took advantage of it. The opposition, let’s say the center-left, has no answer, plan or identity except that it doesn’t want that. There is no programmatic ideological counterweight in the world. All the energy is in the illiberal right.
Q. What does the power that the technological oligarchy is acquiring say about American democracy?
R. Zuckerberg, Cook, Bezos are with Trump, but they are kneeling. The power is Trump. But it is not a plutocracy, it is rather a patrimonial government where political power is being imposed on some very rich men, who I would have thought had a little more independence. When Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook, or universities like Harvard start making concessions to Trump before he came to power…
Q. How do you see the role of universities, especially Harvard or those of the Ivy League, before Trump?
R. Something similar to what happens with the media is happening with universities. The media bet on economic groups and the universities bet on multimillionaire donors. We depend a lot on donations. 20 years ago we thought that these donors were going to respect our autonomy, that they were not going to exercise much power over us. And it’s not like that. It was seen after October 7 (2023), when anti-Israel protests broke out at Harvard, which has several donors who are pro-Israel. They decided to get involved in the domestic politics of Harvard, telling us how we should punish students, even telling us who should be the president of Harvard. To me it seems like a terrible, very dangerous precedent, but I think it is part of a trend.
Q. It seems that defending democracy does not seem electorally attractive.
R. I am a political scientist and I dedicate my life to studying and, in some cases, defending democracy. It’s my job, I get paid for it. But except for some exceptional cases, societies that emerge from a very ugly authoritarian experience, like Spain in the 70s; Argentina in the 80s, Chile, South Africa or Poland in the 90s, where people are thinking about democracy when they vote, no voter has something like the political regime or institutions as a priority. People don’t vote like that. And we shouldn’t expect people to vote like that. There is no need to blame the electorate. The electorate, whether Argentine, Mexican, Spanish, Polish, Russian, American, is going to vote for a thousand things, for reasons of identity, because they like a candidate, or many times because they are rejecting the status quo, they want to vote anti-government. People do not vote for or against democracy. Vote for other reasons. We have to understand it and respect it. This is going to sound a bit elitist, but it is the elite who have to defend democracy.
Q. How do you explain the rise of a pro-Trump Latino vote?
R. There are many reasons. Some Latinos live in rural communities, without higher education, are gun owners, Christians… have the profile of a Republican voter. For many, especially second, third or fourth generations, defending immigration is not the priority, it is something that is taken into account, but the economy weighs more. Religion can also push the Latino vote to the Republicans. The Democratic Party is a much more secular party. Then there are the anti-communist Latinos, who have been politically formed by the Cuban and Venezuelan community in Florida. And then there is another part which is the men. The Republican Party is mobilizing votes focused on reaction against various social and cultural changes in recent years. There are some Latino men who are voting in a sexist way. And finally, and I think that in this election, it had a lot to do with it, there are many Latinos who do not have a very strong party commitment, but are very dissatisfied with the economy, with inflation. It is a vote of discontent. Outside of Mexico, very few people have voted for the ruling party in the world.
