Bernard Rowan is an associate provost for contract administration and professor of political science at Chicago State University.
America, autocracy and plutocracy
By Bernard Rowan
It’s a dangerous thing: autocracy. The rule of one, a perversion of monarchy. Or at least that’s how the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome termed it. Oh, yes, there were many such rulers. But the march of civilizations has been, in one sense, the march away from autocracy and the rule of one person.
That also was the purpose of the founding of the United States. The history of Europe hasn’t been much kinder to kings, to monarchs or to the idea of monarchy itself. Monarchs may become autocrats. Constitutional systems of government, beginning with limited government, the rule of law, checks and balances, and the separation of powers, are the technology to avoid autocracy. But its utility depends on its use.
There are still quite a few monarchs out there, but most are ceremonial. I saw a recent unveiling of portraits of the King and Queen Consort of England. I also saw a television story on NHK about the emperor of Japan, Naruhito, and his family visiting Okinawa in June.
Somehow, today’s global publics, or at least many of them, seem to forget history and its lessons. In contemporary politics, the problems of autocracy arise in rulers and the public seduced by the promises of one. That may be one party or one issue or some other monism, but usually it’s the rule of one person, one man. Putin, Xi, Kim, and now, sadly, Trump all illustrate the 21st century’s interest in reactionary government and autocracy.
Donald Trump, at the behest of nearly half the voters in the country (shocking, it would seem), is running this nation on the ideas of “draining the swamp” and “making America great again." In truth, this moment is a regime of resentment, the resentment primarily of white, blue-collar families and Christian-like people who are tired of the change and progress that has characterized America. They, of course, do not see the change as positive: too many immigrants, gender dysphoria, wokeness, and a bloated Washington bureaucracy that supports and extends liberal culture. These are the totems of the moment, in their eyes. These moments occur in American history, but a general maxim is that change can’t easily be reversed. Reaction results in civil stasis. The idea of returning to or upholding slavery was tested once, with disastrous results.
Trump’s government has fired or induced the retirements of over 20,000 workers. He has deported over 130,000 people, in addition to the estimated 1.5 million in his first administration. He wants to end birthright citizenship, which is the constitutional stance that persons born in the United States are citizens. Trump has taken on institutions that showed support for Palestinians in Gaza or didn’t show support for Israel in its war with the Palestinians. He has suspended or ended federal grants involving diversity, equity and inclusion. He’s aiming for transgender rights, barring them from the military and other denials of civil rights. There are many other examples. All of this with the speed of a leader who’s learned that the first 100 days are the most important.
In his administration, Trump has used executive orders nearly 150 times and counting. His actions follow in many respects the bibulous formulae of Project 2025. The American people would do well to look through and read a few of these to better understand: a Wiki on “democratic backsliding by country; ” aScientific American article about the new autocrats; a Council on Foreign Relations Report about the new and broad alliance of autocracies; and the Berlin Social Science Center’s analysis on autocratization and its consequences.
One possible counterexample area that comes to mind is Trump’s actions toward Putin and Xi. He began by courting appeasement in Ukraine but is showing qualified signs of liberation from one of his presumptive brothers in autocracy. He’s also taking square aim at China in his tariff ploy, creating impacts in China that some think are significant and troubling for already fraught Sino-American global competition.
With today’s autocrat leanings, America seems bemused by the energies of wealthy people as leaders, specifically billionaires. They’re all over the place these days, among Democrats and Republicans. Trump’s administration has 13 billionaires in it. Wealth and high incomes aren’t evils, per se — it depends on what people do with them. At a time when American's real incomes are declining and the wealth gap continues to widen, Americans are enthralled with the wealthy. And to what results, I ask?
The ancient philosophers all warned of the error of rule by the wealthy, or more precisely, by interests that favor the wealthy. Many of the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights arose from the exertions of the Antifederalists, some of whom were wealthy, against the excesses of government identification with monarchy and love of money. Kishore Mahbubani’s recent CIRSD report online: "Democracy or Plutocracy: America’s Existential Question,” is relevant reading here.
Where is the world and American headed on these counts? I can’t claim to know. It depends on the democratic actions of free people — people of late divided on the very interests that form the crucible of the public interest. These are interesting times, but worrying, if one is a student of history, government and the public good.
Bernard Rowan is associate provost for contract administration and professor of political science at Chicago State University. He is a past fellow of the Korea Foundation and past visiting professor at the Hanyang University Graduate School of Local Autonomy.