The 'Duck Test' of Democracy: Understanding Trump’s Threat to American Institutions
Review | Commentary
The actions and appointments of Donald Trump, particularly his proposed candidates for high office, raise a profound question: are these random choices driven by incompetence and vanity, or are they part of a deliberate strategy to undermine American democracy? While some argue there is no direct evidence of a grand conspiracy, a pattern emerges that strongly aligns with what Timothy Snyder has described as a concerted effort to dismantle the American state. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is likely a duck. By examining the circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that Trump's actions are not merely chaotic but deeply calculated.
Patterns of Institutional Undermining
Trump’s administration and proposals have consistently targeted the pillars of a functional democratic state: health, the rule of law, civil administration, defense, and intelligence. These are not random areas of focus but key zones that Timothy Snyder identifies as critical to the survival of any modern democracy. By placing loyalists, ideologues, or outright incompetents in these positions, Trump’s agenda appears to prioritize destabilization over governance.
Take, for example, his proposal of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy’s well-documented opposition to vaccines and science-based health policies poses a direct threat to public health. A healthy population is a cornerstone of democracy, fostering stability and civic trust. Undermining this foundation would have devastating consequences, making society more susceptible to division and conflict.
Similarly, Matt Gaetz, a proposed Attorney General, exemplifies the erosion of the rule of law. With a history of scandal and blatant disregard for legal norms, Gaetz represents lawlessness personified. His appointment would likely weaponize the justice system against political opponents, further eroding public trust in impartial governance. These appointments, like others Trump has proposed, are not random misjudgments. They align with a broader strategy of concentrating power and undermining the institutions that check executive overreach.
Historical Precedents and the Shock Factor
Snyder draws parallels between Trump’s tactics and historical patterns of regime change. Authoritarians often target the infrastructure of democratic governance, not through coups but through incremental erosion of norms and institutions. The shock and outrage generated by these moves are not incidental; they are part of the strategy. When citizens are paralyzed by disbelief, they fail to act decisively, enabling further consolidation of power.
This strategy is evident in Trump’s public rhetoric, which frequently vilifies institutions like the Department of Justice, the military, and the intelligence community. His alignment with figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who advocate for the gutting of civil administration, furthers this agenda. Musk and Ramaswamy’s libertarian-leaning disdain for government structure plays directly into a vision of "engineered helplessness," where power is centralized among the wealthy elite while the average citizen is left with no functional recourse.
The Duck Test and Circumstantial Evidence
Critics of the "conspiracy" argument often point to the lack of direct evidence. But in legal contexts, convictions are routinely based on circumstantial evidence. Patterns of behavior, motive, and outcomes often tell a story more compelling than a smoking gun. Trump’s appointments, his admiration for authoritarian leaders, and his systematic undermining of democratic norms all fit a clear pattern. If these actions consistently weaken the institutions that sustain democracy, the intention becomes difficult to deny.
Bridging Divides for Action
Snyder wisely points out that this is no longer a post-electoral moment but a pre-catastrophic one. Americans must recognize the broader strategy at play and move beyond partisanship to defend the foundations of their democracy. This requires action at multiple levels: citizens must hold their elected officials accountable, legislators must prioritize institutional integrity over party loyalty, and the judiciary must interpret the Constitution as a safeguard against state destruction.
Conclusion: A Call to Clarity and Defiance
Donald Trump’s appointments and actions are not random acts of chaos but calculated moves that threaten the survival of the American democratic experiment. While there may never be direct evidence of a coordinated conspiracy, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly points to a deliberate strategy of destabilization. History teaches us that democracies often fall not through external conquest but internal sabotage. Americans, regardless of political affiliation, must confront this reality and act decisively to protect their institutions.
As Snyder warns, the time for action is now. Shock and outrage cannot become excuses for inaction. Instead, they must fuel a united effort to ensure the endurance of democracy for generations to come. If we fail to recognize the "duck," we risk watching democracy quack its last.
Citation
Snyder, Timothy. Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun: January 6 Was Practice. Donald Trump’s GOP Is Much Better Positioned to Subvert the Next Election. The New York Times Magazine. December 6, 2021.
Snyder, Timothy. Decapitation Strike: Preserving America from Trump's Appointments:
More good deconstruction of our current trauma. The ‘duck’ test indeed. And thanks for the link to Timothy’s brilliant piece.