A Global Authoritarian Realignment is Here, And Democracy Could Lose
If the bad guys win, we all lose
As Trump orders troops on the streets of DC, in the midst of a historic downturn in crime, I am reminded of a particularly stinging quote on the nature of authoritarianism:
Processions, meetings, military parades, lectures, waxwork displays, film shows, telescreen programs all had to be organized; stands had to be erected, effigies built, slogans coined, songs written, rumours circulated, photographs faked. - George Orwell
Statistics and facts be damned. Send in the troops and make it look all showy. Make it a statement. This is the new America taking shape before our very eyes.
The contours of a global authoritarian alignment are sharpening. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea increasingly coordinate, bound by shared grievances against the west and a mutual desire to dismantle what's remains of the US-led liberal international order. Their cooperation – marked by Iranian drones over Ukraine, North Korean shells on Russian frontlines, and Chinese technological underpinning for global surveillance – signals a growing geopolitical challenge. But a seismic shift, one almost unthinkable just a decade ago, complicates this picture dramatically: the potential for the United States itself, under the influence of Trumpism, to effectively abandon its traditional role and functionally align with the very forces it historically opposed.
The rise of Donald Trump and the "America First" doctrine represents more than just a shift in foreign policy priorities— it’s quite a bit more serious. It embodies a fundamental challenge to the post-World War II consensus that placed the US at the head of a global network of democracies committed to shared values and mutual security. Trump's approach, marked by overt authoritarian tendencies, a transactional view of international relations veering into neo-imperialism, a hardline stance against traditional allies, and a perplexing softness towards autocratic adversaries like Russia. This really isn't just about neglecting leadership—it's about actively undermining the foundations, potentially pushing the US into a space where it mirrors, rather than counters, the world's rising autocracies. It forces us to ask the deeply uncomfortable question: Are we, or could we become, the "bad guys" in this emerging global narrative?
On some level, I think this is the wrong question to ask. America’s participation in “the morally questionable” is not historically in dispute. It has imported hundreds of thousands of slaves over the Atlantic, caused global temperatures to fall via genocide, and engaged in the overthrow of foreign governments on at least 81 separate occasions since 1946. It’s not so much America’s participation in the morally wrong that is in question, but it’s commitment, or at least lip service to the morally good. And the abandonment of that commitment is what is alarming.
The traditional authoritarian axis operates on principles of spheres of influence, transactional gains. Authoritarian regimes have no need for universal values like human rights, and believe in the primacy of state power over international law. They seek a world safe for autocracy. Alarmingly, many tenets of Trumpism echo these principles. Trump's own actions and rhetoric betrays his authoritarian leanings—questioning election integrity, attacking the judiciary and the free press, and expressing open admiration for strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, among many faux passes. This domestic politics directly translates into a foreign policy that prioritizes perceived strength and bilateral deals over the messy, value-laden work of maintaining alliances.
Neo-imperialist policy: a return to the 1800’s
Trump’s administration and his approach to core democratic allies in Europe and Canada exemplifies chaotic pre-WWII politics. NATO, problematic though it is, is the bedrock of transatlantic security. It was repeatedly denigrated as obsolete or unfair, and it’s mutual defense commitments implicitly questioned. Trade wars were initiated against stalwart partners, treating them as economic rivals rather than long-time allies. This isn’t just “tough” negotiation—it’s a fundamental disregard for the shared history and values underpinning these relationships. Trump’s actions sow deep distrust, forcing allies to hedge their bets and question America's reliability and actually undermining America’s long-term interests. This fracturing of the democratic bloc directly benefits the authoritarian axis, it weakens our collective resolve and creates a vacuum where before there was an almost unassailable consensus.
Simultaneously, Trump has displayed a striking affinity for, or at least a reluctance to confront, autocratic regimes, most notably Russia. Despite clear intelligence assessments of Russian interference in US elections and ongoing aggression against neighbours like Ukraine, Trump frequently downplayed the threat, expressed skepticism towards his own intelligence agencies, and pursued warmer relations with Putin. This "softness" wasn't merely idiosyncratic and it sent a powerful message globally that the leader of the alleged “free world” seemed less interested in countering authoritarian expansionism than in potentially accommodating it, or at least prioritizing personal relationships with autocrats over established alliances and democratic principles.
This combination – attacking democratic institutions and allies while showing deference to autocratic rivals – constitutes a functional realignment. "America First," in this context, morphs from isolationism into something more akin to unilateralism unhinged from democratic values. This new brand of “tough guy” neo-imperialism is focused not on territorial gain, but on leveraging American power for narrow, petty, transactional advantages, and disregarding the rules-based order when inconvenient – much like Russia or China do. When the US acts this way, it ceases to be the anchor of the liberal international order; it becomes another powerful, unpredictable state pursuing its interests in a manner that erodes the very system it built.
An new axis of evil
Could America truly become part of an "axis of evil"? Perhaps that framing is too simplistic. But a United States guided by the principles of Trumpism – prioritizing transactional power over alliances, showing contempt for democratic norms at home and abroad, weakening collective security agreements, and cozying up to dictators – functionally aligns itself with the forces undermining the liberal democratic world. From the perspective of a Ukrainian fighting for survival, a Taiwanese citizen watching Chinese maneuvers, or a European ally suddenly uncertain of American defence commitments, a US behaving this way is acting counter to their interests and the principles of freedom and international law.
This weird trajectory doesn't just embolden existing authoritarians; it is sending America down a dark and foreboding road into something or some place that feels wrong, or sinister. It suggests a future where the primary distinction isn't between democracy and autocracy, but between different flavors of powerful states jockeying for dominance in a world stripped of guiding principles, i.e. back to the in-your-face, dog-eat-dog world of the colonial expansion era. The authoritarian realignment is here, but the most dangerous element might not be the explicit cooperation between Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang, but the potential for the leader of the free world to effectively switch sides, leaving democracy dangerously exposed, hanging in the wind and forcing the world to question who the real so-called protagonists and antagonists truly are.
We might actually be the bad guys. And that, is both a terrifying and sobering thought.
Thank you for a useful "stocktake". You speak as an American, I take it. I'm not.
"Are we ... the "bad guys" in this emerging global narrative? ... I think this is the wrong question to ask." The world has done a closet clean-out over the past five or so years. What we found in there is another visit to things we thought we knew. Who killed JFK? Vietnam. The A-bomb. Indonesia and Suhato, United Fruit, Allende, Pinochet, neoliberalism (a word barely heard before the pandemic), greenwashing, Gaza ... You don't actually formulate what the question should be, so I'll do it for you: Is America only now waking up to the fact that its exceptionalism for 80 years truly is a charade that the rest of us have been okay about playing along with, as long as there was payback in the form of you watching our six o'clock?"
The answer to both questions is "Yes".
A nation voting for "America First" (unless the suspicions are right that they didn't, actually) but who don't really know who the NATO allies are, or couldn't even point to them on a map if they did, and who, for that matter, probably couldn't tell you much about the Monroe Doctrine, how Hawaii "achieved" statehood or where Washington is, unless you clarified with "State", will not be swift to tumble to that answer, however. It's not the "MAGA' crowd that never cease to astonish me - from them, you get what you expect; it is the unconsidered responses by their opponents that cause me to lose all and any hope.
I feel like I've settled with my popcorn and nacho chips into the comfort of my cinema seat, ready to relish a four-hour extravaganza of the silver screen, and I hate the film after 5 minutes. I wish Columbus had stayed at home.
But your article's really very good (watch the its/it's).
Marcus: you can’t compare yourself to yourself when speaking about improvement.
Example: a wife beater beats his wife every single day for a number of years. Then he stops beating her on the weekends, at the same time, he is hauled in front of a judge and pleads that there shouldn’t be any intervention because he is improving.
What would you do?