(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Watching the Fire or Sounding the Alarm?" [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-06-11
Watching the Fire or Sounding the Alarm?
Evaluating the “We Are at War” and “Let’s All Take a Deep Breath” Responses to the Threat of Trump’s Authoritarianism
In June 2025, two articles emerged representing sharply divergent responses to the ongoing consolidation of power by Donald Trump and his political movement. The first, published on Daily Kos under the fiery headline “We Are at War: Donald Trump Declares War on America,” asserts that the United States has entered a de facto civil war, not metaphorically but structurally—through the weaponization of state power, militarization of domestic politics, and the systematic targeting of opposition. The second, a Substack post by The West Point History Professor, offers a more skeptical and tempered view. Titled something akin to “Let’s All Take a Deep Breath,” it responds to The New York Times’ characterization of Trump’s efforts “to amass power,” urging the public to remain vigilant without succumbing to hysteria.
These articles represent not only two contrasting interpretations of present events but two longstanding traditions in how democracies respond to threats: preemptive confrontation versus strategic caution. This essay evaluates both positions, acknowledges the appeal and merit of patience and observation, but ultimately concludes that only proactive resistance—confrontation on our own terms—can preserve the republic when democratic erosion is already underway.
I. The Daily Kos Alarm: War by Other Means
The Daily Kos article wastes no time in rejecting euphemism or understatement. It opens by challenging the denialism that often marks the early phases of democratic decline: “This is not metaphor. It is reality.” The author paints a stark picture: tanks and National Guard units rolling through Los Angeles, the arrest of protestors and threats against political opponents, and paramilitary groups rebranded as instruments of state enforcement.
This framing is powerful and unsettling. It draws from historical precedent: authoritarian regimes rarely begin with a single dramatic coup. More often, they erode the rule of law incrementally, reframe democratic institutions as threats, and normalize violence against the opposition as “restoring order.” The January 6, 2021 insurrection was not the end of such ambitions, but the dress rehearsal.
By characterizing the present situation as a war, the article insists on moral clarity. If this is war, then neutrality is complicity. This stance activates civic engagement. It demands immediate response, pushes institutions to choose sides, and signals that political “normalcy” is not only unavailable but dangerous.
Critics will argue it’s alarmist. But as Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder has warned, “The mistake is to assume that institutions will automatically defend themselves.” They don’t. They require people, alert to danger, willing to act before the crisis becomes irreversible.
II. The Substack Rebuttal: A Machiavellian Fantasy?
The West Point History Professor, writing from a background in military and strategic history, cautions readers against succumbing to panic. The piece suggests Trump’s apparent power grab is more performative than effective—an authoritarian cosplay designed to intimidate and mobilize his base, but not a genuine threat to constitutional democracy.
This viewpoint reflects a deep and respectable tradition in democratic societies: the belief that restraint, rationality, and institutional gravity will correct political excesses. It echoes the “guardrails” theory of American politics—where checks and balances, the judiciary, the media, and civil society restrain would-be autocrats through scrutiny and friction.
The strength of this approach lies in its aversion to overreaction. In a world saturated with disinformation and political polarization, not every provocation should be met with outrage. Sometimes, watching closely is wiser than charging in. The author is not naïve about Trump’s ambitions, but wary of granting him the chaos and martyrdom he craves.
There is also value in recognizing that democracies must not become brittle. They must tolerate extremes, absorb shocks, and function despite deep division. The “wait and watch” approach reflects a confidence in democratic immune systems.
But what if the immune system is already compromised?
III. The Historical Record: Hesitation as a Path to Ruin
Across history, the costs of waiting too long have proven dire.
In 1933, as Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, many in the intelligentsia believed the institutions of the Weimar Republic would contain him. They did not. Within weeks, the Reichstag Fire enabled the suspension of civil liberties. Opposition parties were banned. Democracy didn’t die in a dramatic thunderclap. It was managed to death—legally.
In 1973 Chile, Salvador Allende’s elected government was ousted by a coup that had been months in the making. Political moderates who had hoped to compromise or wait for “things to settle” were swept up in the resulting dictatorship. Thousands were killed.
More recently, Hungary and Turkey provide modern examples of elected autocrats who used law, bureaucracy, and media control to destroy democracy from within. In each case, early alarms were labeled overreactions. The authoritarian shift became irreversible not because no one noticed, but because those who noticed did not act.
To say “Let’s take a deep breath” in such circumstances is not always wisdom. Sometimes, it is denial.
IV. Confrontation as Defense, Not Extremism
The case for confrontation is not about violence or insurrection. It is about narrative, visibility, and resolve.
To confront authoritarianism on our own terms means:
• Calling things what they are: When the military is deployed against civilians, it is not “security.” It is suppression.
• Creating thresholds of resistance: For example, declaring that if state forces are used to arrest political opponents without cause, mass mobilization will follow.
• Activating civic institutions: Bar associations, academic consortia, religious groups, and veterans must publicly oppose and prepare responses to unlawful power grabs.
• Legal pre-emption: Filing suits before new emergency powers are exercised, and ensuring that courts are not lulled into complicity.
Waiting until all the signs are undeniable often means waiting until all recourse is gone. Confronting authoritarianism early is how democracy defends itself.
V. The Middle Path Is Not the Center
The truth is not always in the middle. While both articles bring value—one warning urgently, the other counseling calm—the moment demands more than synthesis. It demands choice.
We should not ignore the benefits of watching carefully. Emotional restraint, critical distance, and legal caution are vital in a democratic society. But these virtues become vices when they lead to paralysis in the face of coordinated power grabs.
The Daily Kos article may be incendiary, but it tells a truth many are unwilling to voice: democracy doesn’t only die when the tanks roll in. It also dies when enough people look away.
The Substack essay is right to urge caution—but without a roadmap for action, caution becomes consent.
VI. Conclusion: Better to Fight Too Early Than Too Late
The arc of history is filled with moments when people wished they had acted sooner. Rarely do nations regret having prepared too well, resisted too early, or spoken too loudly.
Today, we do not face mere policy differences. We face a coordinated effort to redefine the American republic—to make the presidency unaccountable, the judiciary obedient, and dissent criminalized.
Those who urge watching must also answer: What, exactly, are we watching for? And what will you do when you see it?
If democracy is to survive, we must not wait for the enemy to come through the gates. We must meet them at the threshold, with clarity, conviction, and the courage to confront tyranny—on our terms, before it becomes theirs.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/11/2327370/-Watching-the-Fire-or-Sounding-the-Alarm?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
