Thom Hartmann sees the pattern on the rug. Trump and Musk are stifling democratic institutions and rushing headlong towards the tyranny they both admire. Trump thinks that he can make himself dictator for life, Like his buddies in Russia and North Korea. Will the public defend the Constitution?
When Harvard, one of America’s oldest and most revered institutions of higher learning, stands defiant as the federal government freezes billions in funding simply because it refuses to knuckle under to authoritarian demands — like gutting DEI programs and turning faculty into immigration informants — we’re no longer playing the usual game of politics.
This is the open throttling of academic freedom, part of a larger, deliberate campaign to silence dissent, centralize power, and erase democratic norms.
We’ve seen this playbook before in other countries — but now it’s being run right here, in the land that once proudly called itself the world’s beacon of liberty.
Democracy doesn’t die in darkness, as the saying goes; it suffocates in broad daylight.
Americans are witnessing an unprecedented assault on the very foundations of our democratic experiment, orchestrated with a precision that would make authoritarian strongmen worldwide nod in approval.
Senator Chris Murphy has raised alarm bells about what he describes as a methodical attack on American institutions that are supposed to keep government accountable to its citizens. By his account, the strategy isn’t dramatic coups or burning parliaments; that’s not how modern democracies perish. Instead, they’re slowly dismantled through the calculated erosion of accountability mechanisms.
History provides a disturbing playbook, and we’re watching it unfold right now here in America. Putin, Orbán, and Erdoğan didn’t need tanks in the streets. They understood that the process is multi-part but straightforward:
— Legitimize political violence,
— Capture the media,
— Intimidate lawyers,
— Install corrupt leaders within regulatory and police agencies,
— Disappear first minorities and later opposition leaders,
— Silence universities, and
— Starve opposition movements by denying their nonprofit status and funding.
Consider what we’re seeing unfold. The recent January 6 pardons sent an unmistakable message about the acceptability of political violence. When legislators openly express fears of “retaliation” — as Senator Lisa Murkowski just did — we’re already several steps down a dangerous path.
Meanwhile, the concentration of media power in the hands of billionaires who increasingly bend to political pressure isn’t accidental. Whether through ownership, lawsuits, or regulatory threats, the ability to speak truth to power is being systematically constrained.
Universities, traditionally bastions of free thought and youth activism, face unprecedented pressure to conform or lose federal support.
Legal professionals, our front-line defenders of constitutional rights, are being asked to choose between principles and practice.
The economic dimension of this strategy can’t be ignored. Targeted tariffs and funding cuts effectively create a corporate compliance regime where business survival depends on political loyalty. When small-dollar online giving platforms become targets, it’s clear this is about drying up resources for political opposition.
Senator Murphy’s warning carries particular weight: “I still believe we can stop it,” he says. His prescription includes institutional solidarity, mass mobilization, and political courage. These steps aren’t just wishful thinking: history shows they work when deployed with determination.
The challenges are clear, but so is the path forward. Democrats and defenders of democracy must recognize this isn’t politics as usual. The systematic undermining of accountability mechanisms isn’t merely partisan: it’s anti-democratic in the most fundamental sense.
It’s the first stages of outright tyranny, the first American dictatorship.
If conventional resistance proves insufficient, Murphy suggests civil disobedience may become necessary. That’s not a suggestion to be taken lightly, especially from a sitting US senator.
The coming months will test America’s democratic resolve. The institutions being targeted aren’t merely political; they’re the scaffolding of self-governance itself. As Murphy warns, “We still have the power, but we probably have less time than most think.”
For those wondering where the line exists between alarmism and appropriate warning, consider this: When elected officials speak openly about fear of retaliation, when media owners preemptively capitulate, when universities face unprecedented political pressure, and when legal professionals must toe ideological lines, we’re no longer discussing hypotheticals.
The American experiment has faced threats before, but, outside of the Confederacy, rarely have they been so comprehensively designed or so methodically executed.
Recognition of this reality isn’t partisan, it’s patriotic. The future of American democracy depends on understanding what’s at stake and acting accordingly.
The assault on Harvard is just one chapter in a larger story — one where the villains aren’t hiding in shadows, but are operating in full view with chilling precision.
The question isn’t whether this is happening. It’s whether enough Americans will recognize the danger in time to stop it.

Hartman is correct. When the Nazis took over the reins of government, they went to the universities and made it clear the professors had to comply or lose their dreams. Within the bounds of Hitler’s philosophy, professors were free to explore. Van Braun could continue to fire off rockets. Other fascinations could be funded. But it all had to conform to the policy of the fascists. One professor described a meeting in a large room where individual professors questioned whether their research could continue. Slowly, he described how you could see the college come into line in order to feed the process. Some of those professors no doubt found themselves going to the gas chambers a few short years later.
Hartman’s suggestion that the Confederacy held a similar threat to the American experiment is interesting. The difference I see is that the Confederacy decided to break up the experiment when it became obvious that opposition to the oligarchal power of southern slaveholders would be a powerful opposition to the position that had given planter oligarchs the “Compromise” of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision. The Fugitive Slave Act, a part of that deal, so alarmed the freeholders of the new West (modern Ohio, Western New York and Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, and Iowa, that it blew up the Whig party and introduced the new Republican Party. With the election of Lincoln, the writing on the wall made the deep south depart. Today, I cannot see a scenario where states leave the union. This makes the analogy to historical Germany more appropriate.
It is interesting to contemplate that Germany as a central unitary government was about 60-80 years old when the rise of the Nazis occurred, almost the same age as the American Republic at the beginning of the Civil War.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you agree with JB Pritzker’s call for mass disruption?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting question. Mass disruption fueled the fight to defeat White Supremacy during the Civil Rights movement because the forces opposing the powerful leaders in the south were schooled in perfect behavior. Less disciplined attempts could not have succeeded.
that said, demonstrating unity can influence non-political members of society to get on the train, and those of us who are fearful of this present administration’s intent need all the help we can get.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s hard to say. When I think back to the civil rights era, the peaceful sit-ins got on the news, but many protesters were still victims of police abuse despite the calm resistance. The Vietnam protests were often led by young, more aggressive college students also made the news, but many of these protests resulted in both protesters and police getting injured. These protests didn’t seem to have an big impact on when we decided to abandon this lost cause IMO. The current organized rallies from Bernie and AOC are getting attention online and on left leaning media, but mainstream media seems reluctant to cover them. However, they are less likely to attract the attention of over zealous law enforcement so they are safer for participants.
LikeLike
good points
LikeLike
It was the violence – police abuse that was reported at the time as the protesters being violent – that ultimately forced the Civil Rights Act. It was embarrassing to be fighting in Vietnam allegedly for western values while our cops at home were beating up Black protesters, including children.
The Civil Rights protests were also very disruptive – closing down roads and businesses and boycotting to the point of near bankruptcy.
LikeLike
Dienne,
I know you like to put a cynical spin on everything, but in this instance, the passage of the Civil Rights Act was not simply a consequence of Congress being embarrassed by police violence against protestors. The act passed in 1964 because President Lyndon B. Johnson wanted it passed and he was a masterful legislator.
The violence inflicted on civil rights protestors was far greater after the passage of the Civil Rights Act–from 1965-1968–and the war in Vietnam was not as big an issue in 1964 as it was in the years that followed.
The events you describe as causes didn’t happen until after 1964.
LikeLike
Re “This is the open throttling of academic freedom, part of a larger, deliberate campaign to silence dissent, centralize power, and erase democratic norms.”
Nope. They don’t give a rat’s ass about academic freedom, or dissent, this is about kingmaking. The more times Trump can insert his will where it does not belong, the closer he comes to being the king he has always wanted to be. The Executive Orders he has written addressing the Smithsonian Institution, Harvard U., and Columbia U. are null and void because those institutions are not part of the the federal government’s Executive Branch. Trump cannot order them to mow their grass. But threatening to withdraw the funding that Congress authorized, and Trump was supposed to administer, not use to lord over people, Trump is exercising control over Congress. If Congress does not respond, Trump is stealing its power, and becoming more king-like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But this is not just a Trump thing. The entire Republican Party is complicit in the erosion of democratic norms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hear, hear!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When did the GOP transition to supporting Putin over democracy? The MAGA GOP, who are under the influence of a guy from Missouri named Ed Martin, are clearly pro-Russia. He is DC’s top federal prosecutor, who has appeared on Russian state media more than 150 times, and he repeats the same propaganda from Russian troll farms.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/07/gop-lawmaker-russian-propaganda-ukraine/73235559007/
LikeLike