Harm to Democratic Legal and Bureaucratic Norms under Biden:

• Politicization of the Justice Department: There have been criticisms that the Biden administration has not maintained the traditional independence of the Justice Department, with actions like commenting on ongoing investigations or the handling of classified documents in ways that could be perceived as politically motivated. This includes President Biden’s public statements regarding legal actions against his predecessor, Donald Trump, which could be seen as undermining the norm of prosecutorial independence.
• Use of Regulatory Power: The Biden administration has been accused of using regulatory measures to push through policy without sufficient congressional oversight, particularly through executive orders and regulatory changes that bypass traditional legislative processes. This is seen by some as an overreach of executive power, potentially weakening the checks and balances system.
• Erosion of Civil Liberties: Actions such as the reported surveillance of parents at school board meetings, labeling them as potential domestic terrorists, and the scrutiny of religious groups, like Catholic parishes, have raised concerns about civil liberties and the respect for free speech and assembly.
• Ethics and Transparency: The administration’s handling of the Hatch Act, where officials engaged in political activities, has been criticized for not fully adhering to established ethical norms regarding the separation of politics from government work.

Likely Consequences in a Second Trump Administration:

• Aggressive Counteraction: Given Trump’s history of challenging norms, a second term might see an even more aggressive approach to dismantle or alter what he perceives as overreaches by the previous administration. This could include significant changes to the Justice Department, potentially filling positions with loyalists to ensure alignment with his policies, regardless of traditional norms of independence.
• Further Erosion of Bureaucratic Norms: Trump might intensify efforts to deregulate or alter regulatory agencies in ways that align with his political agenda, possibly leading to a more direct executive control over bureaucratic functions that were traditionally more autonomous. This could manifest in how agencies like the EPA or the FDA operate.
• Retribution and Legal Actions: There’s speculation that Trump might seek to use legal mechanisms to prosecute or investigate those he views as having wronged him or his supporters, leveraging the very criticisms made against the Biden administration to justify such actions. This could further politicize the legal system, potentially leading to a cycle of legal warfare between political factions.
• Public Trust in Institutions: Continued or escalated actions against democratic norms might further erode public trust in government institutions, media, and the electoral process, potentially leading to increased polarization and skepticism of democratic processes. This could be exacerbated by Trump’s known criticisms of media as “fake news” and his questioning of election integrity.

Both administrations’ approaches to governance have the potential to reshape American democracy significantly, with each responding to or escalating the actions of the other, potentially leading to a more contentious political landscape where legal and bureaucratic norms are seen as tools in political battles rather than as impartial frameworks for governance.

When democratic norms are perceived as partisan weapons rather than as standard operating procedures, several significant consequences emerge for both the political system and the health of democracy itself:

1. Erosion of Trust in Democratic Institutions:

• Public Trust: When political parties use democratic norms selectively, it leads to public cynicism about the fairness and integrity of political institutions. People may start believing that elections, judicial decisions, or legislative actions are not impartial but rather tools of one party against another.
• Institutional Legitimacy: Institutions like the judiciary, electoral commissions, and even the legislative process can lose legitimacy when seen as biased, which undermines their ability to function effectively and fairly.

2. Increased Political Polarization:

• Affective Polarization: As norms are weaponized, the dislike and distrust between political parties intensify, leading to what is known as affective polarization. This emotional or identity-based polarization can make compromise and cooperation nearly impossible, further entrenching divisions.
• Partisan Hostility: The perception that one’s political opponents are not just policy adversaries but threats to democracy itself can lead to heightened levels of hostility and even justify, in some minds, undemocratic actions against the other side.

3. Decline in Democratic Norms:

• Selective Application: Parties might selectively uphold or violate democratic norms based on political advantage rather than principle, leading to a normalization of such behaviors. For instance, one party might support checks and balances when out of power but undermine them when in control.
• Normalization of Anti-Democratic Practices: When democratic norms are seen as weapons, actions like voter suppression, gerrymandering, or questioning election legitimacy become more normalized because they are framed as necessary defenses against the other party’s perceived undemocratic tactics.

4. Legitimization of Political Violence:

• Justification of Extremism: If democratic processes are viewed as corrupted by partisanship, some individuals might see political violence as an unfortunate but necessary response to “save democracy.” This can lead to increased threats against political figures, election officials, and even acts of violence.
• Moral Disengagement: The belief that one’s party is uniquely defending democracy can morally disengage supporters from the repercussions of their actions, leading to a rise in radical behavior.

5. Weakening of Democratic Accountability:

• Accountability Gaps: When norms are partisan tools, accountability for wrongdoing might be applied selectively. Politicians might feel emboldened to act without repercussions if they believe their party will shield them, further damaging public faith in democratic accountability.
• Voter Behavior: The electorate might become more tribal, voting based on party loyalty rather than on merit or policy, reducing the pressure on politicians to act democratically or responsibly.

6. Long-term Damage to Democratic Stability:

• Democratic Backsliding: Over time, the consistent undermining of democratic norms can lead to democratic backsliding where the country inches closer to authoritarianism, not through coups but through gradual erosion of democratic practices.
• Cycle of Retaliation: Each cycle of norm violation might provoke a stronger counteraction in the next administration or legislative term, creating a negative feedback loop of democratic degradation.

The consequences of viewing democratic norms as partisan weapons thus threaten the very foundations of democratic governance, impacting not only immediate political practices but also the long-term stability and integrity of democracy in the United States. This scenario necessitates a vigilant public discourse aimed at reinforcing democratic principles as non-partisan, integral components of governance.

Democratic backsliding in the United States over the next few years could potentially manifest in several observable ways, influenced by current trends and historical patterns:

1. Erosion of Civil Liberties:

• Freedom of Speech and Assembly: Increased restrictions or surveillance on protests, social media monitoring for political dissent, or laws that limit free expression under the guise of national security or public order.
• Media Freedom: Further attacks on press freedom, where media outlets critical of the government face legal threats, loss of licenses, or are undermined through political rhetoric labeling them as “enemies of the people.”

2. Manipulation of Electoral Processes:

• Voter Suppression: Laws or administrative changes that make voting more difficult, especially for certain demographic groups, such as stringent voter ID laws, reduction in polling places in minority communities, or changes in voting times.
• Gerrymandering: More aggressive partisan redistricting to ensure long-term political control, potentially solidified by court decisions or lack of judicial oversight.

3. Weakening Judicial Independence:

• Court Packing: Appointing judges based on loyalty rather than merit, or altering the balance of the judiciary to favor one political ideology.
• Disregard for Judicial Rulings: Ignoring or openly defying court orders that do not align with the executive’s or legislative majority’s agenda.

4. Centralization of Executive Power:

• Executive Overreach: Use of executive orders to bypass legislative processes, diminishing the role of Congress in policy-making.
• Weakening of Checks and Balances: Attempts to reduce the oversight roles of Congress or the judiciary, perhaps through changes in legal interpretations or defunding oversight bodies.

5. Decline in Political Pluralism:

• Suppression of Political Opposition: This could involve using legal mechanisms to target opposition leaders, banning or severely restricting opposition parties, or manipulating party funding rules to disadvantage certain groups.
• Polarization and Demonization: Increasing rhetoric that delegitimizes political opponents, potentially leading to a culture where political violence or threats become more normalized.

6. Undermining of Institutional Integrity:

• Bureaucratic Loyalty: Replacing civil servants with political appointees or loyalty tests for government positions, leading to a bureaucracy that serves the ruling party rather than the public interest.
• Corruption and Cronyism: Increased tolerance for corruption or conflicts of interest where political allies are favored in public contracts or regulatory decisions.

7. Manipulation of Information:

• Propaganda and Disinformation: State-backed or encouraged misinformation campaigns, especially around elections or policy issues, to sway public opinion.
• Control Over Information Channels: Influence over social media, news outlets, or the internet to control narrative or censor information.

Likely Scenarios:

• Incremental Changes: Backsliding might occur slowly through policies that seem benign or necessary (like national security measures) but cumulatively weaken democratic checks.
• Crisis Response: Major events like economic downturns, pandemics, or security threats could be used to justify emergency measures that later become permanent, reducing democratic freedoms.
• State-Level Backsliding: Given the federal structure, much of this could happen at the state level, where local governments enact policies that are anti-democratic, setting precedents or norms that might influence national policy.

The context of these actions would be crucial; democratic backsliding often leverages existing political, social, or economic crises to justify measures that would otherwise be unacceptable. The response of civil society, the media, and other branches of government in resisting or counteracting these trends would significantly influence the extent to which backsliding occurs or is mitigated.

Democratic backsliding in Europe, particularly in the context of the last decade or so, has been a significant concern across various countries, with some more pronounced examples in Central and Eastern Europe. Here are key aspects and manifestations of this phenomenon:

1. Judicial Independence:

• Hungary and Poland: Both countries have seen significant interference in judicial systems, with reforms that undermine judicial independence. In Hungary, the retirement age for judges was lowered to force many out, and a new system was created to control judicial appointments. Poland has similarly passed laws to influence judicial selections, effectively giving the government control over the judiciary.
• Example: The Polish government’s control over the judiciary led to conflicts with the European Union, with the EU taking unprecedented steps like triggering Article 7, which could potentially lead to sanctions for breaching EU values.

2. Media Freedom:

• Media Capture: Governments have increasingly taken control or influenced media outlets, either through state media or by creating economic dependencies for private media. This includes direct ownership, funding decisions, or the use of advertising tax to punish critical media.
• Hungary: The government under Viktor Orbán has been particularly noted for its control over media, with a large majority of media outlets owned by allies of the government or directly by the state.

3. Electoral Integrity:

• Electoral Manipulation: While elections remain a feature, the fairness and freedom of these elections have been questioned. This includes gerrymandering, changes to electoral rules to favor incumbents, and restrictions on opposition parties.
• Hungary: Changes to the electoral system have been criticized for benefiting the ruling Fidesz party, including the drawing of electoral districts, changes in campaign finance laws, and control over media during election periods.

4. Civil Society and Freedom of Assembly:

• Restrictions on NGOs: Governments have introduced laws to regulate or limit the activities of non-governmental organizations, often under the guise of transparency or combating foreign influence.
• Hungary: The “Stop Soros” laws aimed at NGOs, particularly those dealing with migration, were seen as attempts to stifle civil society. Similar trends have been observed in Poland with various regulations targeting NGOs.

5. Rule of Law:

• Corruption and Accountability: There’s been a noted decline in anti-corruption measures and accountability, with laws sometimes designed to protect ruling elites from legal scrutiny.
• Slovakia and Romania: Both have faced challenges with corruption at high levels, with varying degrees of government response that often seems to protect political allies.

6. Political Polarization and Populism:

• Rise of Populist Governments: Populist parties have capitalized on dissatisfaction with traditional politics, often using democratic backsliding to consolidate power.
• Poland and Hungary: Both have populist governments that have used nationalist, anti-EU rhetoric to undermine democratic norms under the pretext of defending national sovereignty or cultural identity.

7. EU Response and Impact:

• EU’s Limited Effectiveness: The European Union has attempted to address these issues through legal and financial mechanisms, but with mixed results due to the need for unanimity in some punitive measures and the complexity of enforcing democratic norms among sovereign member states.
• Conditionality Mechanism: The EU introduced a mechanism linking access to funds with adherence to the rule of law, but its effectiveness and application have been contentious.

Consequences and Trends:

• Eurodisappointment: As noted in posts on X, there’s a growing sentiment of “Eurodisappointment” where citizens are frustrated with the EU’s response to democratic backsliding, potentially impacting support for European integration.
• Potential for Reversal: In some cases, like Poland with a change in government, there are efforts to reverse backsliding, though the entrenched changes require significant undoing.

Democratic backsliding in Europe presents a complex challenge, not just for the countries directly affected but for the European Union’s overall commitment to its foundational values. The interplay between national sovereignty and EU oversight continues to define how these trends might evolve.