This piece argues that today’s Democratic Party behaves in ways that threaten constitutional order, traces historical parallels to authoritarian movements, highlights recent electoral choices that underscore the problem, and urges a sharper, unapologetic conservative response including electoral reforms and strategic defunding of institutions tilting left.
Once, comparing mainstream American parties to European totalitarians would have sounded absurd, but the comparison has gained traction because of behavior we see from Democratic leaders and activists. Violent rhetoric, public celebrations of disruption, and a tolerance for political intimidation are hard to reconcile with peaceful pluralism. The concern isn’t mere disagreement over policy — it’s about how power is pursued and secured.
In Virginia voters elevated Jay “Two Bullets” Jones to statewide office despite his history of incendiary remarks and a thin resume. That outcome tells you something about thresholds for acceptable behavior within the party that backed him. When partisan loyalty outweighs basic standards for public service, institutions erode and distrust grows.
As a European historian whose own family fled the Nazis, I recognize the pattern. The difference today is that Democrats enjoy advantages the German totalitarians never had. Those advantages — cultural influence, control of major institutions, and mass media reach — let them normalize tactics that would once have been taboo.
The parallels are not literal equivalence. This is not to equate modern America with the tragedies of mid-20th-century Europe. What matters are tactics: delegitimizing rivals, weaponizing bureaucracy, and reshaping public life so dissent becomes costly. When civic space is narrowed, argument gives way to coercion, and that is the real danger.
One reason the right is in a weaker position is its own timidity. Too many conservative leaders chased the fantasy of polite compromise while the other side rebuilt power centers inside education, entertainment, and the administrative state. Media outlets that once billed themselves as neutral often counseled restraint instead of resistance, and that left conservative institutions exposed.
A serious conservative movement must stop treating the Democrats as fellow travelers in good faith and recognize them as an organized threat to pluralism. That means pressing practical reforms: secure, supervised Election Day voting in designated polling places, and federal standards for voter identification to restore confidence. These are common-sense safeguards, not partisan ploys.
At the same time, conservatives should undermine the institutional advantages that let activist governance flourish. Shrinking the administrative state, cutting targeted federal funding to jurisdictions that weaponize aid for political ends, and refusing to subsidize cultural institutions that openly reject American norms are all defensive steps. Political power flows from resources; starve the machine and it weakens.
Electoral mechanics also matter. Before opponents move to eliminate procedural checks, the GOP should stop playing by rules that require mutual restraint. Forget performative civility; act decisively to preserve the republic’s checks and balances. The goal is not revenge, it is to restore a functioning system where laws matter and offices are not instruments of partisan domination.
The choice for conservatives is stark: accept a slow, managed decline driven by institutions that now prioritize ideology over civic stability, or fight to reestablish norms that protect free debate. The stakes are institutional survival, not mere policy wins, and the response must be clear-eyed, strategic, and uncompromising about preserving the rule of law. 
