The Politics of Raw Power
“The Republican Party, animated by fantasies of crushing liberals and minorities once and for all, is fundamentally devoted to achieving one-party rule.”
On Wednesday a group of Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis pinned a man to the ground and, while he was immobilized, blasted pepper spray into his face at point-blank range. On Thursday the House of Representatives, with the necessary support of seven Democrats, passed a government spending bill that appropriated $10 billion to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Yesterday morning federal immigration agents in Minneapolis shot and killed a nurse named Alex Pretti.
Last February, as President Trump was going about dismantling nonmilitary federal agencies and strong-arming universities and law firms into compliance, I wrote to Joseph O’Neill to ask why Democrats had put up such weak opposition in the face of the administration’s actions. He called it “an unprecedented spectacle of democratic implosion.” In the year since our conversation, Trump and the Republican Party have embarked on a new stage of authoritarianism: an imperialistic foreign policy, extrajudicial murders on the high seas, and the mass deployment of Border Patrol and ICE agents into Democratic cities. This week I wrote to O’Neill to ask about the country’s continued slide into single-party rule, abetted again by a Democratic leadership that seems resolved to do nothing.
Daniel Drake: In our last conversation, about six weeks into Trump’s second term, back when DOGE was running rampant through Washington and the president was writing dozens of executive orders well outside of the executive’s authority, you said, “The end of the rule of law does not mean that we automatically find ourselves in an authoritarian society.” Now that ICE, essentially the executive branch’s personal militia, is disappearing people, killing peaceful protesters, and occupying a Democratic-leaning city, might we be in an authoritarian society? What defines an authoritarian society, and why is it important to recognize if we are in one?
Joseph O’Neill: It’s night in America. And the darkness is spreading quickly beyond our borders. All of the following happened last week: the US was on the brink of annexing Greenland; NATO essentially imploded; Canada and the European Union embraced China as a strategic trade partner; and the president, who gave a long, incoherent, and delusional speech at the Davos World Economic Forum that caused enormous concern about his sanity, announced the creation of a “Board of Peace” intended, it seems, to compete with the United Nations, and to be chaired by Trump personally. The US president apparently wants to rule the world.
On the domestic front, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security have been transformed into political security forces that serve the aims of the Republican Party. ICE is by design their most visible, most horrifying instrument. They are abducting children from the street. In Minneapolis they are now breaking into homes under a secret DHS authorization to ignore the law requiring a judicial warrant. Its masked agents, roving the streets and going from door to door in paramilitary apparel, are threatening, assaulting, detaining, and shooting civilians with impunity. Yesterday another peaceful protester in Minneapolis was attacked, assaulted, then shot dead in broad daylight.
Is this authoritarianism? Yes. But I don’t believe we are in an authoritarian society yet, because the suspension of the rule of law isn’t ubiquitous or embedded. We still have states with important measures of sovereignty and power. We still have honest and brave journalists. We still have upright judges and conscientious jurors. We still have—see Minneapolis—an undaunted citizenry. We still have functional elections, and we still have the ability to land big political blows. Indeed, the authoritarian frenzy we’re currently witnessing must be at least partly in response to the big Republican losses in the November elections and the political damage inflicted by the Epstein scandal.
As for the opposition party, last February you wrote that “Democrats have disgraced themselves. They’ve looked terrified and defeated and confused.” How much has the intervening year changed that assessment? How can the party mobilize the manifest political energy of, say, the “Mamdani coalition,” or, more importantly, the tens of thousands of people who have taken to the streets in Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, Charlotte, Memphis, and more to oppose ICE and the Trump agenda?
Let’s begin with a very important distinction. There are two kinds of politics going on. The first is technical politics—electoral politics centered on the economy, jobs, health care, immigration, crime, and “affordability.” On this front, the GOP is in trouble. Even as Trump retains the devotion of almost all Republicans, independents and demographic groups that were essential to his 2024 win—Latino voters, young voters—have swung hard away from the Republican Party. If the midterms proceed normally, Democrats can look forward to capturing the House and maybe even the Senate—an almost unthinkable prospect when you and I last met.
The second kind of politics is the politics of raw power. This is where things become difficult. The Republican Party, animated by fantasies of crushing liberals and minorities once and for all, is fundamentally devoted to achieving one-party rule. This is the intention of its base, its D.C. and state politicians, its Supreme Court judges, its propagandists and ideologists, and of course its would-be Supreme Leader. This intention can be seen everywhere from the evil fervor of certain administration apparatchiks to the decorous enablement by elder statesmen in Congress and on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts, for example, may not actively dream of a Republican dictatorship, but he has purposefully used his power to advance that scenario.
The leading Democrats in Washington wield raw power only if absolutely forced to by grassroots uproar. Last year’s shutdown is an example. The minority leaders, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, simply lack the temperament and strategic ability to counter Republican power moves with power moves of their own. Moreover, they appear to believe that doing the second kind of politics is bad for the first kind of politics. Jeffries this week refused to whip Democratic members to oppose funding ICE, with the result that, as part of the 2026 government funding bill (which now proceeds to the Senate, where it can only pass with ten Democratic votes), ICE was funded to the tune of $10 billion with the decisive support of seven Democrats. Schumer, for his part, continues to collaborate in “bipartisan” talks to fund the government even as the Republican administration has announced a “review” of federal funding for fourteen blue states. There is no guarantee that he will do everything in his power to stop funding ICE, even after yesterday’s apparent murder.
The Democratic willingness to fight is located in the states. When Republicans gerrymandered Texas last year, California Democrats responded in kind. When Illinois and Minnesota were invaded by ICE, the top Democratic officials—Governors Pritzker and Walz, Mayors Johnson (Chicago) and Frey (Minneapolis)—stood their ground. It seems to me that the mobilization you speak of is happening, and will continue to happen, in the states and cities. At the end of the day, there are only 22,000 ICE agents. There are tens of millions of Americans in the big cities.
What will it take to replace the Democratic Party leadership, or at least convince them that the scale of this crisis calls for more than proposals to add to ICE’s training budget?
In due course Schumer and Jeffries will face primaries and should be voted out of office. In the meantime, we have no option but to keep applying maximum pressure to ensure that they do not follow their deepest inclination, which is to pursue a kind of pro forma politics of liberal opposition while they collaborate with the Republicans. The likes of Senator Chris Van Hollen should warn Schumer that, if he does not whip against funding ICE, they will leave the Democratic caucus and identify as independents.
Is the political exercise of raw power (for the average citizen) limited to street mobilizations, which are intended in part to protect vulnerable people in an ad hoc way—to make ICE’s work difficult or impossible—rather than to force the government to start following the Constitution?
The average citizen has a very important function in the accumulation of technical power, i.e., winning elections. This entails organizing and donating and speaking out in the usual way. It also involves, because these are extraordinary times, connecting the politics of protest to the politics of elections. It’s crucial that we acknowledge how effective ordinary people have already been in making this happen. If we are demoralized by the national Democratic Party—a discouragement reflected in its extraordinarily low approval ratings—we should be more encouraged by the courage and resilience of the grassroots. The ActBlue coalition smashed the 2025 November elections and has helped lead the way in the resistance to ICE. Two of our people have been shot dead while protesting ICE’s antidemocratic actions. They are martyrs, heroes of American democracy, and should be venerated as such.
Do you think “Abolish ICE” is a winning political slogan, in addition to being a moral imperative?
I think it’s almost certain that ICE will be scrapped or drastically reshaped once Democrats are in power. Its record will be so horrifying that there won’t be another option. To say “abolish ICE” is therefore to push at a door that will open of its own accord. Nonetheless it is a useful slogan to the extent that it animates the base, especially younger voters, whose enthusiasm is crucial to Democratic hopes. “Abolish ICE” should not be a demand people have to make of the Democratic party. It should be a promise about what will happen.
All that said, my own view is that the efficacy of “issue” messages is transitory, like memes. Even then their efficacy is highly reliant on the credibility of the messenger. Thus “affordability” is a great and substantive theme, but it’s only truly effective if the messenger is authentically committed to the issue. Kamala Harris’s campaign began to falter when she tried to sell herself as a pocketbook candidate. People didn’t buy it. Most effective of all is a message that amplifies a partisan story. That’s another topic.
Given the darkness you described at the start of our conversation, what do you think is likely to happen next? What should people be preparing themselves for?
We’re only one year into the Republican administration. Trump and his party have three more years to do their worst. To my mind, this makes a seizure of Greenland, for example, likely. One can reasonably foresee the cancellation or corruption of elections, the prosecution of political opponents, the imposition of martial law or a state of emergency against a backdrop, perhaps, of summer riots provoked by ICE. Brazen noncompliance with judicial orders is bound to continue, as will power moves (against universities, corporations, professions, government agencies, vulnerable groups, etc.) designed to weaken and demoralize liberal institutions and shroud the administration in an aura of invincibility.
There will be unpredictable moves, too. Republicans may not know how to govern, but they have a real talent for imaginative destruction—attempting to undo the Canadian federation, say. I don’t subscribe to the theory of “TACO”—Trump Always Chickens Out. That meme is Democratic projection. In extremis, Republicans do not give up power of their own accord. Technical politics will be necessary but probably insufficient. The GOP’s attempted coup in January 2021 demonstrated this.
What it boils down to is that, in addition to technical politics, we have to prepare for a showdown—a decisive, probably drawn-out power struggle involving politicians, judges, media, and mass mobilization of the citizenry. That’s the size and nature of the challenge. I believe we’re up for it. We have to be.
If you like our Substack, consider subscribing to our magazine by visiting nybooks.com/substack for a special discount on a full subscription.
“The Republican Party, animated by fantasies of crushing liberals and minorities once and for all, is fundamentally devoted to achieving one-party rule. This is the intention of its base, its D.C. and state politicians, its Supreme Court judges, its propagandists and ideologists, and of course its would-be Supreme Leader.”
Wonderful piece