April 27, 2025 • 58 mins
America stands at a democratic crossroads, facing threats not from invasion or coup, but from methodical dismantling from within. This is the reality: federal agencies are gutted, political opponents are targeted, judges are being arrested for not advancing Trump's agenda, and courts are delegitimized with alarming speed.
Dr. Laura Gamboa, democracy expert from Notre Dame University, and author of the book Resisting Backsliding: Opposition Strategies against the Erosion of Democracy, joins the pod and brings critical insight from her studies of democratic backsliding across Latin America. What makes our current crisis particularly insidious is how democratic institutions themselves become weapons against democracy. Unlike military coups, this erosion happens gradually enough that many citizens fail to recognize the danger until it's too late.
The courts represent our most significant remaining bulwark, but they cannot stand alone. Gamboa explains how Colombia's constitutional court successfully blocked President Uribe's authoritarian ambitions – but only because they received visible public support and political allies in Congress. When judges feel abandoned, as happened in Venezuela, they become reluctant to oppose even clearly unconstitutional power grabs.
For resistance to succeed, several strategies prove essential: protests need focused goals rather than diffuse expressions of discontent; democracy defenders must build coalitions beyond partisan lines; and Americans should learn from countries that have successfully resisted democratic erosion rather than reinventing strategies. Dr. Gamboa outlines some innovative tactics beyond traditional demonstrations that we need to start considering, particularly focused on protecting electoral integrity.
The window for action is narrowing daily. Once courts are fully co-opted and election administration compromised, reversing democratic decline becomes exponentially harder.
-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Bluesky
YouTube
Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com
Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Dr. Gamboa (00:00):
In Colombia, what Álvaro Uribe did was to
literally make them the targetof right-wing militias, like
kind of suggesting that theywere somehow helpers of the
left-wing guerrilla, and so Ithink there are various ways in
which this could happen.
I don't think it has happenedyet.
(00:22):
I think we're seeing a lot ofjustices incredibly brave
justices fighting back, and Ithink they need protection now,
once the judiciary is co-opted,then, I don't know, there would
be a like.
I think we wouldn't have aconversation.
Whether this has caused aRubicon or not, I think it would
(00:43):
be very clear it has.
Shawn (00:53):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
America is not immune.
For decades, we have believedthat democratic erosion was
something that happenedelsewhere, in fragile states, in
young democracies, in placesthat hadn't yet matured
politically.
But we were wrong.
Today, the United States isfacing a very real threat a
(01:16):
democratic crisis not born ofrevolution or war, but of
deliberate dismantling fromwithin.
We are now several months intoDonald Trump's second presidency
, a presidency that began withvows to punish political enemies
, rewrite the rules ofgovernance and remove what he
calls vermin from American life.
The Justice Department has beenrepurposed to target
(01:39):
journalists and critics, federalagencies have been gutted and
staffed with loyalists, allieshave been alienated and the US
is now cozying up to one of themost aggressive and
anti-democratic leaders in theworld, vladimir Putin.
Investments in soft power havebeen canceled, the rhetoric has
turned darker, moreauthoritarian, and federal and
(02:00):
state-level Republican lawmakersare introducing laws that limit
voting rights, restrictacademic freedom and give
partisan actors unprecedentedcontrol over every aspect of our
lives.
This isn't hypothetical.
It's happening now, and thequestion is no longer, if
American democracy is in trouble, it's how bad it gets and what
(02:22):
can still be done, if anythingcan still be done to save it, to
help us understand thisdangerous moment and what we
might learn from countries thathave been down this road before.
My guest today is Dr LauraGamboa.
She's a professor of democracyand global affairs at the
University of Notre Dame andauthor of the book Resisting
Backsliding OppositionStrategies Against the Erosion
(02:45):
of Democracy.
Her work focuses on howdemocracies erode and, more
importantly, how oppositionmovements can resist that
erosion In a very real sense.
Dr Gamboa offers something weare in desperate need of right
now not just a diagnosis, but apath forward to save democracy
and, if it's already gone, maybesome ideas for how to regain it
(03:08):
.
We recorded this episode whenmy seasonal allergies were
really kicking my ass, and youcan kind of hear it in my voice.
So if you're wondering why, Imight sound a little off, well,
that's why.
All right, if you like thisepisode, or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
(03:29):
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deep dive with Shawn at
gmailcom.
Let's do a deep dive, dr Gamboa.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Dr. Gamboa (03:50):
Thank you so much, Shawn, for inviting me.
I'm good.
Shawn (03:57):
Good, good.
So since Donald Trump's firstpresidency, we've been talking
seriously about democraticbacksliding in the United States
, and it's really difficult toquantify or objectively identify
the moment, if or whendemocracy has failed.
And it's really difficult toquantify or objectively identify
the moment if or when democracyhas failed.
And for many people in theUnited States, january 6th was
the moment.
For others it was when theRepublican Party refused to
impeach you know, which was asign that perhaps the Republican
(04:18):
Party wasn't in a place inwhich they were willing to, you
know, hold Trump accountable.
And then for others, it waswhen Trump said he'd be a
dictator, at least for day one,or when he deported people
legally in the United Stateswithout any due process.
And then for others, it was ifor when Trump openly defies the
courts.
But then the goalposts shiftedover time and it's become if he
(04:39):
defies the Supreme Court, andwhat it feels like is that we're
all just trying to hold on tosomething that might be a
fiction, which is that ourdemocracy can withstand all that
Trump and Trumpism is throwingat it, and I tend to feel like
the fact that we are where weare suggests that democracy in
the United States is vulnerable,and it has been so weakened
(04:59):
that we're already maybe pastthe Rubicon that even if there
is some check that kicks inwhether it's public opinion or
some belated pushback fromwithin the Republican Party or
whatever the fact that we gotwhere we are, that we blew past
so many checks and balances tome that signals that we're in
trouble.
So, given that this issomething you've studied and
you've written about, I guess myfirst question to you is how
(05:21):
bad is it?
Dr. Gamboa (05:24):
I think it's pretty bad.
So I'll tell you what I tell mystudents.
I think the definition ofdemocracy what is and what is
not is kind of the dark hole ofpolitical science, because it's
such a broad concept that somepeople think about it and many
people think about itdifferently.
But the way I think about it isI think about democracy as a
(05:45):
regime in which there are freeand fair elections, and in order
to have free and fair elections, you need to have other things
like freedom of the press,impartial referees.
The opposition needs to be ableto campaign, they need
resources, they need access tomedia outlets, you need to have
independent courts so thatpeople are not, you know, sent
(06:07):
in jail for saying the wrongthing and opponents are not
persecuted but using the stateapparatus and all sorts of
things that I think areessential to be able to have a
government for the people, bythe people.
I think in general, thedemocracy in the United States
has been eroding for a while now.
(06:29):
I think definitely at thenational level, I mean since
since January 20.
But I actually thinksubnationally, there has been
incredibly concerning situationsin states where were literally
elections are manipulated in away that the majority of the
(06:54):
people does not get their willright, and so I think I think,
subnationally, if before January20, if you lived in Vermont,
democracy was awesome, but ifyou lived in Texas or Georgia,
it was less so Right.
So I think, in general in theUnited States, this is this is
(07:14):
kind of acceleration of that atspeeds that I don't think I've
seen before.
So what we have seen is theexecutive taking over other
branches of government and usingthem to persecute opponents.
(07:40):
Send them to El Salvador,opponents.
Sent them to salvador.
They have been uh trying to toundermine law firms that could
potentially help these opponents.
Um, they are undermining thecourts, not only by uh ignoring
their decisions, but also byusing a language that
(08:00):
delegitimizes them.
Literally, in thisadministration, if you're a
friend of the, of the, you getpardoned.
If you did your job and followthe law, you are persecuted.
The way universities are beingpenalized using tax law, using
federal resources, I think thisis unprecedented.
(08:25):
I think it's unprecedented notonly in the US, I think it's
unprecedented in the world and Ithink it's incredibly,
incredibly concerning.
So much that one of my concernsis that when people tell me
well, we'll have to wait untilthe midterms, and my main
concern is I don't know that themidterms are going to be free
(08:48):
and fair enough that theopposition will have a decent
chance to succeed.
Shawn (09:04):
I guess I want to follow one of the thoughts here that's
embedded in your response, whichis this attack on universities,
and it's also on the media,it's also on law firms, but I
think one of the things that'sstarting to come into focus as a
result of it that I think isreally alarming and perhaps is
not getting enough attention forthe damage that it's doing, is
this attack on universities, inthe sense that even if
(09:25):
eventually, the courts were tosomehow put a stop to this and
Trump were to acquiesce to acourt decision, people are
leaving.
People in the academic world,researchers and scientists are
talking about exoduses andpurges, and I read some story
about how 40 academics in thelast month or so have already
(09:46):
accepted positions in France,and the reason I'm bringing this
up is because this is its ownform of self-deportation and
these are people that areactually contributing to
American excellence and I don'tthink we get that back
post-Trump, you know.
Dr. Gamboa (10:02):
I think you're right .
I think we won't get the thesepeople back, like one of the one
of the most standard outcomesof most dictatorships is a brain
drain, right?
Well, we saw it across LatinAmerica, with Argentinians and
Chileans and Brazilians andUruguayans leaving their
(10:25):
countries to establishthemselves in other places,
particularly if they were sortof upper middle class academics,
because it's not only that theywant to leave, is that they
have the resources to do so,right?
I think, however, that what Isee at universities that I think
is even more serious is somesort of self-censorship.
(10:49):
So, uh, one of the things thatyou start seeing is universities
canceling certain events, oracademics like me not that I
have censored myself, butacademics like me who study
things like democracy or, youknow, like Palestine or Israel,
(11:10):
just not talking about it inpublic.
Right, they put their hands inthe sand, they do their projects
, they publish in their journals, and, as much as I enjoy the
political science journals,these are journals that are not
widely read journals.
These are journals that are notwidely read, and so, to a
certain extent, I think theother thing that I think is more
concerning and in the interestof the government is for a lot
of academics who would have beenotherwise very vocal, to just
(11:33):
quiet out because they'rethreatening their future.
Right, like I can tell you, weall work really hard to get into
these jobs and the governmentis threatening our future.
Shawn (11:44):
The other thing that I wanted to talk about is the
opposition party, because a lotof folks will argue that a
healthy democracy needs anopposition party, a strong
opposition party, and they pointto the United States as being a
country that has a history ofstrong opposition parties and so
that, to them, is a lifeline,it's an object of hope.
But at the same time and Idon't know how much this extends
(12:26):
beyond just the Democratic base, but there's a lot of
hand-wring definitely seemed tobe more of a strong opposition
party in elections that theylost by wider margins, right.
So that's a little demoralizingto some people to see the
Democratic Party now.
But you study oppositionparties and you study how they
can resist or enable democraticerosion.
So what do you think is goingon with the Democratic Party and
how effective are they rightnow?
Dr. Gamboa (12:46):
I think the Democratic Party is facing a
couple of problems.
I think problem number one isvery unique to the United States
and is the fact that, unlikewhat has happened in Hungary, in
Venezuela, in Colombia,argentina, el Salvador, the
United States does not recognizethis phenomenon.
(13:07):
It's hard to identify what ishappening because, at least to a
certain level, it has neverhappened before.
I would contest that in thesense that I think this country
really didn't democratize untilthe Voting Civil Rights Act, but
that's a different story.
Until the Voting Civil RightsAct, but that's a different
(13:28):
story.
In general, my sense is thatpart of the response has been
the result of at least thefaction of the Democratic Party
believing that this is businessas usual, that what they need to
do is leverage sort of thechaos that the administration is
going to be and kind of gear upfor the midterms.
(13:50):
Of course, what I would say tothat is well, we don't know if
there's going to like if, whenit's springing to action, there
might not be midterms.
The second thing that I thinkhappens and I think this is
actually more common, it hashappened, I've seen it happening
in other countries is actuallyso sort of recently, uh, with
(14:12):
the news about newsomecriticizing uh one holland's
trip to el salvador.
One of the things that I see,there is a clash between sort of
your individual ambition toprotect your brand and to appeal
to a group of voters that youwant to appeal because you want
(14:36):
to run for president, or to bemore generous, because you think
that that's kind of the winningmessage for the democratic
party more broadly, and and sortof the, the need to, to, to
just launch yourself in defenseof, of democracy and make
(14:58):
democracy popular again, and andand I've seen these in
Venezuela, which is one of thecountries I study the most what
you observe, what I haveobserved throughout the last 25
years, is opposition leadersself-sabotaging a fairly decent
efforts to democratize Venezuelaat various points in time,
(15:21):
because they don't want todamage their brand for what they
hope is going to be a futurepresidential election right.
They don't want to be unpopular, they don't want to negotiate
with the government, they don'twant to uh, you know like.
They don't want to run with thewrong message because they are
afraid that that might hampertheir ability to run for for
(15:41):
president when the transition todemocracy happens.
Of course, what ends uphappening is because there isn't
a collective effort or is veryrare.
There is no transition todemocracy, ergo there is no
presidential campaign.
So I think that that'shappening too.
And then the third thing that Ithink is happening, I think has
to do with a longer problem inthe Democratic Party I think
(16:04):
it's also true for theRepublican Party which is a lack
of party structure.
So if this was Latin America, Iwould be talking about party
system deinstitutionalization,but I don't think that's really
what we're observing here.
What we're seeing here is theDemocratic Party relying a lot
on what others have calledsatellite organizations in order
(16:30):
to mobilize people.
So they rely on groups.
Just to give you a coupleexamples like you know, lgbtq
plus groups or, you know, likeAfrican-American groups, and in
order to be able to get thosegroups to mobilize voters, they
need to give all of these groupssomething.
And so I think, in the long term, that has turned sort of
(16:51):
democratic politicians inparticular, very afraid of
saying the wrong thing andantagonizing the wrong group.
Well, I think it turns out thatparties, one of the roles that
parties have to fulfill, isprioritizing some of these
things.
It's not that politicianscannot agree with all of these
things, it's that they cannotsay yes to everybody at the same
(17:13):
time, right.
And so I think right now lessso now than two months ago the
Democratic Party was likeparalyzed, like if you're afraid
that anybody's going to yell atyou if you say something.
Well, you just don't sayanything.
Right, and so I think that thatis a problem, because right now
, what needs to happen is weneed to see movement.
(17:35):
We need to see Van Hollen goingto El Salvador.
We need to see Cory Bookerdoing the filibuster.
We need, we need to see some,some, some movement doing the
filibuster.
Shawn (17:47):
We need to see some movement.
I'm glad that you bring this up,because I do think that we, the
general populace, perhaps givestoo much credit to politicians
to be understanding the momentthey're living through and to be
strong enough to confront thatmoment.
I think Newsom's a great examplehere with what he's been doing
lately is that it seems like alot of these politicians that
are potential leaders in theparty and clearly have
(18:09):
aspirational goals to higheroffice seem to be trying to
thread a needle right now needs,and so I would argue that that
is some type of democraticresistance right or action taken
to save democracy.
And what I feel like ishappening is either one of two
(18:32):
things or both.
One is that they don't see themoment that's right in front of
them, or two, as I think youtalked about, their aspirations
and their goals supersede insome narcissistic way the moment
that we're living through, andI guess I feel, like you know,
nobody gets to really choose themoment that they're living
through, and we would all loveto live through a moment that's
(18:54):
very peaceful and everybody cansucceed and we can all make a
lot of money and die happy right, but unfortunately that's not
the moment that's been handed tous and I feel like what's
happening is that a lot of thepeople that could be leaders in
the Democratic Party are placingtheir own futures in front of
an existential moment.
Dr. Gamboa (19:12):
I think that's right .
I think all of these groupscoexist right.
Like the ones that put theirown personal future or
aspirations in front of theexistential moment, I think
there is the ones that trulybelieve that this is just
business as usual because theydon't know anything else.
I was telling somebody elsetoday that I think for me, as a
(19:37):
Latin American, seeing images ofsomebody being put in a van by
officers with masks and withoutidentification is just such a
trigger.
It's such a trigger.
I give that image to mostpeople, at least my age or my
(20:00):
parents' age, and they will tellyou right away that's a
disappearance.
Like we have the language andwe have the because, because we
have lived it, and we have acollective memory of this.
I was taught these things inschool.
My parents, friends and and andand sort of colleagues were,
(20:20):
were, some of them were peoplewho were victims of these
regimes.
Like you know, there is acollective memory of these that
I don't think exist in the US,even though, again, I think
African-Americans in the 30s,40s, 50s were living sort of
through an incredibly repressivetime, but we don't talk about
(20:43):
it in this way in this country.
So I think that that is true, Ialso think, and so I'm going to
be a little bit generous herewith politicians.
It is tough, right, and I thinkit's tough because, of course,
one of the main characteristicsof democratic backsliding, the
(21:06):
way we live it today, is thatthese leaders use the levers of
democracy to undermine democracy.
Right, they argue that theywant the majority, they claim
that they have a mandate, theymobilize people, they use the
levers of democracy to underminedemocracy, and so that creates
(21:29):
a very weak signal.
If Donald Trump had launched acoup with military officers,
that would be a very clearsignal and you wouldn't have a
question.
You would say well, yeah, thisis a rupture of democracy,
period, end of the story.
But because this is done withthe levers of democracy, it's
just very uncertain, and so Imean, to a certain extent and
(21:51):
again to be a little empatheticwith what leaders are living
through right now is hard totell.
What I will say, however, isthat so, not doing anything is
definitely not an option.
Shawn (22:06):
It's definitely not an option, and as a person who
studies these, and as a personthat comes from a region with a
collective memory that we have,I can say this is not business
as usual this is probably trueof the Republican Party,
(22:26):
although they're just in adifferent space right now, but
the Democratic Party is reallytrying to hold together a very
big tent with the diverseviewpoints, often viewpoints
that don't converge with eachother, but I do wonder if the
one thing that transcends that,the one thing that could bring
all disparate groups together,is this idea that this is a
moment in which democracy isunder attack.
American democracy is underattack and needs to be saved,
(22:48):
and I feel like that's a goodleading message that the
Democratic Party could lean into.
That transcends all of theseother issues in the moment,
right Like, it's simply a matterof making the case that all of
this other stuff is important,but it needs to be put aside in
this moment, right now.
Dr. Gamboa (23:06):
I think that that is partially true.
So I have a colleague hereunder the name that studies sort
of voting behavior incompetitive authoritarian
regimes, and what he would tellyou is democracy does not
mobilize voters.
Voters mobilize for specificissues.
What I will say to that,however, is that I think A
(23:29):
they're not exclusive.
It's not like you cannotmobilize for a particular issue
and mobilize for democracy atthe same time.
But I also think politiciansshould not react to public
opinion, they should lead publicopinion.
I think there is a way toconnect democracy to the things
that people enjoy and to thethings that people value on
(23:56):
their more sort of day-to-daylife, and I think it's upon
civil society leaders,politicians, to make those
connections for people.
So, instead of talking aboutdemocracies under threat, one
way to talk about it is thecourts.
Here I'm kind of entering aspace in which I am not an
(24:20):
Americanist.
I study Latin America, right,so I can think about ways in
which this could happen in LatinAmerica.
But again, Latin America isdifferent because we have a
collective memory ofdictatorship and so for us,
democracy or the absence ofdemocracy, to put it that way
has a whole different meaning.
Right, If I were to say againsomebody in my generation, my
(24:43):
parents' generation, what doesdictatorship look like?
They have a very clear image ofwhat it looks like.
That does not have to go allthe way back to Nazi Germany.
Shawn (24:52):
One of the things that we talked about earlier and I want
to circle back to is theacquiescence, so the pressure
that the Trump administration isputting on independent agencies
and organizations andinstitutions like universities,
the media, law firms,administrative agencies.
We talked a little bit abouthow they're being pressured into
some type of acquiescence, butthere is another side to this
(25:15):
coin, which is not only thatthese institutions acquiesce,
but that they can then also beweaponized against democracy,
which is something that you'vewritten about.
What does that look like?
Or how could the moment thatwe're living through right now
then transition into some typeof a weaponization?
And are there otherinstitutions that you're keeping
an eye on?
Dr. Gamboa (25:35):
So, right this second, I'm keeping an eye on
the courts.
I think the courts are wherethe battle is being fought right
now and, more concerningly,keeping an eye on sort of
electoral management bodies.
So the way democraticbacksliding works is the farther
(25:58):
you go, the harder it is forthe opposition broadly conceived
to stop democratic backslidingor transition back to democracy,
because, of course, the moreresources that the government
has, the less resources theopposition has.
(26:19):
So right now, I think thegovernment has a stronghold of
the executive and has been ableto empty out the state, and it's
actually very similar toGuatemala.
People think about Nazi Germany.
I think Guatemala, because whatsort of the corrupt elite
(26:43):
coalition in Guatemala did atleast since 2016, was take over
the oversight agencies,including the general attorney's
office, take over the courtsand then leverage those two to
provide impunity and protectcorruption for their entire
(27:04):
coalition in a way that thecoalition was happy, happy, just
moving the levers to stay inpower.
So I think, to an extent,that's what is happening here.
Like you, you empty the state,you take away the state's
ability to provide oversight, topunish corruption, to, to, to
(27:25):
avoiding puny and, and in doingso, you keep your authoritarian
coalition happy and supportingyou, and of course this is a
double-edged sword, becausedouble-edged sword is not the
right way to say, but it's adouble weapon because on the one
hand, I mean, you keep themhappy because you keep them free
and you keep their businessesgoing and stuff like that, but
(27:49):
at the same time there is thethreat that if they step out of
line then you're going to usethe law against them.
So I think right now theexecutive has a hold over the
judiciary, but I do think ifpoliticians and civil society
don't step up to protect thejustices that are fighting
(28:12):
against the administration,eventually that's going to
happen, either because thejustices decide this is not
worth the fight and so theyretire or they acquiesce or so
on, or something like that, oror even something more drastic
right Like they get removed orharassed, or who knows right In
(28:32):
Bolivia, they lower theirsalaries.
So at some point it was justnot possible to keep living with
the salary of a justice.
In Colombia, what Alvaro Uribedid was to literally make them
the target of right-wingmilitias, like kind of
suggesting that they weresomehow helpers of the left-wing
(28:56):
guerrilla, and so I think thereare various ways in which this
could happen.
I don't think it has happenedyet.
I think we're seeing a lot ofjustices incredibly brave
justices fighting back and Ithink they need protection Now.
Once the judiciary is co-opted,then I don't know there would
(29:16):
be like I think we wouldn't havea conversation, whether this
has passed the Rubicon or not.
I think it would be very clearit has.
Now, the only institution thatI'm very concerned is the
elections, because of course,one of the good opportunities to
fight back will be the Novemberelections.
But electoral management bodiesin this country are very
(29:41):
diverse.
They're very localized and inmany ways, are very ad hoc.
In Latin America we have theseelectoral management bodies that
are very well structured.
Everything that they can do orthey cannot do, or who can
participate, is written into lawvery strictly, very
specifically.
Here there's more flexibilityand I do worry a lot that the
(30:04):
government is going to targetspecific electoral management
bodies in a way that couldpotentially hinder Democrats'
ability, or independent or sortof pro-democracy Republicans'
ability to win elections inNovember.
Shawn (30:19):
I think there are.
I mean, I agree with you thatelections matter.
I just don't know that I thinkyou kind of alluded to this that
we're going to have them again.
But the other two kind ofbackstops we have are, as you
mentioned, the people themselves.
So I guess this would almost belike protest, although I have
concerns there because, as youalso mentioned, Americans don't
(30:40):
have a memory of strong protest,right, we're very orderly
people when it comes to regimechange.
We just go stand in lines andwe cast a ballot and we assume
everything's going to be fine.
So there's not an institutionalmemory there.
But then the other is the courts, and while I am heartened by
some stuff coming out of thecourts, I think Trump has made
very clear that even if thecourts were to all push back
(31:03):
against him, they have noenforcement power, right, and I
don't know that he's taken, thathe's crossed that Rubicon yet,
but I don't doubt that he wouldbe willing to do that.
So the question that's embeddedin all of this is you know,
maybe we can draw on some ofyour knowledge and your research
related to Latin America.
Where are some places that yousaw the courts play an actual
(31:25):
active, successful role ingirding democracy, and where do
you think that the courts havefailed?
Dr. Gamboa (31:34):
um.
So the the best example forcourts protecting democracy is
colombia.
Colombia has a very strongconstitutional court, is also a
very legitimate court.
People really like theconstitutional court and at the
end of the day, with the help ofopposition in Congress, the
(31:58):
court ended up being thebackstop for Alvaro Uribe's
attempts to erode democracy,including his attempt to get
reelected for a third time, andit was a court that shut him
down at the end of the day.
In my book I emphasize and Imake an entire argument
(32:19):
explaining how the court byitself couldn't have done it,
that it needed legal resourcesthat were eventually provided by
people in Congress, as well assort of visible shows of support
from the streets in Colombiathat of people who supported
(32:46):
Uribe himself but did notsupport his attempt to reform
the constitution, to stay inpower for a third time, and
people who did not support Uribe.
And they organized and theywent and stood in front of the
constitutional court withcandles to illuminate the court
to make the right decision.
Right and, based on myinterviews, justices really took
(33:10):
that at heart.
They knew that this was a showof support and if they ruled
against a very popular presidentlike Alvaro Uribe, sort of
people were going to have theirback.
I think another example wherecourts have been incredibly
successful is Brazil, where thecourts were able to again this
(33:31):
was with the help of politiciansin Congress and in other sort
of federal positions.
They were able to curtail someof Bolsonaro's attempts to erode
democracy democracy and afterhe was out of power, they were
very active in prosecuting hiscrimes, so much that he was not
(33:52):
able to run for office in 2022.
Now there's a couple ofsituations I guess the best
example of this would beVenezuela where the courts were
unable to stop the erosion ofdemocracy, and I think this
plays in two times.
I think the first point inwhich the courts could have been
(34:13):
able to at least slow down HugoChavez was early on when he
tried, when he launched his callfor a constitutional assembly,
and there's a lot of likedetails to these, but the the
nut of the sort of the heart ofthe story is chavez creates a
(34:34):
decree that calls for aconstitutional assembly and
hands out the rules to elect thedelegates, which, of course,
benefited the courts, which, atthe time, were, uh, not
necessarily as legitimate, notdid not get as much support from
the people.
People were not that impressedwith them decide that this
(34:58):
decree is unconstitutional, butthey're not going to stop it.
And they're not going to stopit because they're not going to
rule against this very popularpresident, because they don't
feel supported by the people.
That is kind of your first part.
Then of course, there's aconstitutional assembly and
Chavez is originally able to putenough people inside the court.
That makes ruling in favor ofthe opposition not impossible.
(35:21):
They actually did it, but very,very, very hard.
And then of course theopposition.
The courts are kind of split itin half.
Half of them were kind ofpro-government, the other half
were kind of pro-opposition, toput it that way.
And then the opposition decidesto boycott congressional
elections.
(35:41):
Chavez gets 100% NationalAssembly and with that 100%
control over the NationalAssembly he's able to fully
co-opt the courts.
This is to say that I think thecourts were unable to stop
Chavez.
I think they were at adisadvantage.
But I also think that had theopposition supported them in
(36:02):
that initial moment andparticipated in the
congressional elections, itwould have been harder for
Chavez to rule democracy.
He might have been able to doit anyway, but it would have
been significantly harder, whichin turn would have opened other
windows of opportunity for theopposition.
Shawn (36:22):
So we've talked a little bit about protest or the power
that the people have, and so Iwant to spend a little bit of
time on it, because we arestarting to see the last couple
of weekends there have been someprotests in response to some of
Trump's executive orders, and Ihave a feeling that we're going
to be experiencing a lot moreprotests in the next handful of
years.
(36:43):
But protest can be a verypowerful tool in forming and
formulating policy, but it canalso backfire and can be used
against themselves.
This kind of makes sense to me,right Like if protest is
violent, then they can bepainted as criminal, as threats,
etc.
(37:03):
All to the benefit of theruling party.
What advice would you give topeople that are trying to
formulate some type of organizedprotest to speak to some of the
stuff coming out of the WhiteHouse right now?
That would be effective, andhow would you suggest that they
avoid certain things?
Dr. Gamboa (37:20):
So I think nowadays, people organizing violent
protests intentionally are veryrare.
I think nonviolentdemonstrations have become the
norm across the world, not onlyin the US, and I think that
that's great.
What I also think, however, isthat there's always one or two
(37:40):
people with a Molotov cocktail,or one or two people who get um
beaten by the police, and soanother two or three people
decide to respond with violence.
Right, and I think it's thatfrench violence, not.
It's not that the, theorganizers of the demonstration,
say we're gonna protest violent, it's more like that.
(38:03):
French violence can be verydangerous.
It can put in danger otherprotesters, it can generate more
repression, but, moreimportantly, it can end up with
the entire movement painted asviolent and kind of
delegitimized in the eyes ofvoters.
So the first thing that I thinkis important is I think there's
an important muscle in thiscountry, one that maybe is not
(38:25):
as activated as it was I don'tknow 34 years ago, but there's a
muscle of like organization,right, like there are ways to
organize and train people toprotest, what nonviolent protest
is and how you do it.
So that would be the first one.
I don't dare to speak becauseI'm not an activist and so I
(38:48):
don't dare to speak to say ifthat's happening or it's not
happening, but if it's nothappening, let's do it, and if
it's happening, fantastic.
The second thing that I will sayis what I have seen about
Democratic backsliding suggeststhat the most successful
protests are the ones that havea very clear, oftentimes single,
(39:10):
goal.
I love the fact that we'regoing out to protest, but I was
in my local protest a couple ofweeks ago and I was watching the
signs and the signs were allover the place.
All things that I personallyapprove of right, like protect
immigrants, my hands off, socialsecurity, elon Musk, suck Like.
(39:30):
All of these things are thingsthat I agree with, but I don't
know that this is the mosteffective way to translate
protest into action, because toa certain extent, it's kind of
it's more of a expression ofdiscontent rather than kind of a
movement that could potentiallytranslate into some kind of
(39:52):
effective action by the peoplewho have the ability to act on
this.
The third thing that I think isimportant to keep in mind is
that I think democracy in thestreets or outside the streets
in general protection, is not asmall tent effort.
(40:15):
It's a big tent effort, and soI think one of the things that
we need to start thinking is howdo we reach states or places,
towns, cities that may not besort of part of, or might not be
blue cities or might not beblue states?
(40:35):
Right, I think a lot about Utahbecause I used to live in Utah
for eight years and so, to acertain extent, I was very
unfamiliar with politics in Utah, and it was very interesting
for me how the pro-democracymovement in Utah was very
different from the sort ofnational pro-democracy movement
(40:56):
promoted by organizations likeMoveOn or Indivisible, even in
the sense that this movement wasgeared towards the specific
characteristics of Utah.
Utah has a very significantpopulation that is Republican,
but it's not necessarilyTrumpist, and so local movements
(41:21):
would get together, would userallies and meetings to register
Democrats, people who arevisibly Democrat, as Republican,
with the understanding thatthere is no way that you as a
Democrat are going to affectchange.
But if you can vote inRepublican primaries, you could
(41:45):
potentially kind of keep thebalance for the pro-democratic
Republican.
Does that mean that many of usended up voting for people whose
policies we don't agree with?
Yes, does that mean that wealso avoided the election of
election deniers of?
You know, people with radicalideas.
(42:05):
That is also true as well.
Last elections in Utah therewere usually last primaries.
There were MAGA Republicans andnon-MAGA Republicans, and in
all but one of the elections thenon-MAGA Republicans won, and I
think that that's a victory.
It might not be a victory forsort of your more progressive
(42:25):
Democrats, but I think it'scertainly a victory for
democracy.
The other thing I keep thinkingabout when I see these
demonstrations is how big theyare in certain places and people
would say, well, salt Lake City.
And I was like, yeah, but SaltLake City is blue.
You really want to see like Ithink the most impressive
protest would be in, you knowlike maybe Provo though actually
(42:49):
Provo had a big protest butlike more conservative areas,
that's where you want to seethem, because you're going to
need to build a bigger tent.
And the last thing and this isrelated is I think it's key to
use the streets to protectinstitutions.
Institutions will not stand bythemselves.
They're only as strong as thepeople who protect them.
(43:09):
And I think if the SupremeCourt decides to say to stop the
government, they are going toneed people to mobilize in
support of them, all of them,not only the ones we like.
Shawn (43:23):
So it's probably a massive understatement to say
that we are living through aperiod of extreme polarization
in the United States, and Ithink there's a tendency to
think that the only way that wecan reverse this trend is to
somehow depolarize.
We are living through a periodof time in which blue citizens
(43:46):
do not cannot live under redstate policies and red citizens
feel the same about blue statepolicies, and I just don't see
that changing anytime soon.
Do you think thatdepolarization is possible and
do you think it's necessary inpursuit of some type of
democratic recovery?
Dr. Gamboa (44:03):
I certainly think it's possible.
I certainly think it's possible.
I've seen Latin Americancountries depolarize, even
though the grievances aresignificantly more serious than
the ones we see in the US.
We're talking about groups ofpeople that used to kill each
other, right, and they havedepolarized over time.
So I think it's possible.
The question is is it possiblein the time frame we need it?
(44:27):
And that's a whole differentquestion.
Recently, the major of Istanbul,who was in prison I don't know
if they released him or not Inany way, his imprisonment
generated massive, massive,massive protests across various
groups of people, includingpeople that would normally
(44:49):
support Erdogan, and I thinkthough I'm not an expert in
Turkey, but I do think that theradical love campaign led by CHP
has a lot to do with this right, and the radical love campaign
was a campaign that gave tool toactivists to bring people in
(45:11):
rather than push them out, rightand so, and so there were a
series of techniques on how totalk to people and how to
approach them and like that,that just were designed to bring
people in rather than push themout, believe in rather than
push them out, and I think theprotests we observed, I want to
say, last week, are a good showof how, yes, we can actually
(45:41):
build bridges across the divide.
I think for that to happen,however, you do need some kind
of political leadership.
You need a unique, a very like.
I think you do need veryspecific goals that are, to put
it that way, a partisan likethat.
They're not.
They're not the goals of oneparty, they're just a partisan,
but I think it's possible.
I might be thinking like thisbecause I am the progressive
(46:03):
that has lived in red states herentire time in the US, except
for one year that I lived inBoston, but in general, I do
think it's possible.
I don't know if it's going tohappen in the time span that we
need it, but I definitely need.
We need to start workingtowards it because it's going to
be needed at some point.
Shawn (46:22):
Do you believe that at this stage, the US can actually
reverse its democraticbacksliding?
And I guess the bigger questionhere is if so, what are the
things that we need to be doingnow to effectuate that?
Dr. Gamboa (46:36):
Oh man.
So political scientists arenotoriously bad at predicting
outcomes, so I'll tell you whatI know from other countries.
I've seen countries likeGuatemala reverse democratic
backsliding.
I've seen countries that arewealthy and longstanding
(46:58):
democracies, like Venezuela,being caught in a
well-entrenched authoritarianregime.
This is to say, I think eitheroutcome is possible.
I think, in order to stopdemocratic backsliding or
reverse autocratization in thiscountry, sort of the immediate
(47:18):
steps is to stop the cooptationof courts and oversight agencies
, right Like mobilize both sortof from Congress and from
governorships and nationalassemblies, but I also, think,
sort of civil society to protectthe courts.
(47:39):
I think that's key.
I also think we need to figureout a way to start talking about
what is happening in thiscountry in a way that can be
understood by people that arenot plugged in to the newspapers
, like me.
Just recently, I had aconversation with somebody and I
(48:01):
was talking about thisinterview and other interviews
that I've been doing, and shesaid, like oh really, is this
bad, what is happening?
And I almost fainted.
I was like how is it possiblethat you don't know what is
happening?
Like are you living under arock?
But here's the deal.
I think people like this personI was talking to are actually
the vast majority of Americans,and we need to figure out a way
(48:24):
to convey the urgency of this,to start talking about it, to
start kind of visibilizing whatis happening.
I'm guessing at some pointpeople are going to stop getting
checks from social security andso it's going to become very
visible.
But I think you need to connectthe dots for people.
It's not an administrativeproblem, it's not a, you know,
(48:47):
like you need to connect thedots for people.
So that's the other thing.
I think we need to be ready tocontest unfair elections.
And when you are contestingunfair elections and there's a
wealth of research that showsthis there needs to be
coordination and there needs tobe like you need to leverage the
(49:10):
streets to get people to getthe incumbent to accept the
result.
So in normal elections, whenthe incumbent loses the election
, the incumbent says well, Itried, thank you so much, I'll
play next time.
Right now, what I think mayhappen is not only is it going
to be incredibly harder for theopposition to contest the
(49:32):
election, there's going to beeven more ID laws, there is
going to be even less pollingplaces in blue cities, there is
going to be less.
More steps you have to take inorder to vote.
There's going to be morecontestation to the voting rolls
.
All of these things are goingto start happening more.
But I also think that once theelection comes, there's going to
(49:54):
be more contestation for theelections and we're going to
need every tool at our disposalinstitutional and extra
institutional to protect thatresult.
I also think that it isimportant to start thinking
creatively beyond demonstrations.
I think demonstrations aregreat, but I think we need more
(50:17):
and different repertoires, evensome that may not be stuff that
we have done in this country tostop this people to show two
(50:43):
forms of ID to be able to vote,and how this is problematic for
married women or for people whohave changed their names, and so
on and so forth.
It's like if I was a Democrat,I would be starting a campaign
to get passports for everybodytoday, right now.
Right, maybe there arelogistical problems with that or
other sorts of problems that,because I am not an Americanist
and I don't study Americanpolitics in general, I might not
be seeing, but what I'mthinking is we need to start
(51:06):
thinking outside the box,because I think what is
happening right now is alsooutside the box.
I think, and the more time goesby, the more I think about this.
There is a conversation thatneeds to happen about how to
protect our data, how to protectactivists from all sorts of
online threats, particularly asindividuals like Elon Musk.
(51:30):
He keep getting access to moreand more and more and more data
in ways that we don't even know.
I don't know right, and I don'tknow in part because I don't
know anything about this.
I used to study democraticerosion.
I have no idea.
I barely know how to use myemail.
So I think that these, theseare things we need to start
thinking Like.
I think we need to start gettingahead, ahead of the curve, and
(51:51):
I also think that the UnitedStates is not the first country
to undergo democratic erosion.
Certainly, there are specificparts about democratic erosion
in this country that are uniqueand particularly concerning, but
I don't think it's the firstcountry to undergo this.
So the other thing that I feelsometimes is that I feel that
(52:13):
people who are talking aboutthis are not looking outside Of
course, not you, s but otherpeople are not looking at other
countries, and they're kind ofinventing the wheel, and we
don't need to invent the wheel.
We need a bigger, better wheel,and so we should use our time
in building that better, better,bigger wheel and leverage the
experiences of other countriesokay, final question you ready
(52:34):
for it?
Shawn (52:36):
yes, what's something interesting you've been reading,
watching, listening, listeningto or doing lately, and it
doesn't have to be related tothis topic, but it can be.
Dr. Gamboa (52:43):
So, when I'm not panicking about the future of
democracy in this country, I'vebeen trying to spend as much
time as I can with my family.
We just moved to Michigan.
I live in Michigan, literallyin the border with Indiana, and
so we're trying to travel aroundMichigan and I have been amazed
of how beautiful the smalltowns in Michigan are.
(53:04):
They have fantastic restaurants.
There is one nearby, like halfan hour away from where I live,
called Three Oaks, that hasthese amazing restaurants a
distillery, a cute littletheater, fantastic bakeries, you
know, like the kind of thingsthat you find in bigger cities,
(53:25):
the kind of restaurants you findin bigger cities but all spread
out in these small towns inMichigan.
And I think that question whichyou sent me, and when you got
it I was like, oh man, I don'tdo anything fun in my life.
I think I do and I think that'sthe thing that I've been doing,
that I love the most NewBuffalo there's also the Three
(53:49):
Oaks, new Buffalo, buchanan,right, fantastic little small
towns that are just, you know,like good for the soul, yeah, so
I think that that's what I'vebeen doing, that I have loved
the most lately.
Shawn (54:03):
I grew up in Wisconsin and so I'm very familiar with
making that trip down aroundLake Michigan.
I don't know if you've been tothe coast yet, but like the
little towns like Douglas on theWest Coast of Michigan are
really cute Feels almost likebeing on the West Coast of the
United States.
Dr. Gamboa (54:19):
Right.
So there's San Joe, which is bythe lake, which is absolutely
beautiful.
Benton Harbor is still sobeautiful, like you know, like
this is absolutely gorgeous.
Yeah, and I say this havinglived in Utah for years, and
Utah is a beautiful state, butthese small towns are just like
so unique and so like, yes, likethey almost feel like a small,
(54:42):
like the East Coast at times too.
It's really beautiful.
Shawn (54:46):
Dr Gamboa, thanks for your time.
Let's hope for the best.
Dr. Gamboa (54:51):
Yeah, thank you so much.
Shawn (54:59):
What we're living through in the United States isn't just
political turbulence, it'sdemocratic backsliding in real
time.
As Dr Gamboa said, democracydoesn't die overnight.
It's chipped away, oftenthrough legal means, by leaders
who understand how to bendinstitutions to their will.
But history also shows us thatresistance is possible.
(55:20):
It takes strategy.
It takes strategy, it takesunity and it takes an opposition
that knows the differencebetween playing politics and
defending the democraticfoundations we all rely on.
Saving democracy means more thanvoting every four years.
It means supporting localjournalism that holds power
accountable.
It means building broadcoalitions across parties,
(55:41):
across movements, acrossidentities, to protect the
guardrails of democracy.
It means organizing locally tomonitor elections, run for
school boards and fightdisinformation at the
neighborhood level.
It means funding legal defensegroups that challenge
authoritarian policies in courtand pushing universities and
tech companies and religiousinstitutions to defend
(56:03):
democratic norms.
We still have some tools.
We still have time, but thewindow is closing rapidly.
The fight to save democracyisn't just in Washington, it's
wherever you are right now.
If we want to save democracy inthe United States, we can't
wait for a breaking point.
We have to act now, while westill have some of those tools
(56:23):
to do so.
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat.
Soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you you.
In Colombia, what Álvaro Uribe did was to
literally make them the targetof right-wing militias, like
kind of suggesting that theywere somehow helpers of the
left-wing guerrilla, and so Ithink there are various ways in
which this could happen.
I don't think it has happenedyet.
(00:22):
I think we're seeing a lot ofjustices incredibly brave
justices fighting back, and Ithink they need protection now,
once the judiciary is co-opted,then, I don't know, there would
be a like.
I think we wouldn't have aconversation.
Whether this has caused aRubicon or not, I think it would
(00:43):
be very clear it has.
Shawn (00:53):
Welcome to Deep Dive with me, s C Fettig.
America is not immune.
For decades, we have believedthat democratic erosion was
something that happenedelsewhere, in fragile states, in
young democracies, in placesthat hadn't yet matured
politically.
But we were wrong.
Today, the United States isfacing a very real threat a
(01:16):
democratic crisis not born ofrevolution or war, but of
deliberate dismantling fromwithin.
We are now several months intoDonald Trump's second presidency
, a presidency that began withvows to punish political enemies
, rewrite the rules ofgovernance and remove what he
calls vermin from American life.
The Justice Department has beenrepurposed to target
(01:39):
journalists and critics, federalagencies have been gutted and
staffed with loyalists, allieshave been alienated and the US
is now cozying up to one of themost aggressive and
anti-democratic leaders in theworld, vladimir Putin.
Investments in soft power havebeen canceled, the rhetoric has
turned darker, moreauthoritarian, and federal and
(02:00):
state-level Republican lawmakersare introducing laws that limit
voting rights, restrictacademic freedom and give
partisan actors unprecedentedcontrol over every aspect of our
lives.
This isn't hypothetical.
It's happening now, and thequestion is no longer, if
American democracy is in trouble, it's how bad it gets and what
(02:22):
can still be done, if anythingcan still be done to save it, to
help us understand thisdangerous moment and what we
might learn from countries thathave been down this road before.
My guest today is Dr LauraGamboa.
She's a professor of democracyand global affairs at the
University of Notre Dame andauthor of the book Resisting
Backsliding OppositionStrategies Against the Erosion
(02:45):
of Democracy.
Her work focuses on howdemocracies erode and, more
importantly, how oppositionmovements can resist that
erosion In a very real sense.
Dr Gamboa offers something weare in desperate need of right
now not just a diagnosis, but apath forward to save democracy
and, if it's already gone, maybesome ideas for how to regain it
(03:08):
.
We recorded this episode whenmy seasonal allergies were
really kicking my ass, and youcan kind of hear it in my voice.
So if you're wondering why, Imight sound a little off, well,
that's why.
All right, if you like thisepisode, or any episode, please
give it a like, share and followon your favorite podcast
platform and or subscribe to thepodcast on YouTube.
(03:29):
And, as always, if you have anythoughts, questions or comments
, please feel free to email meat deep dive with Shawn at
gmailcom.
Let's do a deep dive, dr Gamboa.
Thanks for being here.
How are you?
Dr. Gamboa (03:50):
Thank you so much, Shawn, for inviting me.
I'm good.
Shawn (03:57):
Good, good.
So since Donald Trump's firstpresidency, we've been talking
seriously about democraticbacksliding in the United States
, and it's really difficult toquantify or objectively identify
the moment, if or whendemocracy has failed.
And it's really difficult toquantify or objectively identify
the moment if or when democracyhas failed.
And for many people in theUnited States, january 6th was
the moment.
For others it was when theRepublican Party refused to
impeach you know, which was asign that perhaps the Republican
(04:18):
Party wasn't in a place inwhich they were willing to, you
know, hold Trump accountable.
And then for others, it waswhen Trump said he'd be a
dictator, at least for day one,or when he deported people
legally in the United Stateswithout any due process.
And then for others, it was ifor when Trump openly defies the
courts.
But then the goalposts shiftedover time and it's become if he
(04:39):
defies the Supreme Court, andwhat it feels like is that we're
all just trying to hold on tosomething that might be a
fiction, which is that ourdemocracy can withstand all that
Trump and Trumpism is throwingat it, and I tend to feel like
the fact that we are where weare suggests that democracy in
the United States is vulnerable,and it has been so weakened
(04:59):
that we're already maybe pastthe Rubicon that even if there
is some check that kicks inwhether it's public opinion or
some belated pushback fromwithin the Republican Party or
whatever the fact that we gotwhere we are, that we blew past
so many checks and balances tome that signals that we're in
trouble.
So, given that this issomething you've studied and
you've written about, I guess myfirst question to you is how
(05:21):
bad is it?
Dr. Gamboa (05:24):
I think it's pretty bad.
So I'll tell you what I tell mystudents.
I think the definition ofdemocracy what is and what is
not is kind of the dark hole ofpolitical science, because it's
such a broad concept that somepeople think about it and many
people think about itdifferently.
But the way I think about it isI think about democracy as a
(05:45):
regime in which there are freeand fair elections, and in order
to have free and fair elections, you need to have other things
like freedom of the press,impartial referees.
The opposition needs to be ableto campaign, they need
resources, they need access tomedia outlets, you need to have
independent courts so thatpeople are not, you know, sent
(06:07):
in jail for saying the wrongthing and opponents are not
persecuted but using the stateapparatus and all sorts of
things that I think areessential to be able to have a
government for the people, bythe people.
I think in general, thedemocracy in the United States
has been eroding for a while now.
(06:29):
I think definitely at thenational level, I mean since
since January 20.
But I actually thinksubnationally, there has been
incredibly concerning situationsin states where were literally
elections are manipulated in away that the majority of the
(06:54):
people does not get their willright, and so I think I think,
subnationally, if before January20, if you lived in Vermont,
democracy was awesome, but ifyou lived in Texas or Georgia,
it was less so Right.
So I think, in general in theUnited States, this is this is
(07:14):
kind of acceleration of that atspeeds that I don't think I've
seen before.
So what we have seen is theexecutive taking over other
branches of government and usingthem to persecute opponents.
(07:40):
Send them to El Salvador,opponents.
Sent them to salvador.
They have been uh trying to toundermine law firms that could
potentially help these opponents.
Um, they are undermining thecourts, not only by uh ignoring
their decisions, but also byusing a language that
(08:00):
delegitimizes them.
Literally, in thisadministration, if you're a
friend of the, of the, you getpardoned.
If you did your job and followthe law, you are persecuted.
The way universities are beingpenalized using tax law, using
federal resources, I think thisis unprecedented.
(08:25):
I think it's unprecedented notonly in the US, I think it's
unprecedented in the world and Ithink it's incredibly,
incredibly concerning.
So much that one of my concernsis that when people tell me
well, we'll have to wait untilthe midterms, and my main
concern is I don't know that themidterms are going to be free
(08:48):
and fair enough that theopposition will have a decent
chance to succeed.
Shawn (09:04):
I guess I want to follow one of the thoughts here that's
embedded in your response, whichis this attack on universities,
and it's also on the media,it's also on law firms, but I
think one of the things that'sstarting to come into focus as a
result of it that I think isreally alarming and perhaps is
not getting enough attention forthe damage that it's doing, is
this attack on universities, inthe sense that even if
(09:25):
eventually, the courts were tosomehow put a stop to this and
Trump were to acquiesce to acourt decision, people are
leaving.
People in the academic world,researchers and scientists are
talking about exoduses andpurges, and I read some story
about how 40 academics in thelast month or so have already
(09:46):
accepted positions in France,and the reason I'm bringing this
up is because this is its ownform of self-deportation and
these are people that areactually contributing to
American excellence and I don'tthink we get that back
post-Trump, you know.
Dr. Gamboa (10:02):
I think you're right .
I think we won't get the thesepeople back, like one of the one
of the most standard outcomesof most dictatorships is a brain
drain, right?
Well, we saw it across LatinAmerica, with Argentinians and
Chileans and Brazilians andUruguayans leaving their
(10:25):
countries to establishthemselves in other places,
particularly if they were sortof upper middle class academics,
because it's not only that theywant to leave, is that they
have the resources to do so,right?
I think, however, that what Isee at universities that I think
is even more serious is somesort of self-censorship.
(10:49):
So, uh, one of the things thatyou start seeing is universities
canceling certain events, oracademics like me not that I
have censored myself, butacademics like me who study
things like democracy or, youknow, like Palestine or Israel,
(11:10):
just not talking about it inpublic.
Right, they put their hands inthe sand, they do their projects
, they publish in their journals, and, as much as I enjoy the
political science journals,these are journals that are not
widely read journals.
These are journals that are notwidely read, and so, to a
certain extent, I think theother thing that I think is more
concerning and in the interestof the government is for a lot
of academics who would have beenotherwise very vocal, to just
(11:33):
quiet out because they'rethreatening their future.
Right, like I can tell you, weall work really hard to get into
these jobs and the governmentis threatening our future.
Shawn (11:44):
The other thing that I wanted to talk about is the
opposition party, because a lotof folks will argue that a
healthy democracy needs anopposition party, a strong
opposition party, and they pointto the United States as being a
country that has a history ofstrong opposition parties and so
that, to them, is a lifeline,it's an object of hope.
But at the same time and Idon't know how much this extends
(12:26):
beyond just the Democratic base, but there's a lot of
hand-wring definitely seemed tobe more of a strong opposition
party in elections that theylost by wider margins, right.
So that's a little demoralizingto some people to see the
Democratic Party now.
But you study oppositionparties and you study how they
can resist or enable democraticerosion.
So what do you think is goingon with the Democratic Party and
how effective are they rightnow?
Dr. Gamboa (12:46):
I think the Democratic Party is facing a
couple of problems.
I think problem number one isvery unique to the United States
and is the fact that, unlikewhat has happened in Hungary, in
Venezuela, in Colombia,argentina, el Salvador, the
United States does not recognizethis phenomenon.
(13:07):
It's hard to identify what ishappening because, at least to a
certain level, it has neverhappened before.
I would contest that in thesense that I think this country
really didn't democratize untilthe Voting Civil Rights Act, but
that's a different story.
Until the Voting Civil RightsAct, but that's a different
(13:28):
story.
In general, my sense is thatpart of the response has been
the result of at least thefaction of the Democratic Party
believing that this is businessas usual, that what they need to
do is leverage sort of thechaos that the administration is
going to be and kind of gear upfor the midterms.
(13:50):
Of course, what I would say tothat is well, we don't know if
there's going to like if, whenit's springing to action, there
might not be midterms.
The second thing that I thinkhappens and I think this is
actually more common, it hashappened, I've seen it happening
in other countries is actuallyso sort of recently, uh, with
(14:12):
the news about newsomecriticizing uh one holland's
trip to el salvador.
One of the things that I see,there is a clash between sort of
your individual ambition toprotect your brand and to appeal
to a group of voters that youwant to appeal because you want
(14:36):
to run for president, or to bemore generous, because you think
that that's kind of the winningmessage for the democratic
party more broadly, and and sortof the, the need to, to, to
just launch yourself in defenseof, of democracy and make
(14:58):
democracy popular again, and andand I've seen these in
Venezuela, which is one of thecountries I study the most what
you observe, what I haveobserved throughout the last 25
years, is opposition leadersself-sabotaging a fairly decent
efforts to democratize Venezuelaat various points in time,
(15:21):
because they don't want todamage their brand for what they
hope is going to be a futurepresidential election right.
They don't want to be unpopular, they don't want to negotiate
with the government, they don'twant to uh, you know like.
They don't want to run with thewrong message because they are
afraid that that might hampertheir ability to run for for
(15:41):
president when the transition todemocracy happens.
Of course, what ends uphappening is because there isn't
a collective effort or is veryrare.
There is no transition todemocracy, ergo there is no
presidential campaign.
So I think that that'shappening too.
And then the third thing that Ithink is happening, I think has
to do with a longer problem inthe Democratic Party I think
(16:04):
it's also true for theRepublican Party which is a lack
of party structure.
So if this was Latin America, Iwould be talking about party
system deinstitutionalization,but I don't think that's really
what we're observing here.
What we're seeing here is theDemocratic Party relying a lot
on what others have calledsatellite organizations in order
(16:30):
to mobilize people.
So they rely on groups.
Just to give you a coupleexamples like you know, lgbtq
plus groups or, you know, likeAfrican-American groups, and in
order to be able to get thosegroups to mobilize voters, they
need to give all of these groupssomething.
And so I think, in the long term, that has turned sort of
(16:51):
democratic politicians inparticular, very afraid of
saying the wrong thing andantagonizing the wrong group.
Well, I think it turns out thatparties, one of the roles that
parties have to fulfill, isprioritizing some of these
things.
It's not that politicianscannot agree with all of these
things, it's that they cannotsay yes to everybody at the same
(17:13):
time, right.
And so I think right now lessso now than two months ago the
Democratic Party was likeparalyzed, like if you're afraid
that anybody's going to yell atyou if you say something.
Well, you just don't sayanything.
Right, and so I think that thatis a problem, because right now
, what needs to happen is weneed to see movement.
(17:35):
We need to see Van Hollen goingto El Salvador.
We need to see Cory Bookerdoing the filibuster.
We need, we need to see some,some, some movement doing the
filibuster.
Shawn (17:47):
We need to see some movement.
I'm glad that you bring this up,because I do think that we, the
general populace, perhaps givestoo much credit to politicians
to be understanding the momentthey're living through and to be
strong enough to confront thatmoment.
I think Newsom's a great examplehere with what he's been doing
lately is that it seems like alot of these politicians that
are potential leaders in theparty and clearly have
(18:09):
aspirational goals to higheroffice seem to be trying to
thread a needle right now needs,and so I would argue that that
is some type of democraticresistance right or action taken
to save democracy.
And what I feel like ishappening is either one of two
(18:32):
things or both.
One is that they don't see themoment that's right in front of
them, or two, as I think youtalked about, their aspirations
and their goals supersede insome narcissistic way the moment
that we're living through, andI guess I feel, like you know,
nobody gets to really choose themoment that they're living
through, and we would all loveto live through a moment that's
(18:54):
very peaceful and everybody cansucceed and we can all make a
lot of money and die happy right, but unfortunately that's not
the moment that's been handed tous and I feel like what's
happening is that a lot of thepeople that could be leaders in
the Democratic Party are placingtheir own futures in front of
an existential moment.
Dr. Gamboa (19:12):
I think that's right .
I think all of these groupscoexist right.
Like the ones that put theirown personal future or
aspirations in front of theexistential moment, I think
there is the ones that trulybelieve that this is just
business as usual because theydon't know anything else.
I was telling somebody elsetoday that I think for me, as a
(19:37):
Latin American, seeing images ofsomebody being put in a van by
officers with masks and withoutidentification is just such a
trigger.
It's such a trigger.
I give that image to mostpeople, at least my age or my
(20:00):
parents' age, and they will tellyou right away that's a
disappearance.
Like we have the language andwe have the because, because we
have lived it, and we have acollective memory of this.
I was taught these things inschool.
My parents, friends and and andand sort of colleagues were,
(20:20):
were, some of them were peoplewho were victims of these
regimes.
Like you know, there is acollective memory of these that
I don't think exist in the US,even though, again, I think
African-Americans in the 30s,40s, 50s were living sort of
through an incredibly repressivetime, but we don't talk about
(20:43):
it in this way in this country.
So I think that that is true, Ialso think, and so I'm going to
be a little bit generous herewith politicians.
It is tough, right, and I thinkit's tough because, of course,
one of the main characteristicsof democratic backsliding, the
(21:06):
way we live it today, is thatthese leaders use the levers of
democracy to undermine democracy.
Right, they argue that theywant the majority, they claim
that they have a mandate, theymobilize people, they use the
levers of democracy to underminedemocracy, and so that creates
(21:29):
a very weak signal.
If Donald Trump had launched acoup with military officers,
that would be a very clearsignal and you wouldn't have a
question.
You would say well, yeah, thisis a rupture of democracy,
period, end of the story.
But because this is done withthe levers of democracy, it's
just very uncertain, and so Imean, to a certain extent and
(21:51):
again to be a little empatheticwith what leaders are living
through right now is hard totell.
What I will say, however, isthat so, not doing anything is
definitely not an option.
Shawn (22:06):
It's definitely not an option, and as a person who
studies these, and as a personthat comes from a region with a
collective memory that we have,I can say this is not business
as usual this is probably trueof the Republican Party,
(22:26):
although they're just in adifferent space right now, but
the Democratic Party is reallytrying to hold together a very
big tent with the diverseviewpoints, often viewpoints
that don't converge with eachother, but I do wonder if the
one thing that transcends that,the one thing that could bring
all disparate groups together,is this idea that this is a
moment in which democracy isunder attack.
American democracy is underattack and needs to be saved,
(22:48):
and I feel like that's a goodleading message that the
Democratic Party could lean into.
That transcends all of theseother issues in the moment,
right Like, it's simply a matterof making the case that all of
this other stuff is important,but it needs to be put aside in
this moment, right now.
Dr. Gamboa (23:06):
I think that that is partially true.
So I have a colleague hereunder the name that studies sort
of voting behavior incompetitive authoritarian
regimes, and what he would tellyou is democracy does not
mobilize voters.
Voters mobilize for specificissues.
What I will say to that,however, is that I think A
(23:29):
they're not exclusive.
It's not like you cannotmobilize for a particular issue
and mobilize for democracy atthe same time.
But I also think politiciansshould not react to public
opinion, they should lead publicopinion.
I think there is a way toconnect democracy to the things
that people enjoy and to thethings that people value on
(23:56):
their more sort of day-to-daylife, and I think it's upon
civil society leaders,politicians, to make those
connections for people.
So, instead of talking aboutdemocracies under threat, one
way to talk about it is thecourts.
Here I'm kind of entering aspace in which I am not an
(24:20):
Americanist.
I study Latin America, right,so I can think about ways in
which this could happen in LatinAmerica.
But again, Latin America isdifferent because we have a
collective memory ofdictatorship and so for us,
democracy or the absence ofdemocracy, to put it that way
has a whole different meaning.
Right, If I were to say againsomebody in my generation, my
(24:43):
parents' generation, what doesdictatorship look like?
They have a very clear image ofwhat it looks like.
That does not have to go allthe way back to Nazi Germany.
Shawn (24:52):
One of the things that we talked about earlier and I want
to circle back to is theacquiescence, so the pressure
that the Trump administration isputting on independent agencies
and organizations andinstitutions like universities,
the media, law firms,administrative agencies.
We talked a little bit abouthow they're being pressured into
some type of acquiescence, butthere is another side to this
(25:15):
coin, which is not only thatthese institutions acquiesce,
but that they can then also beweaponized against democracy,
which is something that you'vewritten about.
What does that look like?
Or how could the moment thatwe're living through right now
then transition into some typeof a weaponization?
And are there otherinstitutions that you're keeping
an eye on?
Dr. Gamboa (25:35):
So, right this second, I'm keeping an eye on
the courts.
I think the courts are wherethe battle is being fought right
now and, more concerningly,keeping an eye on sort of
electoral management bodies.
So the way democraticbacksliding works is the farther
(25:58):
you go, the harder it is forthe opposition broadly conceived
to stop democratic backslidingor transition back to democracy,
because, of course, the moreresources that the government
has, the less resources theopposition has.
(26:19):
So right now, I think thegovernment has a stronghold of
the executive and has been ableto empty out the state, and it's
actually very similar toGuatemala.
People think about Nazi Germany.
I think Guatemala, because whatsort of the corrupt elite
(26:43):
coalition in Guatemala did atleast since 2016, was take over
the oversight agencies,including the general attorney's
office, take over the courtsand then leverage those two to
provide impunity and protectcorruption for their entire
(27:04):
coalition in a way that thecoalition was happy, happy, just
moving the levers to stay inpower.
So I think, to an extent,that's what is happening here.
Like you, you empty the state,you take away the state's
ability to provide oversight, topunish corruption, to, to, to
(27:25):
avoiding puny and, and in doingso, you keep your authoritarian
coalition happy and supportingyou, and of course this is a
double-edged sword, becausedouble-edged sword is not the
right way to say, but it's adouble weapon because on the one
hand, I mean, you keep themhappy because you keep them free
and you keep their businessesgoing and stuff like that, but
(27:49):
at the same time there is thethreat that if they step out of
line then you're going to usethe law against them.
So I think right now theexecutive has a hold over the
judiciary, but I do think ifpoliticians and civil society
don't step up to protect thejustices that are fighting
(28:12):
against the administration,eventually that's going to
happen, either because thejustices decide this is not
worth the fight and so theyretire or they acquiesce or so
on, or something like that, oror even something more drastic
right Like they get removed orharassed, or who knows right In
(28:32):
Bolivia, they lower theirsalaries.
So at some point it was justnot possible to keep living with
the salary of a justice.
In Colombia, what Alvaro Uribedid was to literally make them
the target of right-wingmilitias, like kind of
suggesting that they weresomehow helpers of the left-wing
(28:56):
guerrilla, and so I think thereare various ways in which this
could happen.
I don't think it has happenedyet.
I think we're seeing a lot ofjustices incredibly brave
justices fighting back and Ithink they need protection Now.
Once the judiciary is co-opted,then I don't know there would
(29:16):
be like I think we wouldn't havea conversation, whether this
has passed the Rubicon or not.
I think it would be very clearit has.
Now, the only institution thatI'm very concerned is the
elections, because of course,one of the good opportunities to
fight back will be the Novemberelections.
But electoral management bodiesin this country are very
(29:41):
diverse.
They're very localized and inmany ways, are very ad hoc.
In Latin America we have theseelectoral management bodies that
are very well structured.
Everything that they can do orthey cannot do, or who can
participate, is written into lawvery strictly, very
specifically.
Here there's more flexibilityand I do worry a lot that the
(30:04):
government is going to targetspecific electoral management
bodies in a way that couldpotentially hinder Democrats'
ability, or independent or sortof pro-democracy Republicans'
ability to win elections inNovember.
Shawn (30:19):
I think there are.
I mean, I agree with you thatelections matter.
I just don't know that I thinkyou kind of alluded to this that
we're going to have them again.
But the other two kind ofbackstops we have are, as you
mentioned, the people themselves.
So I guess this would almost belike protest, although I have
concerns there because, as youalso mentioned, Americans don't
(30:40):
have a memory of strong protest,right, we're very orderly
people when it comes to regimechange.
We just go stand in lines andwe cast a ballot and we assume
everything's going to be fine.
So there's not an institutionalmemory there.
But then the other is the courts, and while I am heartened by
some stuff coming out of thecourts, I think Trump has made
very clear that even if thecourts were to all push back
(31:03):
against him, they have noenforcement power, right, and I
don't know that he's taken, thathe's crossed that Rubicon yet,
but I don't doubt that he wouldbe willing to do that.
So the question that's embeddedin all of this is you know,
maybe we can draw on some ofyour knowledge and your research
related to Latin America.
Where are some places that yousaw the courts play an actual
(31:25):
active, successful role ingirding democracy, and where do
you think that the courts havefailed?
Dr. Gamboa (31:34):
um.
So the the best example forcourts protecting democracy is
colombia.
Colombia has a very strongconstitutional court, is also a
very legitimate court.
People really like theconstitutional court and at the
end of the day, with the help ofopposition in Congress, the
(31:58):
court ended up being thebackstop for Alvaro Uribe's
attempts to erode democracy,including his attempt to get
reelected for a third time, andit was a court that shut him
down at the end of the day.
In my book I emphasize and Imake an entire argument
(32:19):
explaining how the court byitself couldn't have done it,
that it needed legal resourcesthat were eventually provided by
people in Congress, as well assort of visible shows of support
from the streets in Colombiathat of people who supported
(32:46):
Uribe himself but did notsupport his attempt to reform
the constitution, to stay inpower for a third time, and
people who did not support Uribe.
And they organized and theywent and stood in front of the
constitutional court withcandles to illuminate the court
to make the right decision.
Right and, based on myinterviews, justices really took
(33:10):
that at heart.
They knew that this was a showof support and if they ruled
against a very popular presidentlike Alvaro Uribe, sort of
people were going to have theirback.
I think another example wherecourts have been incredibly
successful is Brazil, where thecourts were able to again this
(33:31):
was with the help of politiciansin Congress and in other sort
of federal positions.
They were able to curtail someof Bolsonaro's attempts to erode
democracy democracy and afterhe was out of power, they were
very active in prosecuting hiscrimes, so much that he was not
(33:52):
able to run for office in 2022.
Now there's a couple ofsituations I guess the best
example of this would beVenezuela where the courts were
unable to stop the erosion ofdemocracy, and I think this
plays in two times.
I think the first point inwhich the courts could have been
(34:13):
able to at least slow down HugoChavez was early on when he
tried, when he launched his callfor a constitutional assembly,
and there's a lot of likedetails to these, but the the
nut of the sort of the heart ofthe story is chavez creates a
(34:34):
decree that calls for aconstitutional assembly and
hands out the rules to elect thedelegates, which, of course,
benefited the courts, which, atthe time, were, uh, not
necessarily as legitimate, notdid not get as much support from
the people.
People were not that impressedwith them decide that this
(34:58):
decree is unconstitutional, butthey're not going to stop it.
And they're not going to stopit because they're not going to
rule against this very popularpresident, because they don't
feel supported by the people.
That is kind of your first part.
Then of course, there's aconstitutional assembly and
Chavez is originally able to putenough people inside the court.
That makes ruling in favor ofthe opposition not impossible.
(35:21):
They actually did it, but very,very, very hard.
And then of course theopposition.
The courts are kind of split itin half.
Half of them were kind ofpro-government, the other half
were kind of pro-opposition, toput it that way.
And then the opposition decidesto boycott congressional
elections.
(35:41):
Chavez gets 100% NationalAssembly and with that 100%
control over the NationalAssembly he's able to fully
co-opt the courts.
This is to say that I think thecourts were unable to stop
Chavez.
I think they were at adisadvantage.
But I also think that had theopposition supported them in
(36:02):
that initial moment andparticipated in the
congressional elections, itwould have been harder for
Chavez to rule democracy.
He might have been able to doit anyway, but it would have
been significantly harder, whichin turn would have opened other
windows of opportunity for theopposition.
Shawn (36:22):
So we've talked a little bit about protest or the power
that the people have, and so Iwant to spend a little bit of
time on it, because we arestarting to see the last couple
of weekends there have been someprotests in response to some of
Trump's executive orders, and Ihave a feeling that we're going
to be experiencing a lot moreprotests in the next handful of
years.
(36:43):
But protest can be a verypowerful tool in forming and
formulating policy, but it canalso backfire and can be used
against themselves.
This kind of makes sense to me,right Like if protest is
violent, then they can bepainted as criminal, as threats,
etc.
(37:03):
All to the benefit of theruling party.
What advice would you give topeople that are trying to
formulate some type of organizedprotest to speak to some of the
stuff coming out of the WhiteHouse right now?
That would be effective, andhow would you suggest that they
avoid certain things?
Dr. Gamboa (37:20):
So I think nowadays, people organizing violent
protests intentionally are veryrare.
I think nonviolentdemonstrations have become the
norm across the world, not onlyin the US, and I think that
that's great.
What I also think, however, isthat there's always one or two
(37:40):
people with a Molotov cocktail,or one or two people who get um
beaten by the police, and soanother two or three people
decide to respond with violence.
Right, and I think it's thatfrench violence, not.
It's not that the, theorganizers of the demonstration,
say we're gonna protest violent, it's more like that.
(38:03):
French violence can be verydangerous.
It can put in danger otherprotesters, it can generate more
repression, but, moreimportantly, it can end up with
the entire movement painted asviolent and kind of
delegitimized in the eyes ofvoters.
So the first thing that I thinkis important is I think there's
an important muscle in thiscountry, one that maybe is not
(38:25):
as activated as it was I don'tknow 34 years ago, but there's a
muscle of like organization,right, like there are ways to
organize and train people toprotest, what nonviolent protest
is and how you do it.
So that would be the first one.
I don't dare to speak becauseI'm not an activist and so I
(38:48):
don't dare to speak to say ifthat's happening or it's not
happening, but if it's nothappening, let's do it, and if
it's happening, fantastic.
The second thing that I will sayis what I have seen about
Democratic backsliding suggeststhat the most successful
protests are the ones that havea very clear, oftentimes single,
(39:10):
goal.
I love the fact that we'regoing out to protest, but I was
in my local protest a couple ofweeks ago and I was watching the
signs and the signs were allover the place.
All things that I personallyapprove of right, like protect
immigrants, my hands off, socialsecurity, elon Musk, suck Like.
(39:30):
All of these things are thingsthat I agree with, but I don't
know that this is the mosteffective way to translate
protest into action, because toa certain extent, it's kind of
it's more of a expression ofdiscontent rather than kind of a
movement that could potentiallytranslate into some kind of
(39:52):
effective action by the peoplewho have the ability to act on
this.
The third thing that I think isimportant to keep in mind is
that I think democracy in thestreets or outside the streets
in general protection, is not asmall tent effort.
(40:15):
It's a big tent effort, and soI think one of the things that
we need to start thinking is howdo we reach states or places,
towns, cities that may not besort of part of, or might not be
blue cities or might not beblue states?
(40:35):
Right, I think a lot about Utahbecause I used to live in Utah
for eight years and so, to acertain extent, I was very
unfamiliar with politics in Utah, and it was very interesting
for me how the pro-democracymovement in Utah was very
different from the sort ofnational pro-democracy movement
(40:56):
promoted by organizations likeMoveOn or Indivisible, even in
the sense that this movement wasgeared towards the specific
characteristics of Utah.
Utah has a very significantpopulation that is Republican,
but it's not necessarilyTrumpist, and so local movements
(41:21):
would get together, would userallies and meetings to register
Democrats, people who arevisibly Democrat, as Republican,
with the understanding thatthere is no way that you as a
Democrat are going to affectchange.
But if you can vote inRepublican primaries, you could
(41:45):
potentially kind of keep thebalance for the pro-democratic
Republican.
Does that mean that many of usended up voting for people whose
policies we don't agree with?
Yes, does that mean that wealso avoided the election of
election deniers of?
You know, people with radicalideas.
(42:05):
That is also true as well.
Last elections in Utah therewere usually last primaries.
There were MAGA Republicans andnon-MAGA Republicans, and in
all but one of the elections thenon-MAGA Republicans won, and I
think that that's a victory.
It might not be a victory forsort of your more progressive
(42:25):
Democrats, but I think it'scertainly a victory for
democracy.
The other thing I keep thinkingabout when I see these
demonstrations is how big theyare in certain places and people
would say, well, salt Lake City.
And I was like, yeah, but SaltLake City is blue.
You really want to see like Ithink the most impressive
protest would be in, you knowlike maybe Provo though actually
(42:49):
Provo had a big protest butlike more conservative areas,
that's where you want to seethem, because you're going to
need to build a bigger tent.
And the last thing and this isrelated is I think it's key to
use the streets to protectinstitutions.
Institutions will not stand bythemselves.
They're only as strong as thepeople who protect them.
(43:09):
And I think if the SupremeCourt decides to say to stop the
government, they are going toneed people to mobilize in
support of them, all of them,not only the ones we like.
Shawn (43:23):
So it's probably a massive understatement to say
that we are living through aperiod of extreme polarization
in the United States, and Ithink there's a tendency to
think that the only way that wecan reverse this trend is to
somehow depolarize.
We are living through a periodof time in which blue citizens
(43:46):
do not cannot live under redstate policies and red citizens
feel the same about blue statepolicies, and I just don't see
that changing anytime soon.
Do you think thatdepolarization is possible and
do you think it's necessary inpursuit of some type of
democratic recovery?
Dr. Gamboa (44:03):
I certainly think it's possible.
I certainly think it's possible.
I've seen Latin Americancountries depolarize, even
though the grievances aresignificantly more serious than
the ones we see in the US.
We're talking about groups ofpeople that used to kill each
other, right, and they havedepolarized over time.
So I think it's possible.
The question is is it possiblein the time frame we need it?
(44:27):
And that's a whole differentquestion.
Recently, the major of Istanbul,who was in prison I don't know
if they released him or not Inany way, his imprisonment
generated massive, massive,massive protests across various
groups of people, includingpeople that would normally
(44:49):
support Erdogan, and I thinkthough I'm not an expert in
Turkey, but I do think that theradical love campaign led by CHP
has a lot to do with this right, and the radical love campaign
was a campaign that gave tool toactivists to bring people in
(45:11):
rather than push them out, rightand so, and so there were a
series of techniques on how totalk to people and how to
approach them and like that,that just were designed to bring
people in rather than push themout, believe in rather than
push them out, and I think theprotests we observed, I want to
say, last week, are a good showof how, yes, we can actually
(45:41):
build bridges across the divide.
I think for that to happen,however, you do need some kind
of political leadership.
You need a unique, a very like.
I think you do need veryspecific goals that are, to put
it that way, a partisan likethat.
They're not.
They're not the goals of oneparty, they're just a partisan,
but I think it's possible.
I might be thinking like thisbecause I am the progressive
(46:03):
that has lived in red states herentire time in the US, except
for one year that I lived inBoston, but in general, I do
think it's possible.
I don't know if it's going tohappen in the time span that we
need it, but I definitely need.
We need to start workingtowards it because it's going to
be needed at some point.
Shawn (46:22):
Do you believe that at this stage, the US can actually
reverse its democraticbacksliding?
And I guess the bigger questionhere is if so, what are the
things that we need to be doingnow to effectuate that?
Dr. Gamboa (46:36):
Oh man.
So political scientists arenotoriously bad at predicting
outcomes, so I'll tell you whatI know from other countries.
I've seen countries likeGuatemala reverse democratic
backsliding.
I've seen countries that arewealthy and longstanding
(46:58):
democracies, like Venezuela,being caught in a
well-entrenched authoritarianregime.
This is to say, I think eitheroutcome is possible.
I think, in order to stopdemocratic backsliding or
reverse autocratization in thiscountry, sort of the immediate
(47:18):
steps is to stop the cooptationof courts and oversight agencies
, right Like mobilize both sortof from Congress and from
governorships and nationalassemblies, but I also, think,
sort of civil society to protectthe courts.
(47:39):
I think that's key.
I also think we need to figureout a way to start talking about
what is happening in thiscountry in a way that can be
understood by people that arenot plugged in to the newspapers
, like me.
Just recently, I had aconversation with somebody and I
(48:01):
was talking about thisinterview and other interviews
that I've been doing, and shesaid, like oh really, is this
bad, what is happening?
And I almost fainted.
I was like how is it possiblethat you don't know what is
happening?
Like are you living under arock?
But here's the deal.
I think people like this personI was talking to are actually
the vast majority of Americans,and we need to figure out a way
(48:24):
to convey the urgency of this,to start talking about it, to
start kind of visibilizing whatis happening.
I'm guessing at some pointpeople are going to stop getting
checks from social security andso it's going to become very
visible.
But I think you need to connectthe dots for people.
It's not an administrativeproblem, it's not a, you know,
(48:47):
like you need to connect thedots for people.
So that's the other thing.
I think we need to be ready tocontest unfair elections.
And when you are contestingunfair elections and there's a
wealth of research that showsthis there needs to be
coordination and there needs tobe like you need to leverage the
(49:10):
streets to get people to getthe incumbent to accept the
result.
So in normal elections, whenthe incumbent loses the election
, the incumbent says well, Itried, thank you so much, I'll
play next time.
Right now, what I think mayhappen is not only is it going
to be incredibly harder for theopposition to contest the
(49:32):
election, there's going to beeven more ID laws, there is
going to be even less pollingplaces in blue cities, there is
going to be less.
More steps you have to take inorder to vote.
There's going to be morecontestation to the voting rolls
.
All of these things are goingto start happening more.
But I also think that once theelection comes, there's going to
(49:54):
be more contestation for theelections and we're going to
need every tool at our disposalinstitutional and extra
institutional to protect thatresult.
I also think that it isimportant to start thinking
creatively beyond demonstrations.
I think demonstrations aregreat, but I think we need more
(50:17):
and different repertoires, evensome that may not be stuff that
we have done in this country tostop this people to show two
(50:43):
forms of ID to be able to vote,and how this is problematic for
married women or for people whohave changed their names, and so
on and so forth.
It's like if I was a Democrat,I would be starting a campaign
to get passports for everybodytoday, right now.
Right, maybe there arelogistical problems with that or
other sorts of problems that,because I am not an Americanist
and I don't study Americanpolitics in general, I might not
be seeing, but what I'mthinking is we need to start
(51:06):
thinking outside the box,because I think what is
happening right now is alsooutside the box.
I think, and the more time goesby, the more I think about this.
There is a conversation thatneeds to happen about how to
protect our data, how to protectactivists from all sorts of
online threats, particularly asindividuals like Elon Musk.
(51:30):
He keep getting access to moreand more and more and more data
in ways that we don't even know.
I don't know right, and I don'tknow in part because I don't
know anything about this.
I used to study democraticerosion.
I have no idea.
I barely know how to use myemail.
So I think that these, theseare things we need to start
thinking Like.
I think we need to start gettingahead, ahead of the curve, and
(51:51):
I also think that the UnitedStates is not the first country
to undergo democratic erosion.
Certainly, there are specificparts about democratic erosion
in this country that are uniqueand particularly concerning, but
I don't think it's the firstcountry to undergo this.
So the other thing that I feelsometimes is that I feel that
(52:13):
people who are talking aboutthis are not looking outside Of
course, not you, s but otherpeople are not looking at other
countries, and they're kind ofinventing the wheel, and we
don't need to invent the wheel.
We need a bigger, better wheel,and so we should use our time
in building that better, better,bigger wheel and leverage the
experiences of other countriesokay, final question you ready
(52:34):
for it?
Shawn (52:36):
yes, what's something interesting you've been reading,
watching, listening, listeningto or doing lately, and it
doesn't have to be related tothis topic, but it can be.
Dr. Gamboa (52:43):
So, when I'm not panicking about the future of
democracy in this country, I'vebeen trying to spend as much
time as I can with my family.
We just moved to Michigan.
I live in Michigan, literallyin the border with Indiana, and
so we're trying to travel aroundMichigan and I have been amazed
of how beautiful the smalltowns in Michigan are.
(53:04):
They have fantastic restaurants.
There is one nearby, like halfan hour away from where I live,
called Three Oaks, that hasthese amazing restaurants a
distillery, a cute littletheater, fantastic bakeries, you
know, like the kind of thingsthat you find in bigger cities,
(53:25):
the kind of restaurants you findin bigger cities but all spread
out in these small towns inMichigan.
And I think that question whichyou sent me, and when you got
it I was like, oh man, I don'tdo anything fun in my life.
I think I do and I think that'sthe thing that I've been doing,
that I love the most NewBuffalo there's also the Three
(53:49):
Oaks, new Buffalo, buchanan,right, fantastic little small
towns that are just, you know,like good for the soul, yeah, so
I think that that's what I'vebeen doing, that I have loved
the most lately.
Shawn (54:03):
I grew up in Wisconsin and so I'm very familiar with
making that trip down aroundLake Michigan.
I don't know if you've been tothe coast yet, but like the
little towns like Douglas on theWest Coast of Michigan are
really cute Feels almost likebeing on the West Coast of the
United States.
Dr. Gamboa (54:19):
Right.
So there's San Joe, which is bythe lake, which is absolutely
beautiful.
Benton Harbor is still sobeautiful, like you know, like
this is absolutely gorgeous.
Yeah, and I say this havinglived in Utah for years, and
Utah is a beautiful state, butthese small towns are just like
so unique and so like, yes, likethey almost feel like a small,
(54:42):
like the East Coast at times too.
It's really beautiful.
Shawn (54:46):
Dr Gamboa, thanks for your time.
Let's hope for the best.
Dr. Gamboa (54:51):
Yeah, thank you so much.
Shawn (54:59):
What we're living through in the United States isn't just
political turbulence, it'sdemocratic backsliding in real
time.
As Dr Gamboa said, democracydoesn't die overnight.
It's chipped away, oftenthrough legal means, by leaders
who understand how to bendinstitutions to their will.
But history also shows us thatresistance is possible.
(55:20):
It takes strategy.
It takes strategy, it takesunity and it takes an opposition
that knows the differencebetween playing politics and
defending the democraticfoundations we all rely on.
Saving democracy means more thanvoting every four years.
It means supporting localjournalism that holds power
accountable.
It means building broadcoalitions across parties,
(55:41):
across movements, acrossidentities, to protect the
guardrails of democracy.
It means organizing locally tomonitor elections, run for
school boards and fightdisinformation at the
neighborhood level.
It means funding legal defensegroups that challenge
authoritarian policies in courtand pushing universities and
tech companies and religiousinstitutions to defend
(56:03):
democratic norms.
We still have some tools.
We still have time, but thewindow is closing rapidly.
The fight to save democracyisn't just in Washington, it's
wherever you are right now.
If we want to save democracy inthe United States, we can't
wait for a breaking point.
We have to act now, while westill have some of those tools
(56:23):
to do so.
All right, check back next weekfor another episode of Deep
Dive Chat.
Soon, folks.
Thank you, thank you you.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.