Expert discusses authoritarian tactics in the 2024 US presidential campaign

The heated 2024 U.S. presidential election is frequently characterized as a choice between democracy and dictatorship, or democracy and autocracy, especially with the publication of Project 2025, the extreme, far-right playbook supposedly written for a Donald Trump or other Republican administration.

It may be surprising then, that in many examples, autocrats around the world have used institutions of democracy to consolidate and gain autocratic power.

UCLA sociology professor Cecilia Menjívar, who co-edited a recent double issue of American Behavioral Scientist for which she also co-wrote the introduction, “The Tools of Autocracy Worldwide: Authoritarian Networks, the Façade of Democracy, and Neo-Repression, with UCLA alumna and USC assistant professor of sociology Deisy Del Real, breaks down how dictators have deftly shepherded societies and political systems into autocracies worldwide.

By exploring the use of fear, the deliberate spread of misinformation, deceptive use of democratic systems, corruption of the legal system and the harnessing of hate groups, the co-editors hope to shed light on the fragility of democracy and sharpen our critical eye to the insidious threat of autocracy.

We sat down with Menjívar, the Dorothy L. Meier Social Equities Professor at UCLA, to learn more about the tools and tactics used by aspiring and actual autocratic leaders.

How do politicians use fear to justify authoritarian rule?

Fear is an efficient and malleable tactic that serves several purposes. First, it allows politicians to create enemies out of anyone, whether scientists, intellectuals, immigrants, academics, reporters or, of course, the opposition.

A sweeping “us” versus “them” binary proves quite useful in politics. It creates a doom-and-gloom scenario of a country where anything and anyone can be identified as a threat. Once people are fearful of their co-workers, neighbors, friends or anyone with a different opinion, they become highly receptive to the idea that the problems of a given society are too big and only someone powerful can eradicate them. The autocrat who talks constantly about apocalyptic threats thus becomes the only savior of the nation.

How and why do aspiring and actual authoritarians manipulate information in mass media?

Manipulating the media, especially social media, is one of the most powerful tools autocrats use today. Social media platforms instantaneously transmit and retransmit politicians’ messages, potentially reaching everyone who owns a smartphone anywhere in the world.

Aspiring and actual autocrats use social media to spread (mis)information about supposed enemies and purported existential threats to the nation, neighborhoods and families. It’s how they reach the hearts and minds of the public, who are constantly exposed to messages laced with misinformation and distortions.

Receiving posts from a powerful leader daily on your phone has a huge psychological impact: It shows that the leader cares and is personally involved in protecting her or his followers. All of which bolsters the claim that she or he is the only one who can save you.

Many people are confused by the idea that candidates and politicians in a democratic system can openly pursue authoritarian goals. How does this work?

Research has clearly established that the demarcation between democracy and autocracy is not as clear-cut as we might assume. As more leaders around the world resort to autocratic means to attain and retain power (think of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, India’s Narendra Modi, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and China’s Xi Jinping, to name a few), this line is increasingly blurred. We see this trend in established and nascent democracies, in governments on the left and right and in wealthy and poor countries.

Politicians in a democratic system can and do pursue autocratic goals. The interesting twist is that aspiring (and established) autocrats do not seek to destroy democracy completely because it is precisely the tools of democracy that allow them to attain power. At the same time, they consciously seek to dismantle essential pillars of democracy and its institutions, such as the rule of law and checks and balances in government, once they are in power.

After attaining power through free and democratic elections, they corrupt the legal system, the courts and the very election process to enable them to remain in power indefinitely, with no chance of a serious contender.

How do authoritarian candidates use to their advantage civil society movements and groups that espouse hate and violence?

Leaders with autocratic goals do not act alone; they need supporters, especially civil society groups who work to gain followers. This is important in a democratic context, where dynamic civic engagement is the norm. It helps autocrats maintain a façade of democracy.

Civil society groups are critically important for amplifying and spreading a leader’s messages on the ground, as those messages become more powerful when people share them with conviction with friends, family and people they work, pray or play with. Autocrats effectively mobilize these groups to attack anyone a leader categorizes as the “enemy.”

These groups include a range of followers, including hate groups and trolls, who use a variety of strategies to confront enemies identified by a leader, including psychological and physical threats to these individuals and their families. Those tactics work to coerce people to be less vocal in their criticism. Because autocrats signal hate groups and trolls to work on their behalf, these groups feel powerful and personally connected to the leader.

What role do these tactics play in Project 2025, the detailed plan for conservative policies prepared by the Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president?

We are used to thinking of autocrats as individuals—(mostly) men acting alone—because those are the images we see. But behind these individuals are vast networks of influential people. Just as they need civil society groups to advance their goals, autocratic politicians also rely on a wide range of interconnected powerful networks of experts, political strategists, legal specialists and authors who help spread their message and construct a positive image to legitimize the autocrats. This group, however, mostly works behind the scenes.

These are networks of like-minded individuals who see personal benefit in establishing an autocratic government. The Conservative Promise (commonly known as Project 2025), for example, is a blueprint for consolidating power and doing away with most institutions we associate with U.S. democracy.

The 34 organizations and hundreds of contributors organized by The Heritage Foundation to author this 922-page document include experts across different fields. The advisory board includes The American Principles Project, Center for Immigration Studies, Claremont Institute, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, James Madison Institute, Liberty University and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, among others—revealing the powerful networks behind the individual we see on camera.

What role do these tactics play in the ongoing U.S. immigration policy debate?

The purported threat of immigrants and immigration is perhaps one of the best examples of autocrats’ strategy of creating an “us” versus “them” dynamic that keeps followers fearful and receptive to hostile policies, a tactic that also precludes discussion of sensible policy choices.

This is part of an autocratic “toolbox” of tactics that reinforce each other: The autocrat spews hateful rhetoric at the same time that he makes the public believe that he’s the only one who can save them from that threat, which goes to the root of autocratic power—the concentration of power in one individual who will hold absolute power to corrupt institutions, undermine the rule of law, etc. This is quite different from other inhumane treatment of immigrants.

I do think that there’s a lot in common across recent administrations and historically, too. I’m reading a book about the unspeakable violence that Chinese immigrants experienced in the years surrounding the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. There was definitely an “us” versus “them” rhetoric that incited violence against these immigrants, not too different from the rhetoric about Springfield, Ohio, in the past few weeks.

Given the long history of hostility toward certain immigrant groups in the United States, these narratives make sense to an already fearful public and provide justification for the inhumane treatment of immigrants, as we have witnessed in the case of immigrant detention and child separation practices of current and previous administrations.