The part that makes this moment different isn’t just partisan ambition, every major political system has factions that want to lock in power. What’s unusual now is the convergence of three things that historically destabilize democracies: extreme polarization, procedural manipulation becoming normalized, and judicial uncertainty. When those three factors line up, the political game shifts from ‘win elections’ to ‘control the mechanisms that decide whether elections count.’ That’s what we saw in late-stage republics and failed parliamentary systems: the rules stop functioning as neutral referees. So the concern here isn’t crazy, it’s the recognition that once procedural battles replace voter consent as the source of legitimacy, democracies become very fragile
very quickly.
If you look at historical cases where democratic norms eroded, the people who suffered the most weren’t the political elites, it was the groups that were already socially vulnerable or easily identifiable by appearance or community affiliation. When institutions weaken, targeting tends to follow existing lines of bias. This is not my prediction about the U.S., just the pattern I see over and over again in fragile democracies.
1. Weimar Germany
Far-right paramilitaries didn’t go after elites first, they targeted:
- visible minorities
- political opponents
- marginalized communities
2. Yugoslavia
Once institutions broke down:
- ethnic minorities
- people identifiable by neighborhood, surname, or religion
…were targeted first.
3. Rwanda
Violence was overwhelmingly directed at the group that was:
- publicly known
- visually identifiable (due to ID cards)
4. Latin American dictatorships
Whether right-wing or left-wing:
- indigenous groups,
- political dissidents,
- urban poor,
United States (present warning signs)?
Again, this is not my prediction, just recognition of familiar early indicators we’ve seen elsewhere. In the U.S. today, the groups facing the most pressure as institutions wobble seem to be:
- migrants and asylum seekers targeted through identity-based enforcement
- racial minorities disproportionately affected by shifts in policing or political rhetoric
- politically marginalized communities (LGBTQ+, undocumented people, certain religious minorities)
- local election workers and civil servants who lack high-level protection
None of this means the U.S. is
destined for the same outcomes, only that the
pattern of who becomes vulnerable first, so far, is consistent with what happened in other democracies as institutional stability weakened.
People with the ‘accepted’ complexion, the much needed majority to prevent this, can blend in with those they disagree with by hiding their views or ignoring the warning signs. Minorities don’t get that option; we can’t hide our skin. And by the time the people who think they’re safe finally face the same treatment and start demanding reforms, things have usually gone way too far.
