The Reactionary Spirit

1. The Reactionary Spirit: Democracy's Enduring Foe

The reactionary spirit has haunted democracy for its entire modern existence; today, it is powering an extinction-level threat to its future.

Democracy's inherent challenge. Democracy, by its very nature, encourages the dismantling of social hierarchies, whether they are based on wealth, status, or legal rights for marginalized groups. This inherent tendency to promote equality creates an inevitable tension with those committed to preserving existing inequalities. When faced with democratic challenges to their privileged positions, these defenders of hierarchy are forced to choose: accommodate democracy or undermine it.

Defining the reactionary spirit. The "reactionary spirit" is the impulse to choose hierarchy over democracy, weakening or overthrowing democratic institutions to protect established social orders. It is not merely the political right, but a specific form of antidemocratic politics that emerges in reaction to the operation of democratic institutions. This spirit thrives when there's both a high demand for reactionary politics and an organized faction capable of stoking widespread panic.

Competitive authoritarianism. This spirit often manifests as "competitive authoritarianism," a system that maintains the form of elections but systematically breaks democratic rules to rig outcomes in favor of the ruling party. This includes tactics like gerrymandering, controlling media, politicizing the justice system, and harassing opposition, all while maintaining a veneer of democracy. Countries like the United States, Hungary, Israel, and India are currently grappling with this insidious threat.

2. American Authoritarianism: A History of Democratic Deception

American authoritarianism perverts the language of democracy and rights, advancing a version of these ideas that justifies excluding entire classes of persons from the body politic and ruling over them by force.

Freedom as tyranny. Unlike European reactionaries who openly rejected democracy, American authoritarians have historically cloaked their antidemocratic aims in the language of freedom and democratic ideals. Figures like Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, claimed secession was consistent with "great principles" of democracy, even as his government stood for chattel slavery. This rhetorical weapon exploits the "counter-majoritarian difficulty," positioning reactionaries as champions of liberty against perceived majority tyranny.

Slavery and Jim Crow's legacy. The institution of slavery, and later Jim Crow, provided stark examples of this American authoritarian tradition.

• Slavery: Founders used the concept of "race" to reconcile slavery with the Declaration's "all men are created equal." John C. Calhoun explicitly rejected equality, advocating "absolute and despotic power" to maintain slavery, framing abolitionism as a threat to liberty.
• Jim Crow: After Reconstruction, Southern states invented state-level competitive authoritarianism through poll taxes, literacy tests, and extreme gerrymandering, explicitly designed to disenfranchise Black voters and ensure white supremacy. Carter Glass, a Virginia delegate, openly stated the convention's purpose was "to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action."

The new reactionary spirit. The civil rights movement shattered Jim Crow, but the reactionary spirit evolved. Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy" used coded racial appeals, and Barack Obama's election triggered an explosive backlash among white voters who felt they were "losing their country." This led to a surge in antidemocratic legislation in Republican-controlled states, including gerrymandering based on racial data. Donald Trump's rise, fueled by "ethnocentric concerns," epitomizes this new form, where antidemocratic actions are justified as defending "democracy" against a "stolen election" or "radical left."

3. The Global "Americanization" of Autocracy

As the world became more ideologically American, so, too, did its authoritarians.

Schmitt's prescient critique. German legal theorist Carl Schmitt, observing democracy's triumph after World War I, argued that its victory would lead to a new struggle: between democracy and liberalism. He claimed democracy required "homogeneity" and the "elimination or eradication of heterogeneity," defining politics by the "friend" versus "enemy" distinction. Schmitt believed dictatorships could be "democratic" if they had popular approval among a homogeneous community, providing a blueprint for authoritarianism in a democratic age.

Post-WWII adaptation. After Nazism's defeat, overt fascism was discredited, forcing the reactionary spirit to adapt. European far-right parties, like Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National in France, found success by focusing on xenophobia and "reverse colonization" narratives, appealing to cultural anxieties without openly rejecting democracy. This "reputational shield" allowed them to recycle old racialized fears in a more egalitarian cultural context, making far-right politics in Europe increasingly "Americanized."

History's end and reaction's rebirth. The "end of history" after the Cold War saw democracy become the globally dominant ideology, but this triumph also sowed seeds of "dissatisfaction" (Fukuyama). The 2010s witnessed a global surge in far-right parties in established democracies, all presenting themselves as democratic while attacking "liberalism" or "multiculturalism." This "convergent evolution" (Guriev and Treisman's "Spin Dictators") means authoritarians worldwide now adopt a democratic mask, using Schmittian tactics to identify domestic "enemies" and galvanize support against perceived social change.

4. Hungary: A Blueprint for Competitive Authoritarianism

Orbán has built the perfect authoritarian state for harnessing the reactionary spirit: a legalistic, almost invisibly authoritarian regime seen by its supporters as the last true bulwark of European democracy.

Orbán's autocratic legalism. Viktor Orbán, once a liberal democrat, transformed his Fidesz party into a culturally conservative force, seizing a two-thirds parliamentary majority in 2010. He then systematically dismantled Hungarian democracy through "autocratic legalism," subtly altering the constitution and legal code to entrench Fidesz's power.

• Electoral manipulation: Rewrote the constitution, gerrymandered districts, abolished run-offs, and imposed rules that disadvantaged opposition parties.
• Judicial capture: Lowered judges' retirement age to create vacancies, expanded constitutional court jurisdiction, and created a new Fidesz-controlled administrative court system.
• Media control: Politicized public media, used the Media Council to fine private outlets, and funneled government ad revenue to friendly media, leading to 90% of media being government-controlled.

Manufacturing reaction. Orbán's regime thrives on manufacturing a sense of existential threat to Hungarian social hierarchies, legitimizing its power grabs through relentless attacks on Schmittian "enemies."

• George Soros: Orbán's former benefactor became public enemy #1, accused of manipulating Hungary and funding a "plot" against traditional values.
• Refugee crisis: Framed the 2015 influx as an "invasion" and a "Soros-funded" conspiracy to replace native Europeans, leading to "Stop Soros" laws that criminalized aid to refugees and forced Central European University out of Hungary.
• LGBT community: Later targeted "gender ideology" as a demographic threat, passing laws banning LGBT education and themes for minors.

Exporting the model. Orbán's success has made Hungary a model for the global right, particularly in the United States. Figures like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis admire Orbán's "effective Christian conservative governance" and his willingness to "fight" the culture war. This "authoritarian beachhead" in Europe demonstrates how the reactionary spirit, when sufficiently masked, can influence mainstream conservatism, encouraging "illiberal" tactics and weakening democratic institutions globally.

5. Israel's "Ethnic Democracy" and the Creep of Occupation

The occupation and the settlements are not the only causes of Israel’s democratic crisis. Israel has always defined itself as a “Jewish and democratic state,” but there’s an inherent tension between these two components of Israeli identity: privileging a particular ethnoreligious group on the one hand, while remaining committed to democracy and its fundamental principle of equality on the other.

A house divided. Israel's unique challenge stems from its attempt to simultaneously operate as a liberal democracy within its recognized borders and an authoritarian military occupation in the Palestinian territories. This "house divided" creates an inescapable clash between democratic ideals and the practices of maintaining Jewish supremacy across all lands west of the Jordan River. The occupation's legal and political machinery inevitably corrupts Israel's democratic institutions, legitimizing undemocratic ideas within the state itself.

The crisis of "ethnic democracy." Israeli sociologist Sammy Smooha defines Israel as an "ethnic democracy," where civil and political rights are extended to individuals, but the state is identified with a "core ethnic nation" (Jews), privileging them while treating Arab Palestinians as "second-class citizens."

• 1990s push for equality: The "constitutional revolution" led by Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak sought to enshrine human rights and equality, implicitly challenging the ethnic principle. The Oslo Accords, championed by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, aimed to end the occupation, with Rabin fearing a "binational state" would destroy Israel's Jewish and democratic character.
• Reactionary backlash: This push for equality ignited the reactionary spirit. Meir Kahane, an American-born rabbi, openly rejected democracy and called for ethnic cleansing, inspiring terrorists like Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir, who assassinated Rabin.

Netanyahu's reactionary turn. Benjamin Netanyahu, after his 2009 return to power, systematically pushed Israel to the reactionary right.

• Media manipulation: Cultivated pro-Netanyahu media (e.g., Israel Hayom) and pressured outlets for favorable coverage.
• Anti-Arab policies: Passed numerous discriminatory laws against Arab citizens, culminating in the 2018 Nation-State Law, which explicitly defined Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, effectively codifying Arab second-class status.
• Judicial assault: Appointed right-wing judges, stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction, and, facing corruption charges, launched a full-scale assault on judicial independence in 2023, aiming to create an "elected dictatorship."
• Rise of Kahanism: Netanyahu's embrace of the far-right, including Itamar Ben-Gvir (a Kahanist now serving as National Security Minister), shows how extreme politics have seeped into the mainstream.

6. India's Hindutva: Redefining Democracy for a Hindu State

In We, Golwalkar argued that all nations are defined by five traits: shared land, shared race, shared religion, shared culture, and shared language. Based on this definition, the entirety of what he called Hindusthan—comprising modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh—rightfully belonged to the Hindu nation and the Hindu nation alone.

The fascist roots of Hindutva. M. S. Golwalkar's 1939 book, "We, or Our Nationhood Defined," codified the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu-nationalist movement. Golwalkar argued that India (Hindusthan) belonged exclusively to the Hindu nation, viewing Muslims as "enemies" who must either convert or be "wholly subordinated" without citizen's rights. He even cited Nazi Germany's "purging the country of the Semitic Races" as a positive example. This ideology, directly modeled after fascist ideas, represented India's reactionary spirit, rejecting Mahatma Gandhi's vision of a secular, inclusive nation.

Kamandal politics and Modi's rise. India's founders, like B. R. Ambedkar, warned that denying equality would "blow up the structure of political democracy." For decades, the Hindu nationalist BJP remained marginal. However, in the 1980s, the BJP capitalized on the Babri Masjid dispute and upper-caste backlash against affirmative action (Mandal Commission). L. K. Advani's "kamandal" politics united Hindus against Muslims, culminating in the mosque's demolition in 1992. Narendra Modi, a lifelong Hindutva believer, refined this strategy. After becoming Prime Minister in 2014, he aggressively pursued a Hindutva agenda, especially after his 2019 reelection.

Dismantling Indian democracy. Modi's government has systematically attacked India's secular and democratic foundations:

• Anti-Muslim policies: Passed discriminatory citizenship laws, revoked Jammu and Kashmir's special status, promoted "love jihad" conspiracy theories, and oversaw the construction of a Hindu temple on the Babri Masjid site.
• Authoritarian control: Established an anonymous donation system favoring the BJP, brought major media outlets under Modi-friendly oligarchs (e.g., Adani's purchase of NDTV), weaponized law enforcement against critics, and defanged independent institutions like the Supreme Court and the Central Information Commission.
• Social media censorship: Implemented government agencies to coerce social media companies into removing content, leading to the blocking of prominent accounts.

These actions have led V-Dem to classify India as an "electoral autocracy," demonstrating how Modi's "Orbán-like ability" to mask a BJP assault on democracy has transformed the world's largest democracy.

7. The Global Stakes: Why US and India Matter Most

Were the United States and India to succumb to the reactionary spirit, they would not weaken democracy by openly preaching the virtues of competitive authoritarianism. Instead, they would change what democracy means to many people around the world, showing that countries can succeed and even thrive through a system where “elected” authoritarians run roughshod over democratic norms in pursuit of power.

Hegemonic shocks and regime change. University of Toronto political scientist Seva Gunitsky argues that "hegemonic shocks"—rapid rises or falls of great powers—create environments where government systems change quickly. The US and India, as the world's largest and third-largest economies (and democracies), exert immense influence. If they succumb to competitive authoritarianism, it would represent an "extinction-level threat" to global democracy, not through overt authoritarian preaching, but by redefining what "democracy" means.

Economic and ideological leverage. The US and India's economic power provides crucial "linkage" (Levitsky and Way) that can pressure other countries towards democratization.

• Economic pressure: The EU's suspension of funds to Hungary and US threats of economic punishment against Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro illustrate this leverage. If the US and India become competitive authoritarian, this pressure would disappear, and they might even offer an alternative market for countries seeking trade "with no human rights strings attached."
• Ideological model: America's "exalted status as a model" and India's role as a "bridgehead of effervescent liberty" (Sunil Khilnani) mean their democratic decline would legitimize competitive authoritarianism globally. Leaders like El Salvador's Nayib Bukele already demonstrate how "success breeds imitators," even for naked autocracy.

Why China is not the primary threat. While China is a great power, its economic model faces significant demographic challenges (aging population, one-child policy legacy), unsustainable investment-heavy growth, and Xi Jinping's personalist dictatorship, which stifles innovation and leads to policy blunders (e.g., zero-COVID). China is unlikely to become a superpower rivaling the US in ideological influence. The greater threat to global democracy comes from within the US and India, as their "superpower suicide" would be far more damaging to the global democratic order than China's gradual ascent.

8. Democracy's Resilience: Activating the "Overlapping Consensus"

The best way to defend a democracy, I’ve realized, is to say you’re defending a democracy.

Canada's example. Canada, despite high immigration rates, has resisted the far-right surge seen elsewhere in the West. Its decades-long commitment to multiculturalism as a central national identity, supported by extensive educational reforms and financial aid for minority inclusion, has "vaccinated itself against the reactionary spirit." This demonstrates that a strong national ethos grounded in equality can be a powerful defense.

The power of the "American ethos." In the 2022 US midterms, candidates like Arizona's Adrian Fontes successfully campaigned on defending American democracy against election deniers. This strategy worked because it appealed to America's fundamental self-identity—its "American ethos" rooted in democracy. When prodemocracy candidates expose reactionaries as truly antidemocratic, they can rally a significant number of voters.

Rawlsian stability. Philosopher John Rawls's concept of an "overlapping consensus"—a tacit agreement on bedrock democratic values like equality and freedom, even if for different reasons—explains this resilience. This consensus, which includes "reasonable" people, can be activated when democracy is perceived to be under threat. The 1619 Project, for instance, argues that Black Americans' struggle for equality makes them "perfecters of this democracy," demonstrating how diverse groups can find common ground in democratic ideals.

9. Strategic Responses to Reactionary Overreach

The vulnerability of the reactionary spirit stems, somewhat ironically, from one of its greatest strengths: its capacity to operate within democracy’s ideological confines.

Reactionary missteps. Modern reactionaries must undermine democracy without appearing to do so, using complex policies, ethnoreligious polarization, and claims of attacking "liberalism" not "democracy." However, they often overreach, making mistakes that expose their true antidemocratic goals. These moments create opportunities for "transformative repolarization," where voters are presented with a clear choice over democracy, without demonizing the "Other."

Lessons from recent victories.

• Brazil (2022): Lula da Silva defeated Jair Bolsonaro by emphasizing the contrast between democracy and authoritarianism. Center-right senator Simone Tebet endorsed Lula, citing his "commitment to democracy and the constitution," swaying crucial swing voters.
• US Midterms (2022): Democrats linked election denial to attacks on "freedom" (e.g., abortion rights), making the threat to democracy feel real and immediate. Candidates who denied the 2020 election suffered a significant penalty, demonstrating that democracy arguments can move decisive blocs of voters.
• Hungary (2019): Opposition candidate Gergely Karácsony won the Budapest mayoral election by linking democracy to housing costs, showing that connecting democracy to tangible issues can yield success even in hostile environments.

Nimble defense. Democracy's defenders must be nimble, identifying reactionary overreaches and attacking relentlessly with messages tailored to specific contexts. This involves understanding the country's "overlapping consensus" and linking prodemocracy arguments to other issues that matter to key portions of the electorate, making the abstract threat of democratic decline feel concrete and urgent.

10. Building Democracy's Defenses: Beyond Elections

Nonpoliticians have the potential to do more than merely block reactionary action or aid in the contest for power.

Institutionalizing civil resistance. Defending democracy requires more than just politicians. Activists, donors, journalists, and ordinary citizens play a crucial role. Hardy Merriman's concept of "democracy insurance" involves institutionalizing civil resistance: building organizations that train citizens in nonviolent action and create career paths for prodemocracy activists. This ensures a cadre of experienced leaders can monitor for democratic backsliding and mobilize masses during crises, as seen in the Israeli protests against Netanyahu's judicial overhaul.

Strengthening democracy's grassroots. Organizations that challenge social hierarchy and build trust among citizens are vital.

• Anti-oppression movements: Groups fighting racism, religious discrimination, gender inequality, or caste systems, while sometimes sparking reactionary backlash, are indispensable for long-term democratic health.
• Social cohesion groups: Nonreactionary religious organizations, social clubs, and sports leagues foster connections across social lines, making citizens less likely to view political opponents as "enemies."
• Labor unions: Historically, unions have been crucial for "economic democracy" and building an overlapping consensus. Research shows union membership can reduce racial resentment, suggesting a causal effect in weakening the reactionary spirit at a psychological level. Reversing the decline in unionization is a feasible step to rebuild democratic foundations.

11. The Quiet Strength of Democratic Life

Nietzsche challenges us to consider whether life in a stable democracy is simply too boring to last. Does democracy sap politics of the vigor, the conflict, the heroism that make it vital? The answer to this question, I think, is a resounding no.

Nietzsche's critique of democracy. Friedrich Nietzsche, a 19th-century philosopher, viewed democracy as a "slave morality" that debased individual greatness and valorized weakness. He saw "the doctrine of equality" as "poisonous poison," believing that true strength and respect came from violent, existential struggle, not the "restlessness, emptiness, and noisy wranglings" of democratic compromise. Modern reactionaries, like Trump and Modi, tap into this Nietzschean well, presenting themselves as "national saviors" who can "smash the boundaries of ordinary politics" through sheer personal strength and a politics of emotional gratification.

Democracy's enduring appeal. This "machismo" exploits the often unsatisfying truth of democratic life: victories are usually partial, compromise is necessary, and relinquishing power is inevitable. However, democracy's quiet strength lies in its commitment to inclusion and its ability to command authentic support from free people. It offers a sense of purpose and meaning not through vanquishing enemies, but through collective self-determination and the pursuit of a more just society. The challenge is to articulate and demonstrate this strength, proving that democracy is not merely a system for managing problems, but a vibrant, evolving form of existential struggle that ennobles all its citizens.

Last updated: February 18, 2026