The Perils of Legalistic Literalism

Throughout history, authoritarianism has rarely invaded democracies through dramatic coups but rather through the gradual erosion of norms and institutions. This erosion is often enabled by what might be called “legalistic literalism”—a mindset that fixates on procedural adherence while remaining blind to broader patterns of democratic decay. This approach creates a dangerous paradox: by the time literalists acknowledge an authoritarian threat has crossed their arbitrary legal threshold, democratic safeguards have often already been fatally compromised.

The United States offers a compelling case study of this phenomenon. From the normalization of anti-democratic rhetoric during the current president’s first campaign to the institutional paralysis surrounding the January 6th insurrection and subsequent Supreme Court decisions expanding presidential immunity, literalist thinking has consistently undermined effective resistance to democratic deterioration. Now, with the current administration’s return to office, the administration has embraced an explicitly authoritarian approach. It has weaponized the Justice Department and haphazardly dismantled government agencies without required Congressional authorization—at times so maliciously and haphazardly that certain closures had to be reversed. Public servants have been fired, impeding the delivery of essential services to senior citizens, veterans, those seeking enforcement of their civil rights, and other citizens. Some, identified as the “other,” have been sent to what can only be described as concentration camps (in the British historical tradition thus far) in foreign countries or literally “lawless” territories under U.S. control (in the American historical tradition alas) pending their final disposition. Meanwhile, Congress has been marginalized, and executive orders are treated as beyond the oversight of Congress or the judiciary under the novel unitary executive theory propounded by the administration.

This pattern follows a recognizable trajectory observed in other democracies that have declined into authoritarian rule. What makes the American case particularly instructive is how adherence to procedural norms—supposedly the safeguard of democracy—has paradoxically accelerated democratic erosion by delaying meaningful resistance until institutional damage becomes nearly irreversible. Examining this process reveals not just the mechanics of democratic decline but also potential strategies for arresting it before critical democratic guardrails are wholly destroyed.

This essay examines how literalist thinking enables authoritarianism by exploring these key moments of institutional failure and draws lessons for preserving democratic systems against such threats.

The Warning Signs: Early Responses to Authoritarian Signals

The Normalization Phase (2015-2016)

When he emerged as a political figure, his rhetoric displayed clear authoritarian tendencies: praising dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, threatening political opponents with imprisonment, attacking the press as “enemies of the people,” and suggesting he might not accept election results. These statements represented textbook warning signs familiar to scholars of democratic decline.

Yet the response from most institutional actors was profoundly literalist. Major media outlets normalized his rhetoric by treating it as conventional political hyperbole rather than dangerous authoritarianism. Legal scholars reassured the public that constitutional guardrails would hold. Political opponents dismissed him as unserious. The common refrain—“take him seriously, not literally”—embodied this literalist fallacy, suggesting that dangerous rhetoric was inconsequential until manifested in specific legal violations.

This response ignored historical lessons from democratic backsliding in countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela, where authoritarian leaders signaled their intentions through rhetoric long before implementing institutional changes. The literalist mindset demanded concrete proof before acknowledging threat—effectively demanding democracy show fatal symptoms before allowing preventative treatment.

Constitutional Optimism as Denial (2017-2019)

Once in office, he tested democratic guardrails through actions that challenged norms without clearly violating laws: firing FBI Director James Comey while citing the Russia investigation, demanding loyalty from law enforcement officials, attacking judges who ruled against him, and claiming “absolute immunity” from investigation.

The literalist response from many institutions was to examine each action in isolation rather than as part of a pattern of democratic erosion. This compartmentalization prevented the recognition of the cumulative threat. Many mainstream legal scholars maintained that since each action could be technically defended through creative legal interpretation, the system was holding.

This faith in procedural safeguards reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracies die in the 21st century. As scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt note in How Democracies Die, modern authoritarian leaders typically dismantle democracies through legal channels—exploiting ambiguities in legal systems rather than openly violating them. The literalist’s insistence on clear legal violations as the threshold for concern thus creates a perfect blind spot for detecting authoritarian encroachment.

This blindspot would prove particularly damaging as his presidency progressed, setting the stage for increasingly bold challenges to democratic norms that would eventually culminate in the events surrounding the 2020 election.

Institutional Paralysis: January 6th and Its Aftermath

The events surrounding January 6th, 2021, represent perhaps the clearest example of how literalist thinking enables authoritarianism. For months, he and his allies laid groundwork to overturn the election: filing dozens of baseless lawsuits, pressuring state officials to “find” votes, attempting to manipulate the Justice Department, and promoting alternative slates of electors.

The Failure of Preventative Response

Despite these clear warning signs, many institutions remained paralyzed by literalist reasoning. Political leaders insisted on waiting for an unambiguous “red line” to be crossed. Law enforcement agencies, despite intelligence warnings about violence, hesitated to prepare adequately for January 6th partly due to concerns about appearing to take sides in what was framed as a “political dispute” rather than an attempted coup.

This paralysis extended to Congress, where even after the Capitol was breached, a significant number of legislators proceeded with objections to electoral votes—adhering to a procedural approach even as the violent consequences of that approach unfolded around them.

The Accountability Gap

In the aftermath, literalist thinking continued to impede accountability. Criminal prosecutions moved at a glacial pace, constrained by procedures designed for ordinary criminal cases rather than threats to democracy itself. The impeachment process failed when many senators cited procedural objections about impeaching a former president—a literalist reading that ignored the purpose of impeachment as a safeguard against future threats to democracy.

Perhaps most concerning was the judiciary’s response. Courts processing January 6th cases often treated them as ordinary criminal matters rather than components of an attempted coup, focusing on specific statutory violations while avoiding broader questions about democracy and insurrection. This procedural compartmentalization helped normalize an unprecedented assault on democratic transition.

As Daniel Ziblatt observed, the January 6th attack and his subsequent pardoning of rioters highlighted two cardinal rules of a healthy democracy: You have to accept election results, win or lose, and you cannot engage in violence or threaten violence to hold onto power. The failure to enforce these principles further illustrates how literalist hesitation in addressing democratic threats emboldens authoritarian actors.

This failure of accountability created a dangerous precedent, setting the stage for the next phase of democratic erosion: the judiciary’s formal expansion of executive power beyond democratic constraints.

Judicial Complicity and the Supreme Court’s Role

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States (2024) exemplifies how literalist legal reasoning can provide cover for authoritarianism. By granting unprecedented immunity to presidents, the Court elevated a narrow textual reading over consideration of how such immunity would affect democratic accountability.

The ruling effectively places presidents above the law, making future accountability nearly impossible. While meticulously parsing eighteenth-century texts and precedents, the Court showed remarkable blindness to the real-world impact: a president who had already attempted to overturn an election was being granted expanded immunity just as he prepared to potentially retake office with explicit promises of retribution against opponents.

This decision represented the culmination of a years-long process of judicial capture that extended well beyond this single ruling. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas had been implicated in significant ethics scandals, including undisclosed luxury vacations, private jet travel, and real estate deals with billionaires who had interests before the Court. Rather than addressing these clear conflicts of interest through meaningful ethics reforms, the Court responded with voluntary, unenforceable guidelines that preserved the appearance of judicial independence while allowing substantive corruption to continue.

These ethics scandals revealed a deeper problem: the Court’s legitimacy was being undermined not just by individual rulings but by both the perception and reality that justices were entangled with wealthy interests seeking to reshape American governance. The corruption evident in these scandals aligned key justices with the very oligarchic forces backing authoritarian politics—creating a dangerous alliance between judicial power and anti-democratic wealth.

The Oligarchic Capture of Democratic Institutions

The literalist approach fails not only through procedural blindness but also by ignoring the economic power dynamics that increasingly shape American governance. The same oligarchic network supporting judicial capture has also backed authoritarian political movements and organizations, such as the Federalist Society, recognizing that an authoritarian turn benefits economic elites through deregulation, tax policies, and suppression of labor rights.

Congress’ failure to act against judicial corruption stems not merely from procedural timidity but from financial entanglement with the same oligarchs and corporate interests that have corrupted the courts. This same timidity was on display in Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to support a Republican-crafted Continuing Resolution (CR) to extend government funding, despite opposition from within his own party and others opposed to authoritarian encroachment. His rationale—that blocking the bill would allow the president and his oligarchic side-kick to seize more power through a government shutdown—illustrates how institutional leaders often capitulate to authoritarian pressure rather than risk direct confrontation. This type of preemptive surrender, justified through procedural pragmatism, ultimately facilitates democratic erosion rather than preventing it.

The assumption that democratic institutions operate independently of economic influence is a dangerous literalist fallacy. The reality is that concentrated wealth has created a feedback loop where economic power translates into political influence, which in turn creates policies that further concentrate wealth. This cycle has accelerated democratic erosion by ensuring that institutional responses to authoritarianism remain weak and ineffective, constrained by the same economic interests that benefit from democratic decline.

The Road Ahead

Democracy in the U.S. is at a precarious moment. The literalist approach to democratic defense has repeatedly failed to prevent authoritarian encroachment. The path forward requires:

1. Recognizing that democracy dies through legal channels, not just through obvious coups.
2. Understanding that economic oligarchy and political authoritarianism are mutually reinforcing threats.
3. Prioritizing substantive democratic values over procedural formalism.
4. Building coalitions willing to take political risks to preserve democratic governance.

For citizens, this means moving beyond the assumption that legal procedures alone will protect democracy. For institutions, it means developing the courage to defend democratic principles even when doing so challenges conventional interpretations of their role.

Effective resistance to authoritarianism requires not just procedural vigilance but moral courage—the willingness to recognize patterns of democratic erosion before they manifest in unambiguous legal violations. It requires understanding that democracy depends not just on rules but on shared commitments to democratic values that transcend legalistic interpretations.

By the time an authoritarian breaks the law, they have already rewritten the rules. The fight for democracy must begin long before that point.