Many who are resisting authoritarianism are over-relying on the Democratic Party and Democratic elected leaders to save us. This is a very big mistake. The story of how the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration, often lauded for its role in rescuing in the U.S. economy, fighting a war against fascism in Europe, and building a long-term base for Democratic politics, behaved in the face of authoritarian threats exposes how even “good guys” fighting “real fascism” can become complicit in authoritarianism when they prioritize coalition maintenance and Party survival over universal rights, and therefore treat governance in the face of authoritarian threats as normal politics.
Democratic Party leadership, even those fighting authoritarianism, should be assumed to be vulnerable to sacrificing marginalized communities when it serves their coalition-building strategy. In order to build a coalition for “democratic” politics, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration built robust democratic infrastructure (unions, social security, public works) for white workers while:
Abandoning anti-lynching legislation to keep Southern Democrats in the fold
Excluding domestic and agricultural workers (majority Black) from New Deal protections, again, to keep white Democrats in the coalition
Destroying Native communities through dams and displacement
Incarcerating 120,000 Japanese Americans while fighting fascism
Restricting immigration of Jewish refugees until genocide was a fait accompli, and, even then, never actually welcoming Jewish refugees even after the war
The pattern: Progressive governance for some, authoritarian violence for others, all justified as political necessity. And, what these failures did keep the avenues open for a post-WWII rise of authoritarianism in the U.S.
Democrats right now are likely to:
1. Choose “winnable” fights over existential ones
Negotiate infrastructure bills while authoritarian consolidation accelerates
Focus on 2026 messaging rather than immediate disruption in order to prevent consolidation
Treat this as a bad political cycle, not as anti-democratic regime change
2. Horse-trading vulnerable communities by “accepting” the following:
“We can’t protect trans kids AND win moderates”
We must abandon undocumented immigrants to look “tough on border security”
Sacrifice voting rights to preserve the filibuster
Soft-pedal on civil resistance because it polls badly
3. Mistaking partisan politics for anti-authoritarian resistance
Believing institutional norms and electoral strategy will save us when the historical evidence proves this completely wrong
Asking people to “vote harder” when the game has fundamentally changed
Treating mass civil disobedience as a radical position rather than as a necessary survival strategy
4. Measuring success by what Democrats gain rather than what authoritarianism loses
Celebrating legislative wins while ignoring pillars of authoritarian support going unchallenged
Focusing on 2028 candidate positioning while regulatory capture proceeds
Building party infrastructure instead of mass noncooperation capacity
The key difference you’re naming: Authoritarianism requires mass, sustained, disruptive, and sometimes illegal action - tactics that partisan actors structurally cannot lead.
Democrats will always be constrained by:
Electoral viability calculations
Donor relationships
Institutional position (can’t call for breaking laws they’re sworn to uphold)
Media narratives about “responsible” opposition
Coalition management that sacrifices some for others
But defeating authoritarianism requires:
Sustained noncooperation that disrupts economic/social functioning
Mass civil disobedience that accepts legal consequences
Offensive disruption of authoritarian consolidation, not defensive protest
Unity across ideological lines that transcends party loyalty
Willingness to sacrifice “normalcy” and comfort for sustained resistance
Nonpartisanship, which is often viewed as against Party interests
This history argues that anti-authoritarian resistance must be led by civil society, not party infrastructure, because:
Only civil society can mobilize disruptive action at scale - parties need to maintain legitimacy; movements can risk it
Only nonpartisan coalitions can achieve the mass required - achieving critical mass requires reaching beyond partisan bases
Only those outside institutional power can name the game has changed - Democrats will keep playing by rules that no longer exist
Only movements can refuse the horse-trading - parties will always sacrifice some communities; movements must hold the line for everyone
Only civil resistance can disrupt fast enough - legislative strategy operates on electoral timelines; authoritarianism consolidates daily
The warning translates to specific choices ahead:
When Democrats propose “bipartisan election reform” that abandons key protections - will movements accept it or escalate disruption?
When party leadership says mass walkouts will “hurt our chances in 2026” - will organizers defer or act anyway?
When protecting one marginalized community requires “compromise” on another - will civil society hold firm for universal protection?
When sustained noncooperation threatens economic stability - will resistance accept that cost or return to normal?
FDR built a powerful state apparatus and democratic infrastructure for white America while enabling authoritarianism against everyone else. The “good” politics and the authoritarian politics weren’t in tension - they were the same political project, with different populations experiencing different faces of state power.
Today’s Democrats could build climate infrastructure while abandoning immigrants, protect abortion while sacrificing trans people, strengthen unions while enabling police militarization - all while genuinely believing they’re fighting authoritarianism. But all of these moves destroy a fundamental pillar of democracy - pluralism. For those of us who want to live in a free country, pluralism matters greatly - it is the operative theory behind the famous quote by Dr. King, that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
The only check on this kind of backsliding is a movement that refuses those trades, operates outside partisan constraints, and recognizes that mass civil resistance isn’t one tactic among many - it’s the difference between resisting authoritarianism and managing your position under it.

