Steven Levitsky: "Musk, Zuckerberg, and Bezos Are With Trump, But On Their Knees. The Power is Trump.

Steven Levitsky, Director of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, spoke with Aristegui about how the President of the United States could influence both countries that align with his policies and those that do not.

The political scientist and Harvard University professor reviews the early steps of the second term of the President of the United States and the influence of the tech oligarchy: "It’s a patrimonial government." Steven Levitsky (Ithaca, New York, 1968) left the United States on Monday with Joe Biden still as president and landed hours later in Mexico with Donald Trump inaugurated as president for the second time. The first thing he did upon touching Mexican soil was read the speech with which Trump inaugurated a new era: "I wasn't surprised, he's the same populist with empty words," he concludes at the start of his conversation with EL PAÍS on Tuesday morning.

A professor at Harvard University and co-author of the influential book How Democracies Die with Daniel Ziblatt, Levitsky has dedicated his career to unraveling the complex mechanisms of modern democracies and the risks they face due to the rise of authoritarian leaderships, such as Trump’s, something he never stops reminding us of.

The conversation quickly dives into the impact of Trump's second term on U.S. democracy. Levitsky, a deep expert on Latin America and a fervent follower of the Argentine national soccer team, speaks in fluent Spanish, only switching to English when emphasizing certain terms or aspects. He admits several times that Trump’s resounding victory in November surprised him and stresses that Trump, more than a plutocracy, has created a “patrimonial government.”

Question: What did you think of Trump's first speech?

Answer: We must keep saying it: this guy is an authoritarian. We have a government with instincts, with reflexes, with, with an authoritarian orientation. What struck me most was the response of the establishment. Eight years ago, when he first won, the establishment responded with alarm. This time, it’s totally different. He is positioning himself for the regime that’s coming with the idea that the president can use the White House to make a lot of money. The fact that Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is the second most important person in the United States is infernal. Trump has made it clear that he is willing to use the state as a weapon to reward his friends and punish the enemies of the old regime. It’s a patrimonialist style. Zuckerberg only sees what impact Trump can have on his business; Bezos, Tim Cook, Harvard, Disney the same, they don’t want problems.

Q: From resistance, they’ve moved to submission, to embracing him.

A: In many cases, it's an embrace out of fear.

Q: How do you explain that, in these eight years, the United States has normalized Trump in this way?

A: Not just the United States, the whole world. I don’t know if there’s a very scientific or sexy explanation: it’s the advantage that the far-right has in many countries. They’re taking advantage of a crisis of trust in institutions and in the elites. Trump didn’t invent this discontent, but he took advantage of it. The opposition, let’s say the center-left, has no response, no plan, and no identity other than not wanting that. There’s no ideological or programmatic counterbalance in the world. All the energy is with the antiliberal right.

Q: What does the power being acquired by the tech oligarchy say about U.S. democracy?

A: Zuckerberg, Cook, Bezos are with Trump, but they are on their knees. The power is Trump. But it's not a plutocracy; it’s rather a patrimonial government where political power is imposing itself over very rich men, who I would have thought had a little more independence. When Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook, or universities like Harvard start making concessions to Trump before he even came to power...

Q: How do you see the role of universities, especially Harvard or Ivy League schools, in relation to Trump?

A: Something similar is happening with universities as what happens with the media. The media have bet on economic groups, and universities have bet on multimillionaire donors. We depend heavily on donations. Twenty years ago, we thought that those donors would respect our autonomy, that they wouldn’t exercise too much power over us. But that's not the case. It was evident after October 7, 2023, when anti-Israel protests erupted at Harvard, which has several pro-Israel donors. They decided to meddle in Harvard's domestic politics, telling us how we should punish students, even telling us who should be Harvard’s president. To me, it seems like a terrible, dangerous precedent, but I think it’s part of a trend.

Q: It seems that defending democracy doesn’t seem attractive electorally.

A: I’m a political scientist, and I dedicate my life to studying and, in some cases, defending democracy. It’s my job, I get paid for it. But unless in some exceptional cases, like societies coming out of a very ugly authoritarian experience, such as Spain in the 70s, Argentina in the 80s, Chile, South Africa, or Poland in the 90s, where people are thinking about democracy when they vote, no voter prioritizes the political regime or institutions. People don’t vote like that. And we shouldn’t expect them to. We shouldn’t blame the electorate. The electorate, whether Argentine, Mexican, Spanish, Polish, Russian, or American, will vote for a thousand reasons, for identity reasons, because they like a candidate, or often because they are rejecting the status quo, they want to vote against the establishment. People don’t vote for or against democracy. They vote for other reasons. We have to understand and respect that. This may sound a bit elitist, but it’s the elite who must defend democracy.

Q: How do you explain the rise of pro-Trump Latino voters?

A: There are many reasons. Some Latinos live in rural communities, have no higher education, own guns, are Christian... they fit the profile of a Republican voter. For many, especially those of second, third, or fourth generation, defending immigration is not a priority. It’s something they take into account, but the economy weighs more. Religion can also push Latino voters toward the Republicans. The Democratic Party is much more secular. Then there are the anti-communist Latinos, who have politically formed through the Cuban and Venezuelan communities in Florida. And then there’s another group, which are the men. The Republican Party is mobilizing votes centered on the reaction against various social and cultural changes in recent years. There are some Latino men who are voting in a sexist manner. And finally, and I think this was particularly important in this election, there are many Latinos who have no strong party affiliation, but are very dissatisfied with the economy, with inflation. It’s a vote of discontent. Outside of Mexico, very few people have voted for the establishment anywhere in the world.

This piece was originally published by El País, click here to read the original article.