Bezos, Trump, and the Failure of Democracy
We are witnessing a watershed moment. Democracy is failing because the rule of law has been broken. And everyone is about to realize it. All at once.
Editor’s note: I’ve been stewing over the Washington Post story all weekend and felt compelled to write another bonus Triad about it because people seem to be both misdiagnosing and underestimating what happened at the Washington Post. This isn’t about censorship or the media. It’s catastrophic failure of the rule of law.
This is a watershed moment that suggests we are in greater danger than we realized.
It’s time to get organized and get ready. To prepare for what’s to come. That’s what we’re doing at The Bulwark, every day. I hope you’ll join us. There’s power in community.
Tonight Tim and the gang will go live after the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden for a Bulwark+ members-only livestream. If you want to join, become a member now and watch your inbox for a link shortly.
ON FRIDAY, after the Washington Post’s publisher announced that the paper was suddenly abandoning the practice of the editorial page endorsing presidential candidates, news leaked that—on the very same day—Donald Trump met with executives from Blue Origin.
Blue Origin, of course, is the rocket company owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.
This was neither a coincidence nor a case of Bezos and Trump being caught doing something they wished to keep hidden. The entire point of the exercise, at least for Trump, was that it be public.
What we witnessed on Friday was not a case of censorship or a failure of the media. It had nothing to do with journalism or the Washington Post. It was something much, much more consequential. It was about oligarchy, the rule of law, and the failure of the democratic order.
When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trump’s opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.
Bezos understood that if he antagonized Kamala Harris and Harris became president, he would face no consequences. A Harris administration would not target his businesses because the Harris administration would—like all presidential administrations not headed by Trump—adhere to the rule of law.
Bezos likewise understood that the inverse was not true. If he continued to antagonize Trump and Trump became president, his businesses very much would be targeted.
So bending the knee to Trump was the smart play. All upside, no downside.
What Trump understood was that Bezos’s submission would be of limited use if it was kept quiet. Because the point of dominating Bezos wasn’t just to dominate Bezos. It was to send a message to every other businessman, entrepreneur, and corporation in America: that these are the rules of the game. If you are nice to Trump, the government will be nice to you. If you criticize Trump, the government will be used against you.
Which is why Trump met with Blue Origin on the same day that Bezos yielded. It was a demonstration—a very public demonstration.
But as bad as that sounds, it isn’t the worst part.
The worst part is the underlying failures that made this arrangement possible.
My friend Kristofer Harrison is a Russia expert who runs the Dekleptocracy Project. This morning he emailed,
America’s oligarch moment makes us more like 1990s Russia than we want to believe. Political scientists can and will debate what comes first: oligarchs or flaccid politicians. 1990s Russia had that in spades. So do we. That combination corroded the rule of law there, and it’s doing so here.
Russian democracy died because their institutions and politicians were not strong enough to enforce the law. Sound familiar? I could identify half a dozen laws that Elon Musk has already broken without enforcement. Bezos censored the Post because he knows that nobody will enforce the law and keep Trump from seeking political retribution. And on and on. The corrosive effect on the rule of law is cumulative.
The Bezos surrender is our warning bell about entering early-stage 1990s Russia. No legal system is able to survive when it there’s a class not subject to it because politicians are too cowardly to enforce the law.
And that’s the foundational point. The Bezos surrender isn’t just a demonstration. It’s a consequence. It’s a signal that the rule of law has already eroded to such a point that even a person as powerful as Jeff Bezos no longer believes it can protect him.
So he has sought shelter in the embrace of the strongman.
Bezos made his decision because he calculated that Trump has already won—not the election, but his struggle to break the rule of law.
Yesterday, Timothy Snyder issued a call to Americans to not obey in advance. He is correct, of course. We should continue to resist fascism as best we can. The stakes have not changed.
What should change is our understanding of where our democracy currently sits on the continuum. We are not teetering at the precipice of a slide into autocracy. We are already partway down the slope. And that’s even if Harris wins.
If Trump wins? Well, I suppose we’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
But Bezos and Trump have just taught America’s remaining small-d democratic leaders: The time for normal politics, where you try to win bipartisan majorities by focusing on “kitchen-table” issues is past. The task in front of us will require aggressive, systemic changes if we are to escape terminal decline.
The hour is later than we think.
The question is no longer "Can it happen here?" It's no longer "Will it happen here?" The question is: "It's happening here, where will it end?"
I stand firm in my belief that Kamala will win, and it won't be that close, popularly or electorally, for reasons I have enumerated at length in the comments previously. But I want to do a thought experiment and fast forward to next year- Harris and Walz are in the White House, and Trump is hopefully facing some legal consequences for his various and sundry perfidies. What does the GOP do? Are they able to course correct? Do they abandon the Stephen Millers and Heritage Foundations and retrench in the sort of conservatism one expects in a liberal democracy? Or do they read the tea leaves of the oligarch class and what this election has illuminated, and double down, find a new, more palatable version of Trump? What rough phoenix slouches towards Bethlehem to be born into the chasm?