Beyond Seeing Ghosts: Recognizing the Early Shadows of Authoritarianism

When fear reshapes freedom, the ghost may already be real.

Isaac Saul at Tangle often responds to readers' questions. In a recent update, he responded to Jacob from Boston, MA about Saul's piece "Seeing Ghosts" asking, "How do we know when the ghosts are real? Would there be warning signs? And how would they be different from the warning signs Trump is currently showing us?"

Saul responded saying he has a lot of trust in our systems "in our courts, our people, and, yes, even our Congress" and that "the worst instincts of Trump, the people in his orbit, and past presidents like him are all checked pretty well by the system we have." He goes on to provide his "Genuine danger signs":

1. prosecution of opposition leaders without evidence,

2. deployment of military against peaceful protests,

3. ending free elections,

4. elimination of real political opposition, and

5. direct restrictions on speech.

Regarding the last, he says "… yes, this one is actually already happening. And as I’ve said, I think it’s one of the most disturbing developments yet." Each of these scenarios signals a major, undeniable breach. However, focusing only on these extreme events may overlook a crucial reality: the damage of authoritarianism often begins long before these kinds of red lines are blatantly crossed.

Take, for instance, Saul's first red line: "The DOJ or FBI actually attempting to prosecute or imprison Joe Biden or prominent Democratic leaders [without material evidence]." That’s a pretty high bar. Even short of actual prosecution at such a level, a lot can happen that chills the democratic environment. Persistent political targeting, weaponized investigations, or amplified media narratives suggesting imminent legal peril for opposition figures could all foster fear and distrust. Citizens, political operatives, and media outlets might adjust their behavior to avoid scrutiny or retaliation, even if formal charges are never brought. In this way, the mere threat or politicization of law enforcement can materially erode democratic norms. If such a scenario is seen as a real possibility by credible, rational observers, then in many respects, we are already there.

Authoritarianism rarely arrives overnight. Instead, it seeps into a society through fear, intimidation, and the slow erosion of norms. Even the realistic threat of crossing Saul's red lines can fundamentally alter citizen behavior. When people have a reasonable belief that a government might punish dissent, restrict the press, or undermine elections, they often act "as if" they already live under authoritarian rule, engaging in self-censorship, distrust, and disengagement.

Too many people here are waiting for some horrific, visible marker that tells them authoritarianism is here: a declaration of Martial Law, tanks rolling down city streets, a violent display of military force against citizens.

They’re looking for some shocking or violent moment to signal to them that now it’s actually bad, that this is the time to panic. Short of these things, the perception of normalcy is sedating tens of millions of people into denial, complacency, and inaction.

John Pavlovitz - "Americans Need to Stop Waiting for What We Think Fascism Looks Like"

For example, journalists may temper their reporting to avoid becoming targets, activists might hesitate to organize protests, and ordinary citizens could second-guess speaking freely on social media. The mere plausibility of retaliation can chill the vibrancy of democratic life. This phenomenon, sometimes called "soft authoritarianism," shows how the perception of danger can reshape society well before tanks roll into the streets or opposition parties are banned.

And we're already seeing it. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski recently expressed that fear of retaliation from the Trump administration is "real," saying, "We are all afraid." When credible elected officials openly acknowledge a pervasive fear of political retribution, it is a clear indicator that the chilling effects of authoritarianism are already underway. There is clear evidence that fears of surveillance and retaliation have led protestors in the United States to adopt safety measures, including writing identifying information on their bodies and using burner phones—practices we typically associate with life under totalitarian regimes, not in a free and open America. The fact that such measures are being employed here reflects a troubling shift toward behaviors we would expect to see in societies where fear of government retaliation is the norm. These behaviors are direct responses to the perceived risk of government monitoring and possible punitive action, and they illustrate the chilling effect of "soft authoritarianism."

The mere risk of surveillance-regardless of whether retaliation has occurred-can chill protest participation and prompt individuals to take extraordinary precautions. The fear that authorities might use surveillance data to identify and punish protestors leads people to monitor their own behavior, limit their speech, and sometimes avoid protests altogether.

The administration's actions have led to widespread self-censorship, distrust, and disengagement among journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens-hallmarks of a society where the perception of danger is enough to stifle democratic participation.

Moreover, authoritarian leaders often rely on ambiguity. They hint at possible crackdowns, float radical proposals, and foster a climate of uncertainty. This strategy is effective precisely because it forces individuals and institutions to self-police, without the leader having to issue explicit orders or formal decrees. As fear spreads, democratic resilience erodes from within.

These developments illustrate how the perception of possible government retaliation-rather than overt bans or mass crackdowns-can chill democratic life and reshape society long before more explicit authoritarian measures are enacted.

In this light, Saul's red lines are good to keep in mind as a check on overreacting. But they should not become a false reassurance that democracy is safe until those extreme moments arrive. An equally important task is vigilance for the path along the way—for the slow corrosion of norms, the chilling of speech, and the quiet adaptations to fear that signal democratic decay well before these more extreme red lines are formally crossed. By the time formal institutions fall, it is too late.

A more holistic approach to safeguarding democracy might involve not only monitoring for the kinds of red lines Saul describes, but also tracking the health of public discourse, the robustness of civic engagement, and the resilience of dissent. Ultimately, the point is not to dismiss fears of authoritarianism as seeing ghosts, nor to overreact to every unsettling development. Rather, it is to cultivate the discernment to recognize when the shadows gathering around our institutions signal a real threat. As Saul suggests in "Seeing Ghosts," the challenge is distinguishing between illusion and reality—and being prepared to act before the ghost becomes a grim certainty.