Why loyalty shifts are key to defeating autocrats

This article Why loyalty shifts are key to defeating autocrats was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

After previously representing the ICE agent who killed Renee Good, Minneapolis attorney and Republican politician Chris Madel ended his gubernatorial bid, saying “I cannot support the national Republicans’ stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which as a group has offered only limited resistance to accelerated attacks on democratic norms, issued an unusual “special message” denouncing indiscriminate mass deportations. And the National Rifle Association, or NRA, which has been closely aligned with the Republican Party since the 1970s, criticized the Trump administration after Alex Pretti’s killing for “demonizing law-abiding citizens” who exercise their constitutional right to protest and bear arms. 

These are examples of loyalty shifts: individuals, groups and institutions moving away from anti-democratic leaders, movements and parties, and in the direction of pro-democracy forces or values. As the quality of American democracy continues to decline under the second Trump administration, effective resistance will require a multifaceted strategy, including mobilizing voters, nominating viable candidates, delivering on the material needs of ordinary people and strengthening accountability mechanisms. However, a crucial, if overlooked, part of this strategy must involve creating the conditions for loyalty shifts among those who legitimize and provide resources to the administration. This will weaken its hold on power and open space for a renewal of American constitutional values.

What are loyalty shifts?

Imagine a spectrum of loyalty to authoritarian forces, moving from active loyalty to passive loyalty, neutrality, passive disloyalty and then active disloyalty. Loyalties shift whenever an individual or group moves from one position to another. The spectrum is a useful visual because it captures the incremental nature of loyalty shifts. Most people will not ordinarily move from a place of loyalty to disloyalty — a sharper break that can be called defection. What’s more, movement across the spectrum may be neither linear nor irreversible. For example, although the NRA criticized the administration’s Minnesota conduct, it simultaneously said that “progressive politicians like Tim Walz have incited violence against law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs.”

Loyalty shifts take many forms: speaking out against unconstitutional abuses of power, resigning from jobs that further authoritarian agendas, remaining in one’s job but refusing to carry out specific directives, participating in protests or boycotts, and mobilizing other defectors. For example, ICE and CBP officials have continued to work with the administration while simultaneously expressing their frustration and disillusionment with its rogue tactics and systemic lack of training.

Importantly, loyalties can shift by both “breaking” from and “binding” within the groups and institutions where one is a member. The resignation of Minneapolis FBI supervisor Tracee Mergen after Renee Good’s death represents one highly visible tactic or “moment” of breaking. (At the same time, resignations can be strategically fraught decisions, as one’s successors may be even more sympathetic to authoritarian agendas.) By contrast, the many internal conversations Mergen likely had with her colleagues to persuade them to resist political pressures represent an important kind of binding. Binding tactics — which can even include trying to nudge a fellow churchgoer away from MAGA over dinner — may be more difficult to observe, but are perhaps more common and no less important than breaking tactics.

Loyalty shifts are rarely isolated events and often set off cascades of similar shifts, as can be seen in the growing number of resignations by federal prosecutors in Minneapolis. Following the initial refusal by the law firm Perkins Coie to bend to pressure from the Trump administration, others like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale followed suit, filing lawsuits against the administration instead — a strategy that has worked to those firms’ advantage.   

Once “first movers” have taken a stand, others will be inspired or emboldened to follow them, either by changing their beliefs about constitutional abuses or by acting on beliefs that they had held all along. This phenomenon was widely analyzed at the end of the Soviet Union, where people previously had the incentive to conceal their true loyalties for fear of being ostracized, punished or worse. Acts of increasingly open defiance changed this and helped topple a Soviet dictatorship that had lasted nearly 70 years. As repressive governments are seen as less powerful — when it becomes clear that the emperor has no clothes — and others demonstrate against it, large numbers of people can suddenly withdraw their support.

Why do loyalties shift? 

Much of our knowledge of the causes of loyalty shifts comes from research on military defections. During the 2010-11 Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings, for example, militaries withdrew their support from autocrats who had been in power for decades. These events might not seem initially relevant for our understanding of loyalty shifts among faith leaders or businesses. Yet many factors that determine whether soldiers will shift their loyalties or not — fear, ideological discomfort, economic self-interest — will resonate with the experiences of civilian defectors.

Pragmatic motives loom large in loyalty shifts: Will defecting help or hinder myself and my family — physically, financially and otherwise? Will I be respected by movements opposing the regime and protected from retribution, or scapegoated for the regime’s crimes? Psychological, moral and ideological factors also play a key role: these include the costs of aiding a repressive regime and disillusionment with its lies or broken campaign promises. Of course, these factors can also discourage loyalty shifts, insofar as defectors lack a support system or an alternative community to join. It is critical in places where right-wing authoritarians are in power to build up conservative business or religious associations, media outlets and community groups that back pro-democracy agendas. 

Loyalty shifts often hinge on social ties. For example, police officers will be less likely to arrest or shoot people in the communities where they live. This is surely part of why so many ICE agents in Minneapolis came from distant states, such as the South Texan officers who killed Alex Pretti. 

Social networks are also critical to activating one’s higher loyalties — such as political duties to uphold the Constitution or universal moral duties — that transcend partisanship and can provide a principled basis for defection. Yet material consequences are critical too, especially when appeals to principle and social networks alone may prove insufficient. Accordingly, it may be worth emphasizing material pressure (e.g., boycotting an authoritarian-aligned business), social pressure (patronizing the business and persuading its owner), or both.

Embed from Getty Images

People make choices to defect based not just on what they want, but on what they think other people and groups are likely to do. Shifting social norms and normalizing dissent by former regime supporters can thus send a powerful signal that encourages further loyalty shifts. To that end, it is a promising sign that protest is growing in rural and conservative areas of the country, and that greater fissures within the MAGA base are becoming evident. These are driven by anger over the Epstein files, rising living costs, and FEMA withholding aid from red cities in blue states. Beyond protests, participation in community support activities like providing food to distressed families, organizing “quilt-ins,” and accompanying people to court appointments have provided meaningful on-ramps to people from across the political and ideological spectrum.    

Offering moral and material support to potential defectors is key to encouraging further shifts. At the same time, doing so raises a key tension or tradeoff. On the one hand, it may be necessary to encourage a “way out” for defectors and provide selective amnesty in the name of defeating autocrats. On the other hand, doing so can undermine efforts to ensure accountability and prevent future abuses. This “persuasion-punishment tradeoff” will have key implications for reconciliation and the rebuilding of democratic norms.

In addition to these more individual and social factors, structural factors — such as the economy  — play a key role in motivating loyalty shifts. Poor performance convinces corporate leaders or political elites that the administration is unable to govern effectively. Conversely, businesses may refuse to defect because they fear the loss of quid pro quos with the regime.

Dysfunction within the authoritarian party also influences loyalty shifts: whether it becomes unpopular, unable to secure election victories or policy goals for its members, divided into acrimonious factions, or loses control of the media narrative. All of these make it difficult to sustain politicians’ loyalties. In addition, as the party becomes more “personalistic” and unpredictable, defection may seem like a reasonable way of minimizing uncertainty. 

By the same token, democracy will be especially fragile — and oppositions will struggle to resist unconstitutional abuses — in places where authoritarian parties or leaders are very popular.

Loyalty shifts matter

Social scientists have shown that loyalty shifts are critical to whether authoritarian governments are successfully removed from power as well as whether subsequent governments can improve levels of freedom and democracy. As authoritarian leaders consolidate power across the world, loyalty shifts can help bolster both democratic resilience and resistance. Resilience refers to how social and political institutions — courts, media, opposition parties, civil society organizations — persist over time and recover from authoritarian attacks. This will demand loyalty shifts among the judges, bureaucrats, journalists and others who occupy such institutions. Their unwillingness to enforce unconstitutional measures will limit the administration’s capacity to weaponize political institutions for authoritarian ends.

Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

By contrast, democratic resistance refers to the efforts and agency of pro-democracy forces. This includes building alliances to defeat autocrats, suing autocrats and organizing demonstrations. Loyalty shifts will bolster these efforts by increasing the size and diversity of pro-democracy movements, especially when they actively welcome regime defectors. All of this is crucial for success, as it removes the sources of power that autocrats rely upon.

Strategic implications

To reverse the present state of erosion, we all have a role to play in creating the conditions for loyalty shifts. A large number of factors motivate these shifts, many of which stem from self-interest and are specific to one’s position: businesses shift their loyalties as autocrats intervene in the free market, religious leaders as autocrats repress or jail their congregants, and judges as autocrats undermine judicial autonomy. Democracy advocates should continue to emphasize that authoritarianism is bad for business, patently unchristian and a disgrace to the freedoms that veterans have fought to uphold.

A second, related implication concerns the salience of democracy as motivating loyalty shifts. It is a mistake to assume that democracy movements will be composed of individuals and groups for whom democracy is of central importance. Although for some the trampling of democratic freedoms will matter a great deal, some or even many loyalties may shift simply because the administration is perceived as weak or the economy as faltering. Members of conservative religious groups may defect from an administration they see as deprioritizing a pro-life policy agenda.
 
This last point highlights a tension of sorts: on the one hand, it is important to emphasize shared democratic principles as transcending policy disagreements; on the other hand, effective organizing may still require emphasizing concrete policy failures such as affordability, rampant corruption, or law and order. Navigating these and other tensions will remain a critical challenge for the U.S. democracy movement in the months and years ahead.

This article Why loyalty shifts are key to defeating autocrats was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

People-powered news and analysis