Subscribe here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts
Despite growing up in the Soviet Union, host Garry Kasparov admired American values—believing America was one of the good guys. But is that still the case?
In the final episode of the second season of Autocracy in America, Garry is joined by Admiral Bill McRaven, perhaps best known as the military commander who oversaw the SEAL Team Six raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, in 2011. Recently, he’s been speaking out about the changing nature of the military’s historically apolitical role in American democracy. Together, Garry and Bill discuss the history of the American military, and what role it should play in protecting democracy.
The following is a transcript of the episode:
[Music]
Garry Kasparov: When I was a young man, living in the Soviet Union, I considered myself a Reagan Communist. After all, all Soviet citizens were supposed to be de facto communists, but I much preferred the free thinking and the free markets of the West. And I got in trouble with the Soviet authorities for saying so. Not just for saying it, but where I said it: in a long interview with Playboy magazine.
Another example of how poorly I fit in with the Soviet power structure was when the American Embassy in Moscow held a reception for Ronald Reagan in 1988. I arrived and was told by the smirking Soviet official that I was not included on the list of Soviet guests. I told him he was looking at the wrong list. I had been invited by the Americans.
So I have long had a strong belief that America was the good guy, which is why it’s troubling when a man with the experience of today’s guest, Admiral William McRaven, openly wonders whether America still wants to be the good guy.
[Music]
Kasparov: From The Atlantic, this is Autocracy in America. I’m Garry Kasparov.
Bill McRaven is perhaps best known as the military commander who oversaw the SEAL Team Six raid that killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011. And in recent years, he has been outspoken about the erosion of the military’s historically apolitical role in American democracy. The military is one of the very few trusted institutions remaining in American society. So when we spoke this summer, I wanted to know: What role should the military play in safeguarding democratic ideals?
[Music]
Kasparov: Bill, thank you for joining the show.
William McRaven: Of course, Garry. Great to be with you.
Kasparov: I saw you most recently in April, when the organization I chair, the Renew Democracy Initiative, named you a Hero of Democracy. And I mention it here because the speech you gave—it has stuck with me. I think it could be something of a sermon, a morning sermon for all Americans with a simple title, “We Are the Good Guys.” I won’t ask you to deliver the speech here, of course, but I want to give our listeners the flavor of it. What makes us the good guys?
McRaven: So, yes, in my speech at the Renew Democracy Initiative, I talked about the fact that I think that it’s quite important to recognize that the world has historically seen us as the good guys. And now, we have had our problems in the past, but in general, when you look at the good things the United States of America has done, I think it far exceeds the problems that we’ve created. And so when you think about being the good guys, you think about how we lifted Europe up after World War II. And we rebuilt Europe; we had the Marshall Plan. Every time that there is a natural disaster, the first people on the scene are invariably the Americans. And so my counsel to the audience that night is we always have to be seen as the good guys. And if we stop being seen as the good guys, then I think the world will lose a little faith in us. I talk about the quote that was from Alexis de Tocqueville, when he went around the country trying to decide what democracy really looked like. He said something to the effect that, America is great because it is good. But if America ever stops being good, it will stop being great.
And while the veracity of the quote may be in question, I can tell you from my travels around the world: This idea that America needs to be good is very important. And we need to continue to do good in the world.
Kasparov: As a former chess player, I like this dichotomy—white and black, good guys and bad guys. But the question I have to ask is: Are you sure that America is still viewed by the world as good guys?
McRaven: Well, I think it depends on where you go in the world, Garry. I mean, the fact of the matter is there are always people who viewed us as the bad guys. I mean, you always had, whether it was the Soviet Union or now whether it is parts of China, the authoritarian governments historically viewed us as the bad guys. Because it was this, to your point, this dichotomy between a democracy, a republic, a representative government, and an authoritarian government.
So today, I still think that most of the world views us as the good guys, and this is what we have to be cautious about. Clearly some of the policies that have, I think, come out of this administration—but frankly, a lot of administrations, you can’t blame it all on this administration—we’ve stumbled, I think, in the last several decades. And as a result, people begin to question whether or not America are the good guys that they remember. Having said that, you still see that most people around the world want to come to America because they believe in the American dream, and we need to keep that dream alive.
Kasparov: Oh, absolutely. Many of my compatriots saw America in a very different light. So for us America was, and still is—for hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world—a beacon of hope and a guardian of democracy. But my question was about people who always viewed America as good guys. Europeans, I mean, people live in democracies. And as somebody who travels across the ocean very often, I could see, I could feel, I could hear a lot of, it’s not as criticism, it’s astonishment—in the Baltic nations, in other European countries, and of course, you know, from Ukraine—that America is not what he used to be. And it’s, as I said, it’s not just the [Donald] Trump administration. There are several administrations that pushed America in this direction. But again, it’s the: Do you think that America can recover its unique geopolitical image that was kind of a north star for people coveting freedom and liberation from tyranny?
McRaven: Well, I’m always optimistic, Garry. I believe we can recover from just about anything, because the American people are what make America unique. It is this amalgamation, this e pluribus unum, this people coming from all over the world that make up the American culture. And I travel around the country a lot, and there still remains a lot of optimism. But I have growing concerns, of course. As I think I mentioned at the gala event that you put on, I was at the Munich Security Conference. And the word that I heard most often was America has become transactional—and this idea that now America would only do things if it were in America’s best interest. And of course, every leader of every country wants to do things that are in their nation’s best interest. Nothing wrong with that. But sometimes, your best interest can also be about bringing your allies and your friends along with you.
And oh, by the way, your best interests a lot of times rely on your allies and friends. So as we look at Ukraine you know, I’m a strong believer and supporter of Ukraine, and I got it. It’s not a perfect democracy, and there’s a lot of problems in Ukraine. But the fact of the matter is: Most Ukrainians believe in the values that we as Americans espouse. They believe in this idea of democracy. They believe in the rule of law; they believe in their constitution and representative government. So these are important values that I think are worth us standing up for. So our support of Ukraine cannot just be about whether or not we’re going to get rare-earth metals out of the Ukrainian ground. It’s got to be about an alignment of our values.
Kasparov: But it seems to me that the current administration doesn’t share your idealism about America’s role and is not considering values that you have been describing vividly as a cornerstone for any geopolitical decisions. I was also at the Munich Security Conference—and we both heard Vice President J. D. Vance addressing European leaders and basically telling them that they are a bunch of losers that are just irrelevant in this global picture, and America had a different agenda, and that the alliances that were very much the foundation of American foreign policy for decades are no longer relevant. So do you think that the Trump administration is an aberration? Or it’s somehow the logical continuation of America’s inconsistent foreign policy after the end of the Cold War?
McRaven: I would think the latter, because I do believe that the foreign policy has been a little inconsistent and sine wave–ish, if you will. But the fact of the matter is, our alliances matter, Garry. And you know that clearly, and I tell people the old quote from [Winston] Churchill was, The only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them. So I think we have to be very careful as we deal with our allies in Europe and Asia and around the world. We have to recognize that these alliances are incredibly valuable. You know, you wanna make sure that you know publicly the alliances, the relationships you have with heads of state, are openly strong. And if you have some differences—then close the doors, have an opportunity to have a candid discussion with them. Without the press, without the public, so that you can begin to move things in the right direction. If you lambaste any particular ally in public, it makes it very difficult to kind of move the needle in the right direction.
Kasparov: I want us to go back to domestic issues. Because I think the Trump administration, while it’s ruining America’s global influence, it is also aiming at certain foundational elements of this great republic. And you have been outspoken about the urgent need to safeguard our democracy against the threat coming from many actions, recent actions, of Trump’s administration. And I wanted to first say thank you for not shying away from that. We need more individuals with a military background taking this kind of stand. But it is fraught. And I want to talk about that with you. So what is the role of the military in a democratic society? Of course, wars are wars—but how do men and women who are in the military relate to politics?
McRaven: Well, the answer is that they shouldn’t relate to politics. I mean, at the end of the day, as a member of the military, you have an obligation. You took an oath to the Constitution of the United States, and that Constitution—the roles and the rules of that Constitution—elected the president of the United States. And the president of the United States is the commander in chief. So as long as the president, in his role or her role as the commander in chief, gives a lawful order, you are obligated by your oath by the law to follow that order. And I have told folks: Look, do I have disagreements with President Trump? Of course I do. But at the end of the day, he is the duly elected president of the United States. And as long as his orders are lawful, you have an obligation to follow those orders, or you can resign.
Kasparov: Okay. I can’t help but asking—what are the lawful orders?
McRaven: I mean, lawful orders are ones that just, as it says—I mean, it sounds tautological, but they’re ones that follow the law. So an illegal order would be, for example, killing civilians even in a conflict zone. The law of armed conflict does not allow you to kill innocent civilians at the direction of anybody in a conflict zone. That’s an unlawful order.
Now again, do civilians die in a conflict? Of course they do, because it is the nature and the complexities of war. But what you can’t do is: You can’t target civilians in a conflict as part of your war aims. That is, at least in today’s environment, that is an illegal order. And so if the secretary of defense told me, I want you to go into this village and kill civilians that had no value to the enemy’s war effort, that would be an illegal order, and you don’t have to follow that. And you’re not allowed to follow that.
Kasparov: I do understand from your explanations that the line is blurry. So the rules of engagement, they are not black and white. So again, this is the place in the middle; kind of a gray zone. But what happens if standing up for democracy is seen as a political act? Yes, we understand the military must stay away from supporting one party or another. But if you clearly see this gap between the orders received from the political office, from the party that is in power now, and your understanding of your constitutional duties to protect the republic?
McRaven: Well, I’ll tell you one thing. In my 37 years in the military—and this may surprise some people—I never once heard somebody talk about politics. I never heard senior officers or junior officers or enlisted talk about politics. We were in the military. We were going to do what we were asked to do on behalf of the nation. As you get more senior—and of course, I was fortunate enough and honored enough to be promoted to four stars—so now even though I was in the Oval Office a lot, and I spent a lot of time talking with President [Barack] Obama, it was never about politics. Now, there were some decisions that President Obama, in this case, was prepared to make that I didn’t agree with. And the great thing about the American military, certainly in the Obama administration was: I was free to express my concerns and my doubts. And I did that on several occasions with the president, and he always took that in the vein and how it was meant and how it was expressed. So the concern that, of course, you’re always going to have is: If somehow there is a belief that as an officer or senior enlisted or junior enlisted that you can’t speak up, because what you say may be construed as political or counter to your bosses, well then—that’s not a good military.
And I will also offer that I was never in my career given, that I remember, a specific order: You are ordered to do this. People don’t look you in the eye and say, I’m ordering you to do this. The orders in a broad context come down in terms of a mission order, that sort of thing. But nobody looks you in the eye and says, McRaven, I’m ordering you to do this. But having said that: The fact of the matter is you want a military that will push back on orders and on positions. If you create an environment, a culture of fear, that speaking up—whether it is against a particular mission or a particular policy—is going to get you fired, then you’re gonna find yourself as a military in a very difficult position. So to your question: Yes, if we ever get to the point where all we do is follow orders, well, then you know where that leads, Garry.
Kasparov: That’s exactly my concern. Because I’m afraid we are just moving down this path. But again, I share your optimism about the good nature of American people. But I can help thinking that it’s a very perilous moment historically, and we probably have yet to reach the bottom before we start climbing out of this hole.
McRaven: Well, you might be right there. I’ll add one other comment here, though. For folks like you and me—who spend all day kind of watching the news and seeing how things are evolving—it can look very perilous. My expectation, or my guess, is that 99 percent of the people in America are more worried about daycare and getting their kids to school and whether or not they’re gonna be able to pay their bills. They’re not really paying attention to whether or not we are in a constitutional crisis.
[Music]
McRaven: They’re not paying attention to whether or not we are or are not supporting our allies. Because these are not things that affect most Americans at their household, their family level. But this is something that I think just requires kind of constant engagement with the American people, so they have a better appreciation for where we stand as a country right now.
Kasparov: We’ll be right back.
[Break]
Kasparov: Okay. My colleague at The Atlantic David Frum has written about how the military could be used to subvert elections. So he imagined three steps. Step one, use federal powers to provoke some kind of made-for-TV disturbance. Okay. Whether it was provocation, but we saw it’s enough of the violence in American streets back in 2020, even before. And of course now. So it’s there.
Step two, use the disturbance as a pretext to declare a state of emergency and deploy federal troops. We already saw it in California. So step three, seize control of local-government operations, including voting. What do you make of that assessment?
McRaven: Well, I mean, these are certainly things you always have to be concerned about. But I still believe that the right people will do the right thing—certainly in the military—if any of these begin to come to pass. Particularly the voting booths. I don’t see the U.S. military being brought in to keep people away from certain voting booths or to force people to vote in a certain way. I think the American people—I think that’s a red line for the American people writ large. Am I concerned about the American military being used in civil protests? Of course; you always have to be concerned about that. Once again, normally the way it works is if you have a situation in L.A. or any of the big cities, the governor needs to request the president to bring in the troops if necessary. That’s part of the state’s rights. And the president is not supposed to be able to deploy active-duty military troops into a state without the approval of the governor. Now, I think, again, there are some nuances to that law, that I’m not a lawyer. So I’m reluctant to get into the fine print. But I know that, again, there is a lot of consternation and confrontation about that. What I’ll tell you about our military, Garry, though, is the senior leaders that I know in the military—they understand that they have an obligation to the Constitution, not to the president. So if there is a violation of the Constitution under that oath, we have an obligation not to follow those orders.
Kasparov: But what is the violation of the Constitution? Because you kept talking about nuances and about your difficulties to identify these violations, because you’re not a lawyer. So I hate pushing you, but what is the red line for those in command when they will face this kind of a dilemma? That is, Yes, it looks constitutional, but some of your actions may lead to the destruction or just abolishment of fundamental constitutional rights.
McRaven: I mean, it’s a tough question to answer, Garry. Because it is one of these ones where, as a leader, you know—when you see something that isn’t right, you generally know it. You don’t need—I don’t need a lawyer to tell me exactly what I should and shouldn’t do on the streets of the United States of America if I’m a military officer. You know, we’ve been taught how to behave. We understand what our leadership roles are, and we understand what we should and shouldn’t do. Now, do we have lawyers? Of course we do. The lawyers I’ve always had have been fabulous officers and have never, ever shied away from telling me their view of the law, as they understand it. And if they think that something that I was about to do was inconsistent with the law of armed conflict or the rules of engagement or the Constitution, they did not hesitate to let me know that.
Now again, then your role as a leader is to say, Okay, you have given me your opinion. Now I’ve got an obligation to do what is right. And if you can give me the facts, and you say that I am clearly violating the law, then you don’t do it. Then you don’t take that action. And I realize I’m waffling around this, because right now, you know, as we saw with troops being deployed to Los Angeles earlier this year, I am concerned about some of the authoritarian moves that the government has taken. Where I have kind of faith, and a little bit more confidence, is in the American people. And again, I, we also have to recognize that the American people voted for this president. I spoke out a fair amount during Trump’s first term. I did. And I was happy to do that. And then we had the next administration, and then the American people came back and they voted Trump back in office. So the American people have spoken. Now, maybe this is what the American people expected. I don’t know. But what I have to do in my position right now is, I have to ask myself: What didn’t I see that the other people who voted for Trump did see? And what do they want done? Is this the America that they want to move toward? It’s not the America that I think is right. But I’m not the sole voice in America. So it’s going to require these people, these people that voted for President Trump; it’s going to require the Republicans on Capitol Hill to decide whether or not they are going to let this administration continue down this path toward a more and more authoritarian government. I have confidence that the American people will understand and see what those red lines are, and they’ll say enough is enough.
Kasparov: You pointed out it’s about the mandate received from American people. I couldn’t agree more. Donald Trump is duly elected president, but we know that he also has a record. And one of the records—and as we know today, is a loyalty test for people being selected to serve in this administration—is election denialism.
So Donald Trump still repeats that the elections of 2020 were stolen. So they have no faith in the electoral system in America that eventually brought Trump to power. And judging from their assessment of 2020 elections, and also from many of their moves that are aimed at limiting the ability of Americans—American voters—to take part in duly democratic process and to express the opposite opinion, I suspect that they may go as far as it takes to influence the elections, midterm elections in 2026. And seeing the troops on the streets, I believe, is a part of what Donald Trump has been doing very successfully for a decade: normalizing things that were absolutely unacceptable in the minds of many Americans.
So we already saw the troops on the streets. They have not yet influenced the elections. They have not yet arrested the duly elected governor. But I doubt very much that Donald Trump will stop short of doing whatever it takes to secure his powers if midterm elections could go the wrong way from his perspective. What do you think?
McRaven: Well, one, I don’t deal in hypotheticals, so I think we have to wait till the midterm elections. But here’s what I will make clear. I mean, I’m obviously not a fan of this administration and President Trump. Let’s take it from a foreign-policy standpoint. One, I believe from a foreign-policy standpoint that again, you need to have strong alliances—that you need to treat your allies and your friends with respect.
But I think it is more than that. When you look at the foreign policy, this is about if we are going to be the good guys. And we need to do things that reflect what goodness looks like. And when you are petty and vindictive and transactional, that does not strengthen your foreign-policy hand.
And of course, now you take a look at the economy. These reciprocal tariffs certainly have not strengthened our economy. Maybe they will. We’ll see. I reflect back on The Wall Street Journal and other conservative magazines and news outlets that have said the tariffs are a horrible thing. So we’re gonna see how that plays out.
Domestically, of course I’m concerned, Garry. I am concerned about the fact that the Republicans in Congress aren’t stepping up and making, you know, strong decisions. They seem to be incredibly weak-kneed, and the fear—and there is a climate of fear, to your point. There’s a climate of fear that is kind of echoing across the country. That is of great concern to me. This sense that yes, you have to be a Trump loyalist or you will pay the price. This is not a good way to run a country.
One, what I have found in my time in leadership positions is: You need people that will speak truth to power. You need somebody that will turn to the leader and say, This is a bad idea. No, you shouldn’t do this. The great thing about the American military—and in my experience—is I never had trouble speaking truth to power when it came to talking to my senior officers, to the secretaries of defense or to the president of the United States.
I didn’t always agree with the presidents that I worked for, and I worked very closely for President George W. Bush and for President Barack Obama. I didn’t like a number of their decisions, but I always respected them as men and as presidents, because I thought they thought they were trying to do what was right for the country. Not right for themselves, but right for the country. So yes: I have a lot of problems with the direction of the country today. But I do fall back on the fact that the president was duly elected. And my expectations are when the American people are no longer satisfied with the results—because, oh, by the way, we haven’t seen a lot of results; all the promises are not coming to fruition—so the American people, when it comes to the midterms and to the general election, are going to have to ask themselves, In all honesty, are we really better off? It’s the old “Are we better off today than we were two years ago?” for the midterms and “four years ago” for the general. And if the answer to that question is, for most Americans, Yes, we think we’re better off, then the American people have spoken. But if the American people come back and say, No, we’re not happy with the trend of becoming more authoritarian; we’re not happy with the fact that the economy is not doing as well as it was under the previous administration; we’re not happy with the fact that you intimidate and belittle heads of state—then they will vote, you know, another party into into office. And that’s the way the system works. And when I have an opportunity to talk to large groups of people and they complain about this, I tell them very quickly: Well, guess what, it’s on us. We are the democracy. We are the people. If you don’t like what’s happening, vote somebody else in. You know, be respectful, be civil, be peaceful, but vote somebody else in. Or use your civil voice. Protest peacefully. Write your congressman; write your senator. Do everything you can to change the state of the way things are if you’re not happy with the way it’s going. That’s how democracies and civil societies work.
Kasparov: So—with the crisis of confidence among American people regarding the political system and political leadership—so the military is the only institution in American life that still has the faith and trust of the majority of Americans. And I’m a good scholar of American history. And it has occurred to me that, quite regularly, so it’s every 80 years, the country elected a general. So [George] Washington. We may also add General [Ulysses] Grant, General [Dwight] Eisenhower. So can you see the appeal of such a figure today? Someone who comes from a place of unifying different factions of the country at a time when both parties feel hollow, and a third-party run, unfortunately, just isn’t realistic?
McRaven: I don’t know that it has to be a military figure. I think to your point, though, Garry, I do think it needs to be somebody who has a different vision for America. Whose vision for America really has to do with, again, the qualities and the principles on which this country were founded.
And I do believe, as I travel around the country—which I do every week, I travel all around the country—and everywhere I go I meet good people. I meet great Americans who, what they want is: They want opportunity. They want a good education for their kids. They want their streets to be safe. They want things that, to them, are important for their community life. But they also want America to be respected. They want their administrators, they want their governments to act with decency. They believe in the qualities and the values that we raise our kids to believe in. They believe in honesty and integrity and things that are important.
And so I think whoever presents themselves as a candidate next time around—they do need to be somebody that says: Look, if I’m gonna be the president, I’m not gonna be the president of the Republican Party or the president of the Democratic Party. I’m gonna be the president of the United States. And whether you like me or not, I’m gonna do everything I can to take care of you, because that would be my job. Your job as the president, first and foremost, is to take care of the American people. Not just the American people that like you, but the American people that don’t like you. Not just the American people that voted for you, but the people that didn’t vote for you.
This is your job—is to take care of all American people, whether they voted for you or not. And so you need somebody that comes in that—to your point—believes that they have a responsibility to all Americans. Not just to one party or one philosophy, if you will. And if you can find that person—and certainly, absolutely, does not need to come from the military; it can come from any sector of the country—but I do think you need somebody that is prepared to stand on those values. Recognize that you know what is important to the American people. Which is the economy and education and transportation and infrastructure. And again, yes: national security and our borders.
These are all important issues. But I think the single most important issue for most Americans is: Can you take care of me and my family and our community? And how best can you do something like that?
Kasparov: But you just described this, the growing crisis of confidence, and you pointed out that the president—someone who could drive the country out of the crisis, and to continue this never-ending quest for a perfect union—should not be associated with political elites that come from one party or another.
Because recently, I think it’s after the end of the Cold War, we saw the steady increase in tribalism. And instead of being president for the country, so we could see that one president after another became more and more related to his base. It’s more and more partisan. And I think that while Bill Clinton and Bush 43, they still try to be the presidents for the whole country, though I think the split was already quite obvious. Obama, Trump, and [Joe] Biden: I think they just, they serve the party interest. And of course with Trump it now is reaching a climax—basically ignoring the opposition and ruling as if it’s a one-party system, totally ignoring the opposition. So yes, it may be somebody not from the military. But since the military is the most respected and trustworthy institution, I think looking at the military, at the top-brass people with reputation, people who believe that we’re the good guys, is a very, very natural choice.
And I guess you sense where this line of questions is going. And I can ask you directly: Would you consider stepping in and running in 2028 to drive America out of its current crisis and chart a new course forward?
McRaven: Yeah, well—thanks, Garry. I appreciate it. You know, I’ve got absolutely no plans to run, and as I tell people, I’ve been married for 47 years and if I wanna make it to 48, I probably ought to stay here in Austin. So right now, no plans for 2028.
Kasparov: I have to pass a question from one of the guests on the show—my friend and great pollster Frank Luntz, who was also teaching at West Point. We talked about political leadership, and he was quite pessimistic about the American future, providing we will not break the cabal of these two parties and these political elites. And he put this question in a very direct way: Why isn’t now your time?
McRaven: Well, you know, the fact of the matter is I’m not a politician. I’m certainly not—
Kasparov: That’s good news! I mean, that’s—Bill, that’s exactly the point. You’re not a politician. That’s what the country needs.
McRaven: Well, it’s—you know, people will come up and sometimes say, Well, Eisenhower did this. And [I’ll] say, oh, for goodness sakes, I’m not Eisenhower. Yes, but let’s be real. I mean, I ran U.S. Special Operations. I like to think I was a good officer. Comparing me, or frankly any other officer in the military today, to an Eisenhower or a Grant or Washington is just, is just silly.
So part of this is, again: I have absolutely no plans to run. Are there some retired officers out there that could be good representatives for the country? Yeah; I do think there are. And maybe one of them will find this opportunity as a calling for them.
Kasparov: We need a good guy. We need someone who believes that we are the good guys and someone who has this impeccable reputation. And I think, again, it’s a moment to rescue not just this country from sliding down the wrong path, but also restoring global American leadership. And I hope we continue the conversation. But as of now, thank you very much for joining us, and for this frank and very educational—both educational and entertaining—conversation.
McRaven: Well, thank you very much, Garry. It’s always great to be with you.
[Music]
Kasparov: At times over the last several months, my guests and I have reflected on how the skills of a chess grand master do not apply so neatly in the world of politics.
But one area in which they are undoubtedly valuable is analysis. Careful analysis served me well in my chess career, as it does now in my work promoting democracy around the world. So let me analyze some of what I have learned across these conversations as we explored the rise of Donald Trump and Trumpism as a phenomenon.
First: the challenge we are up against. Free and open societies have failed to live up to their ideals and failed to defend their values from threats, both internal and external. This has made dictators and authoritarians even more bold, as we’ve seen time and again in recent years—most starkly, in my view, in Russia’s war in Ukraine. We must see this war for what it is: a fight for the future of democratic ideals, not just in Ukraine but in the world.
Second: the response of our political systems to this challenge. Our international institutions, built during the Cold War, are powerless in the face of the threats. Our leaders, executives, and administrators fail to stand on principle or update their strategies for the modern world. Our political parties are brittle, and it is fair to question whether they are up to the task.
This adds up to a crisis of values. An effective response to this crisis requires big-picture thinking, understanding how these issues are connected, and committing to the values we want to see flourish: freedom, democracy, opportunity.
My guests this season have been diverse—experts in politics, policy, business, tech, and advocacy—because this is a crisis that defies neat categorization. I hope their stories have helped to shed light on how complex and far-reaching the roots of the authoritarian threat are. With a challenge that spans every walk of life, the solution, too, must be all-encompassing. Every one of us can make a contribution, and a difference.
It is not enough to hope that democracy will prevail. Each person must embody democratic values—and fight for them. If you are ready to do that, join the fight with me.
[Music]
Kasparov: I invite you to learn more about the work of the organization I founded, Renew Democracy Initiative, where we take on the task of breaking through partisan echo chambers to raise the urgent alarm about rising authoritarianism. I speak out because I saw democracy fall in my home country of Russia. But I am not alone. RDI brings political dissidents from over 40 different repressive countries to speak to students, business leaders, and public officials about their experiences.
On RDI’s Substack, The Next Move, we work with our partners in the pro-democracy camp to identify the threats, connect the dots, and plot out our game plan. Every week, I talk to ordinary Americans there: disagreeing, learning, and refining our strategy.
By listening to this podcast, you’ve already taken the first step: understanding the problem. Now, let’s build something new and positive, and let’s win. Thank you.
This episode of Autocracy in America was produced by Arlene Arevalo. Our editor is Dave Shaw. Original music and mix by Rob Smierciak. Fact-checking by Ena Alvarado. Special thanks to Polina Kasparova and Mig Greengard. Claudine Ebeid is the executive producer of Atlantic audio. Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
I’m Garry Kasparov. Thank you for listening.
The post Assessing America As a Geopolitical ‘Good Guy’ appeared first on The Atlantic.
