by Will Lloyd
Tuesday, 15
December 2020

Bill Barr, midwife to the dictatorship that was never born

Trump's attorney general had no desire to bring authoritarianism to America
by Will Lloyd
Lights, camera… Barr testifying on investigations into Russian interference with the 2016 election. Credit: Getty

When liberal profile writers and essayists surveyed Bill Barr this year, they saw a danger to the Republic. While Trump was lazy, stupid, and a vain pagan, Barr, his second attorney general, was known to be cerebral, ruthless and Catholic. Here was someone who might be capable of transforming the nation, executive order by executive order, into a genuine dictatorship. Writing for the New York Review of Books in November, Fintan O’Toole characterised Barr as an “extremist”:

What must be understood about Barr is that he is not a lawyer in the political arena. He is a political ideologue and operative who happens to function through the law. 
- Fintan O'Toole, New York Review of Books

Barr’s ultimate role, according to O’Toole, was to play midwife in “the transition from republican democracy to authoritarianism.” A ‘Danger to Democracy’ was the headline on a scare-quote stuffed profile of Barr in the Guardian. 

Another long-read from the Washington Post painted a broad brush portrait of Barr as the man who filled in the blanks of Trumpism. The garrulous President talked; his attorney general acted; the constitution was maimed. You can probably guess what the New Yorker‘s Barr profile was like. Over the summer, when the Atlantic was publishing all those novella-length essays about how Trump was plotting a coup, Barr figured, naturally, as the man who would bend, then break, the law to ensure the election was stolen.

And yet this week Bill Barr left the White House, having Trump’s election fraud claims no support whatsoever.

On December 1, Barr said that the Justice Department had not turned up any evidence of fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” — pretty much the exact opposite of what anxious profile writers thought he would do.

In the end, the Barr saga was a miniature version of the 45th presidency. The long night of authoritarianism never fell. Instead, there was a sad, squalid, and (occasionally quite entertaining) game show occupying the White House — men like Barr were contestants, not conspirators. Some people, like Fintan O’Toole, took the game far too seriously. They should have known better.

Join the discussion

  • The long night of authoritarianism never fell.
    Not federally, no. Where that has occurred has been within cities and states whose leaders do what they accused Trump of wanting. If only there was a term for that.

  • Fintan O’Toole did, indeed, take the game too seriously, but that’s an occupational hazard among people who take themselves too seriously. Another is to completely misidentify the source of the problem. Let me make it easier for Mr O’Toole; whatever the left is accusing you of, that’s what they’re doing. This is an iron law, so if Trump is accused of being authoritarian, that’s because the Democrats are. That’s why you risk being shot on sight if you step outside your home in a Democrat city.

  • Not at all. If you enter the country through private property, you are violating the rights of the owners. Plus open borders, at least from a libertarian perspective, amounts to state enforcement of unfettered immigration. Libertarians very much recognize the rights of free people to determine immigration parameters. It’s a mistake to believe that libertarians put the rights of immigrants ahead of the rights of citizens.

    The pure libertarian view would say that if you want to sponsor an immigrant, bring him or her into your home, support them, feed them, help them find a job, you may do that. But you wouldn’t be able to demand that someone else do that as that would be authoritarian.

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up