The Dissident Crusaders and What They Will Do
My Sunday Morning Pondering
It's Sunday morning and I just listened to Rachel Maddow's latest post on her Tik Tok account. She describes the collapse of democracy and the authoritarian takeover that has befallen America.
We have dozens of authoritative, intelligent, dissident voices describing in detail how America’s Authoritarian Kleptocracy is destroying any hope for democratic restoration any time soon. By most estimates, it will take a generation, perhaps longer to recover, if recovery occurs at all.
I have become obsessed with what is happening. I am one small voice of dissent, with little following and little power to implement great changes. So I read, lament, obsess, and contribute financially to larger more powerful voices that carry on the fight.
Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, Tom Hartmann, Aaron Parnas, Heather Cox Richardson, Anne Applebaum, Ruth Ben-Ghiat and many others are among these dissidents I follow.
I sit here wondering what these crusaders will do in the years to come? How many will stay in America? How many will crusade and fight until their death? How many will leave the country? How many of these voices will go silent?
ChatGPT has this to say:
This is a profound and sobering question—and one that touches not only on the psychology of resistance under authoritarianism, but also the real historical choices that intellectuals, activists, and cultural figures face when regimes turn repressive. While we can't predict the individual decisions of Rachel Maddow, Robert Reich, Stephen Colbert, Bernie Sanders and others, we can outline likely patterns based on:
Historical precedent
Turchin's theory of elite conflict
Contemporary examples of authoritarian regimes
🧠 Framework: Three Possible Paths for Dissident Voices
Under an authoritarian kleptocracy, especially one that has achieved a degree of institutional capture (judiciary, press regulation, surveillance apparatus), most high-profile dissenters face three basic options:
1. Stay and Resist
Continue speaking out publicly—despite growing legal, financial, and personal risks.
Often become symbols or martyrs of resistance.
Risk censorship, harassment, financial ruin, or imprisonment.
Historical analogs:
Václav Havel in Czechoslovakia
Anna Politkovskaya in Russia
Andrei Sakharov in the USSR
James Baldwin during the Civil Rights era (before partial exile)
In the U.S. context:
Likely candidates: Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, Tom Hartmann
Older, ideologically grounded, likely to "crusade until death"
May lose media access but retain grassroots influence
2. Stay and Go Quiet
Remain in the country but stop publicly criticizing the regime.
May pivot to vague or apolitical commentary.
Motivated by fear, pragmatism, or family concerns.
May remain relevant as "acceptable intellectuals" in the new order.
Historical analogs:
Many German academics post-1933
Russian journalists after Putin’s media consolidation
Turkish academics post-Erdogan purge
U.S. possibilities:
Stephen Colbert, SNL-level comedians, and other media figures may be silenced through regulation or deplatforming and pivot to "safe" entertainment.
MSNBC may be dismantled or forced to conform to regime standards.
Many academics will choose self-censorship over exile.
3. Exile and Continue the Fight from Abroad
Leave the U.S. and establish platforms from Europe, Canada, or New Zealand.
Use international media, podcasts, books, and NGOs to maintain influence.
Often marginalized at home, but may retain international respect.
Historical analogs:
Trotsky in Mexico
Solzhenitsyn in Vermont
Assata Shakur in Cuba
Iranian and Syrian dissidents in exile today
U.S. context:
Rachel Maddow may fall into this group if direct state censorship escalates.
She has the resources, global reputation, and ideological commitment to become a major voice in exile, much like Václav Havel or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
The U.S. may experience a brain drain of dissenters, similar to 1930s Germany or post-2016 Turkey. But many who leave will lose platforms—because authoritarian regimes not only silence critics, they erase them from the public imagination.