The modes through which Europe and Canada have sought to suppress populism involve harsh restrictions on speech, elite collusion and other expression of managerial illiberalism. And what is China’s dictatorship if not managerial illiberalism in full flower? When European elites talk about China as a potentially more stable partner than the whipsawing United States, when they talk admiringly about its environmental goals and technocratic capacity, they aren’t defending a liberal alternative to Trumpian populism. They are letting the magnet of Chinese power draw them away from their own democratic traditions.
Suppressing popular dissent through institutional power does not restore liberalism. It replaces it with a softer version of the same illiberalism practiced by authoritarian states such as China. The methods differ in degree, not in kind. The West risks losing its democratic identity by adopting the tools of the systems it claims to oppose.
As one moves further left in America and elsewhere, faith in the people gives way to faith in expert management. Complex problems such as climate change, public health, and inequality are framed as too technical for ordinary politics. The solution becomes rule by credentialed specialists rather than by persuasion of voters.
What Douthat calls “elite collusion” appears in the tight alignment between universities, federal agencies, major media, and corporate bureaucracies. Together they define the boundaries of legitimate opinion and increasingly treat dissent as a governance problem rather than a political one. Policy is shifted from legislatures to administrative agencies. Debate is displaced by compliance.
The handling of “misinformation” shows the pattern most clearly. Populist and conservative claims are not merely argued against. They are classified as dangerous and routed around through platform moderation, institutional sanctions, and informal blacklists. This is the same public private fusion Douthat observes in Europe, where speech is curtailed not by open censorship alone but by coordinated pressure across state and corporate systems.
The paradox is that all of this is justified in the name of saving democracy from instability. Yet the cure steadily dissolves democratic practice. When outcomes are insulated from voters and entrusted to a managerial class, the “will of the people” becomes something to be corrected rather than obeyed. The further left the system moves, the more democracy is treated as a problem to be managed rather than as a source of authority.
