Preface

When I started this journey, I set out to do one thing: pull back the curtain on how government actually works. I wanted to show you what I saw during my decade as a legislative liaison—the real decisions, the real power, the real stakes. Season 1 was about understanding the machinery: how bills get written, how elections get administered, how money flows through campaigns, and how both parties often serve entrenched interests rather than the public good.​

But understanding the machinery isn’t enough. Knowing how the system works is only step one. The real question is: what happens when the system itself is under threat? What happens when the institutions that are supposed to protect us—Congress, the courts, the electoral process—start to weaken, to erode, to fail?

That’s what Season 2 is about. This isn’t just a continuation. It’s a deepening. We’re moving from understanding the system to understanding what’s happening to it. We’re tracing the slow erosion of mutual toleration, the breakdown of institutional forbearance, and the dangerous rise of executive power. We’re following the money that fuels this decay, and we’re looking at how these national trends play out right here in West Virginia and in your own backyard.​

Most importantly, we’re not just diagnosing the problem. We’re asking: what do we do now? How do we rebuild what’s been broken? How do we defend the institutions that matter?

Season 1 was about seeing clearly. Season 2 is about acting wisely. The stakes have never been higher. But neither has the opportunity to make a difference.

Democratic Institutions Under Siege

When I ended “Thinking Out Loud,” I made a simple argument: loyalty must be to institutions, not individuals. Politicians come and go. The system endures. And when you bend that system to serve a person instead of protecting the system itself, you break the only thing that stands between us and something worse.

That’s not abstract theory. It’s happening now. And it’s happening faster than most people realize.

The Two Things That Actually Protect Democracy

If you study how democracies die—and I mean really die, not just “the other side is winning the election”—you find two things repeatedly missing from systems that slip into authoritarianism. Political scientists call them “mutual toleration” and “institutional forbearance.”

Mutual toleration is simple: you acknowledge that your political opponents have the right to exist, to compete for power, and to govern. They’re not enemies. They’re rivals who follow the same rules you do. You don’t view losing an election as an existential threat. You view it as an inconvenience until the next election.

Institutional forbearance is the other half: even when you have the legal power to do something destructive, you don’t. You exercise restraint. You recognize that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. You leave things alone that technically fall within your authority because doing them would break norms that, once broken, can’t be put back together.

These aren’t laws. They’re not written in any statute. They’re the invisible threads that hold everything together.

And we’re watching them unravel.

What Breaking These Norms Actually Looks Like

Here’s the problem with studying democratic collapse: by the time it’s obvious, it’s too late. The machinery creaks before it breaks. Small violations become precedent. Exceptions become normal. One branch of government stops acting like a check and starts acting like a rubber stamp.

The current administration—at both federal and state levels—is moving through a playbook that’s been perfected elsewhere. And the speed matters. When norms are still strong, any attempt to break them triggers massive institutional pushback. Media outrage. Congressional investigations. Courts block it. Public alarm.

But each violation makes the next one slightly easier. Each precedent makes the next power grab slightly more defensible. “The last guy did it,” becomes the excuse. And suddenly, things that would have been unthinkable five years ago become routine.

At the federal level, we’re seeing:

Military troops deployed to police American civilians—something the Posse Comitatus Act was specifically written to prevent. Members of Congress arrested for conducting oversight. Federal agents detaining public officials for asking questions. The Justice Department prosecuting attorneys for representing clients. The FBI director recast as a political appointee, not an independent official. Courts and law firms being pressured through loss of security clearances and government contracts for defending people the administration doesn’t like.​

The rule of law isn’t being bent. It’s being shattered, piece by piece, in full view.

Congress—the branch explicitly designed to be the people’s voice, the body that holds the power of the purse—is weak. Weaker than it’s been in modern history. Legislative gridlock has gotten so bad that bills that should pass with overwhelming bipartisan support die quietly in committee. The filibuster has gone from being a tool for deliberation to being a veto weapon wielded by a minority. Between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of bills passed by Congress fell by two-thirds.​

A weak Congress creates demand for a strong executive. And when executives aren’t constrained by Congress, they fill the vacuum. That’s not a bug. That’s how authoritarianism works.

At the state level, the story is similar but often overlooked:

West Virginia’s governor is one of the most powerful in the nation. The legislature has essentially no ability to block executive orders. The governor controls the budget entirely, can call special sessions whenever he wants, and can even appoint successors to vacant legislative seats. And here’s the thing that should alarm you: the legislature that’s supposed to check this power is also starving. Three hundred fifty-two staff members serving 134 legislators—201 permanent staff positions for a body that’s supposed to be a co-equal branch of government. That’s threadbare.​

When an institution is that underfunded, that understaffed, that resource-limited, it can’t do its job. Members of the legislature can’t effectively investigate. They can’t hire specialized staff to analyze complex budgets or regulations. They rely more and more on information handed to them by the executive branch they’re supposed to be checking. It’s not conspiracy. It’s structural weakness being exploited.

The Partisan Double Standard

Here’s what breaks my heart about this: people across the political spectrum will support—and even celebrate—institutional erosion as long as their side is doing it.

When a president from your party uses executive power to bypass Congress, suddenly executive authority seems reasonable. When a president from the other party tries it, it’s tyranny. The same action. The exact same constitutional question. But the answer depends entirely on whose team is in charge.​

This is the death of institutional thinking. This is what happens when loyalty shifts from the system to the person running it.

We saw it with Trump’s first administration. Republicans who had spent eight years thundering about executive overreach under Obama suddenly went silent or worse—they cheered. Now we’re seeing it with Democrats who defended emergency powers and expanded executive authority under Biden, only to watch those same powers used in ways they find abhorrent.

The problem is: once you’ve normalized it, you can’t un-normalize it. The precedent exists. The next administration will use it. And the one after that. And eventually, you look back and wonder how you got to a place where the president can unilaterally do basically anything, and Congress is too weak, too divided, or too partisan to stop it.

That’s not democracy. That’s theater with a dictator.

Mutual Toleration Is Already Gone

I want to be clear about something: mutual toleration—the agreement that the other side has a right to exist and govern—is not just fraying. It’s dead.

One deputy national security official recently declared that the Democratic Party is not a legitimate political party but a “domestic extremist organization.” Not a policy disagreement. Not a difference of ideology. A categorical rejection of the other side’s right to exist in the political system.​

This matters because once you’ve decided your opponents are enemies rather than rivals, you stop respecting institutional boundaries. You prosecute them for things your own side does with impunity. You use federal agencies as weapons. You arrest them for political opposition. You declare them illegitimate so that crushing them doesn’t require justification.

And the terrifying part? Significant shares of both parties would support this behavior if it were directed at the other side. People know what they’re defending when it serves their interests, and what they’re attacking when it doesn’t.​

Where’s the Pushback?

You might be wondering: okay, but don’t courts stop this? Don’t institutional guardrails kick in? Doesn’t Congress push back?

Not as much as they used to. And here’s why:

Courts are too slow. Even when judges rule against the executive, the appeals process takes so long that the damage is already done. A court can strike down a policy a year from now, but if that policy was implemented yesterday, the harm is already spread through the system. The courts become, de facto, irrelevant.​

Congress is unwilling. This is the hardest one to say because it means accepting that our representatives—the ones we elected—are complicit. But it’s true. Congress has the power to push back on executive overreach. It can fund agencies or not fund them. It can pass laws or refuse to. It can hold hearings and subpoena documents. But increasingly, it doesn’t—especially when it’s their own party in the White House.​

When the Republican Congress is asked to investigate Republican overreach, they mostly don’t. When the Democratic Congress was asked to investigate Democratic overreach, they mostly didn’t. We’ve lost the institutional instinct to defend the system. We’ve replaced it with tribal loyalty.

The norms are already broken. This is the deepest problem. Breaking norms once was supposed to be so costly—politically and institutionally—that nobody would do it. But now that it’s been done? Now that the precedent exists? Now that half the country cheered when their team did it? The norm that protected against it is gone. You can’t restore a norm once it’s shattered. You can only build new constraints to replace it.

What This Looks Like Where You Live

I have spent a decade as a legislative liaison, operating in the space between county government and state power. You know what I learned? Everything that happens at the federal level—eventually—trickles down to the state and local level.

When the executive branch gets stronger and the legislature weaker at the federal level, the same thing happens in state capitals. Governors push harder. Legislatures push back less. The balance of power shifts. And suddenly, decisions that used to require public deliberation and democratic input are being made unilaterally, behind closed doors.

You see it in budget fights where governors veto entire budgets rather than negotiating with the legislature. You see it in executive orders that reorganize entire agencies without legislative approval. You see it in appointments made without the legislature’s say-so. You see it in regulatory agencies where the governor’s loyalty officers are placed instead of experienced civil servants.

And at the local level? County commissioners start operating like the governors operate. The pattern reproduces. Institutions weaken. Executive power grows. Democratic deliberation becomes theater.

This Is Reversible—But Only If We Act Like It Matters

Here’s what gives me any hope at all: this didn’t happen overnight. Norms didn’t shatter in a day. It took years of small violations, normalized exceptions, and partisan double standards. And that means—theoretically—it could be reversed.

But not if we keep doing what we’re doing.

Reversing institutional erosion requires something that’s become almost extinct: people who are willing to defend institutions even when it costs them politically. It requires Congress to investigate their own party. It requires executives to exercise restraint even when they have the power to act unilaterally. It requires judges to move faster and courts to take institutional questions seriously. It requires citizens to care more about whether the system works than about whether their team wins.

It requires, in other words, institutional forbearance. Mutual toleration. A return to the idea that protecting the system is more important than any single victory.

I don’t know if we still have people willing to do that. I honestly don’t. But I know what happens if we don’t: we find out what it looks like when the only thing protecting you from tyranny disappears.

And by then, it’s too late to rebuild it.

The Thing You Need to Understand

When I talk about loyalty to institutions, I’m not being sentimental. I’m not being nostalgic for some golden age when politics was noble. Politics has always been about power. But for the last seventy years, that power was constrained by invisible threads—norms, expectations, precedent, and mutual agreement that there are some lines you just don’t cross.

Those lines are being erased. And the people erasing them are doing it in the open, defending it as strength.

That’s not strength. That’s the sound of the system dying.

My job—the thing I’m trying to do in everything I write—is to make sure people understand that this is happening. Not in abstract, theoretical terms. But in concrete, practical terms: This is how the machinery actually works. This is what’s breaking. This is why it matters.

Because once you see the system clearly, once you understand that it’s not broken but being broken, you have a choice. You can accept it. You can rationalize it. You can tell yourself that at least your side is winning.

Or you can decide that the system itself matters more than any team. That institutions are what protect everyone, including you, from being crushed by whoever has power today.

The choice is still ours. But the window for making it is closing faster than most people realize.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrieclendening.substack.com