Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article (essay?) argues that conservative policy entrepreneurs under a second Trump administration are likely to encourage a shift in the U.S. away from democracy and toward authoritarianism. While I think the article makes some good arguments about the danger of a radicalized professional class of conservative policy actors, I believe its flaws are too deep to warrant publication.

 

This paper makes no specific scientific contribution, but rather makes a pointed argument about the danger that conservative policy entrepreneurs pose to American democracy. Unfortunately, the argument is just not that sharp or focused.

I was expecting a very specific argument about the role of relatively unnoticed conservative professionals at using the mechanisms of policy entrepreneurship to damage American democracy. I think there is a lot of potential to this argument – entrepreneurship can hijack windows of opportunity to enact policy alternatives that a political actor sought independent of the problem on the agenda. I could imagine conservative policy entrepreneurs preparing to use issues like immigration, economic issues or a pandemic to attack democratic institutions, or historical evidence of conservatives in other regime doing something similar.

However, this article does not make that or any similar argument. The bulk of the article simply describes the network of actors inside the U.S. Republican network. Everyone in this network is an entrepreneur in this reading – media, think tanks, elected officials, political operatives. The author(s) then briefly speculate about how each might undermine democracy. There’s just not much here.  

Some specific comments:

-          “While an authoritarian regime can, theoretically, embody a left-wing ideology most 80 studies show that conservatives are more likely to embrace authoritarianism”

What about Cold war era communism? I’m not familiar with this literature, but this sentence at least needs some major qualifier to clarify.

(see Baumgartner and Jones 1991; Bernier and 107 Hafsi 2007; Blavoukos and Bourantonis 2011; Chamberlain and Haider-Markel 2005; 108 DeGregorio 1988; Di Lorenzo 1994; Djupe and Olson 2010; Doig 1983; Fafard 2015; Fox 109 and Schuhmann 1999; Frisch-Aviram, Cohen, and Beeri 2018; Garrett and Jansa 2015; 110 Gel’man 2022; Harris 2022; Hornung, Bandelow, and Vogeler 2019; Jia 2016; King 2010; 111 King and Roberts 1992; Lamont 2021; Mintrom 1997a; 1997b; Mintrom and Vergari 1998; 112 Mooney 2000; 2001; Roberts and King 1991; Weible et al. 2012).

-          This string cite is just a bit excessive. We don’t need to cite every single article ever written on policy entrepreneurs. It’s a well-accepted concept in the policy process literature. Yet, it somehow does not cite Kingdon even though we’re talking about the multiple streams flavor of policy entrepreneurship (“policy windows”). There’s been a lot of great literature on entrepreneurship over the last decade that is neither referenced nor engaged with.

Furthermore, the article makes no mention of the expansive party networks literature, even though it describes a party network, nor the developing literature on think tanks (see Zachary Albert 2019 for both).

-        I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get from the unnumbered “21^st century CPE” figure on page 4. Everyone talks to everyone else, except think tanks which talk a little less to interest groups and media? Nothing here distinguishes conservative policy entrepreneurs from a standard party network model.

-

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Overall, I think this paper makes an important theoretical contribution for thinking about how the political system in the US may be in the throes of a historic transformation from a democratic republic to an authoritarian regime. The author persuasively argues that Conservative Policy Entrepreneurs (CPEs) will play a pivotal role in this transition if Donald Trump is re-elected President after the 2024 election. However, there are a few things the author could do to improve the theoretical framework presented and strengthen the overall paper.  

 

First, I think the author needs to clarify whether they are arguing that CPEs will help move the US towards an authoritarian regime or if they are arguing CPEs will install an authoritarian regime in the event of a Trump 2024 election. The distinction – implementing less democratic policies vs. installing an anti-democratic government – is one that’s important both substantively and theoretically.  Additionally, I believe the author has not confronted one of the most glaring questions posed by any discussion of an authoritarian transition within the US: why democratic institutions are failing to curb the very authoritarian rise they were designed to prevent? Stated differently, how might Donald Trump and CPEs be successful in supplanting democracy with an authoritarian regime in the US, despite American democracy being designed with the explicit purpose of preventing the rise of the rise of ambitious individuals or factions from taking power and subverting the will of the majority? And, why now? Trump’s 2016 election can’t explain the inability of democratic institutions to protect against the rise of authoritarianism, can it? The author doesn’t have to spend a lot of time on these questions, but I do think it’s important to engage with these questions on some level for us to understand why democratic institutions might facilitate for the rise of authoritarianism at some moments and not others.

 

Next, I think the author needs to think more closely through the theorization and modeling of an “authoritarian regime,” especially the regime’s relation to the various conservative policy entrepreneurs. For example, the author provides a definition by Ginsburg that suggests that an authoritarian government has few limits on its power, but is “nevertheless kept in check by other political and social institutions that it cannot control...” This line implies that other political and social institutions may be independent of the authoritarian government; indeed, it suggests that they even keep in check the government. And it seems like the author believes that CPEs functions as such political and social institutions. However, as the paper is currently written, it is unclear if the author agrees that CPEs are indeed independent of Trump as Ginsburg’s theory would claim, or if they are his surrogates. If the answer is the latter, then the author should note this difference in the theory and their own belief on this aspect of the transition to authoritarianism. However, if the author believes that CPEs are indeed independent of Trump, they should be sure to make that clear and provide evidence to support that position later in the paper under the CPE sections.  In fact, the authors’ ambivalence on this question also seems evident in their 21^st Century CPE Categories and Relationship Mapping figure on page 4.  While the map and ensuing discussion provides an understanding of CPE relationships amongst themselves, it doesn’t provide us with a strong understanding of the relationship between CPEs generally (or individually) and the authoritarian regime in question. Should we expect authoritarian regimes to influence CPEs, or are CPEs influencing authoritarian regimes? Do some CPEs influence authoritarian regimes more than others, etc? As you think through your discussion of authoritarian regimes, you might benefit from situating your argument in conversations put forth in some of the most widely-read and recent arguments about authoritarian regimes, including How Fascism Works: The Politics of US and Them, by Jason Stanley; How Democracies Die by Steen Levitsky; or, The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton, among others.

 

Relatedly, a stronger definition of CPEs would be helpful.  While the concept of policy entrepreneurs is defined, what characterizes a ‘conservative’ PE is unclear. Providing a definition of conservatism would be helpful to distinguish between various types of PE. Is it simply that they are “Machiavellian” in the policy quests”? If so, what exactly does Machiavellian mean in today’s political context and are those policy quests commensurate with authoritarianism? These connections should be made explicit. This also raises another related question: how are we to distinguish between CPEs who advance policies that are “authoritarian” vs. those who advance policies that are “conservative” but not authoritarian (assuming you accept this division)? Having a clear definition of the distinct attributes of a CPE would be helpful in making these distinctions.

 

Second, all the corresponding CPE subsections would benefit from being restructured. The numbered expectations should be expanded into paragraphs, or some examples should be moved from the footnotes and parenthetical comments to paragraph below the numbered section. For example, the “Elected Officials (Local/State/Federal)” section has numbered points, like #2, that describe an expected action and provide a concomitant example/quote. These examples/quotes – in this case, “Our cities are being overrun with migrant crime” - should be moved to a paragraph immediately following the numbered points section and discussed more fully.  The discussion should help the reader clearly understand why these activities would be “expected” of CPEs, feature their examples/quotes, and discuss why this type of activity should both persist and help move the nation towards authoritarian regime. Given that the author references political psychology texts, they could draw from those scholars to answer why CPEs would have these expected behaviors.  This advice about reorganization is true for all the CPE subsections.

 

Again, the discussions in the subsections should clearly demonstrate whether CPEs actions are simply designed to help install an authoritarian regime in the US or to realize specific conservative policy goals? Or both?

 

This raises another question somewhat related to the first point above about CPEs: Are CPEs independent of Trump and maintain their own independent agendas, while also collaborating with Trump when it suits them? Do they have the power, ability or will to hold Trump accountable, as the Ginsburg theory implies? Or, are they simply surrogates or representatives of Trump? And, if they are simply surrogates of Trump, can they also be policy entrepreneurs?

 

Third, the last paragraph in the section, “Authoritarianism – What About the U.S. Public?”, the author observes that more than 70% of Republicans/Conservatives responded that it would be a “good thing” if Trump acted as a “dictator on the first day of his second term (only).” The author goes on to use this finding to suggest it is therefore “reasonable to assume that Republicans will welcome the idea of an authoritarian regime” if Trump is elected.  However, I’m not convinced that one can infer that support for authoritarian actions by Trump for 24 hours “only” means that those same respondents would support a far-reaching overhaul and transformation of the US political system from a liberal democracy to an authoritarian regime. While I understand the author’s point, I think this argument can be strengthened by referencing other polling data that shows Republicans/Conservatives supporting increased political violence, illiberal norms, anti-democratic values, and processes, etc.  In other words, additional data points aside from the UMASS-Amherst poll would strengthen the authors contention that conservatives would welcome an authoritarian regime.

 

Finally, the conclusion should be more robust and forward thinking. This is where the author’s original argument should be reiterated and the expected actions of CPEs revisited. The author should reemphasize the dynamic relationship between CPEs and authoritarian regimes, especially if this is not a one-way relationship.  This is also the section where the author could leave us with some forward-thinking comments or present us with other related problems that arise out of this turn towards authoritarianism facilitated by CPE actions. For example, if the US does indeed become an authoritarian regime at the hands of Trump and CPEs, what is the road to reclaiming democracy?

 

In all, I think this paper is important and, with some revisions, would make important contributions to our understanding about authoritarianism generally, and its manifestations within the contemporary US.

 

 

Minor Comments:

 

There are too many parenthetical statements that don’t need to be in parentheses. For example, line 96-97; there’s no need to have parentheses around “and acceptance of those actions by conservative voters). Also, see line 229, 260-261, 267, 268, 285-286. These parenthetical statements disrupt the flow of the article, and again, seem unnecessary. Just include the statements without the parentheses. 

 

Excessive citation from lines 107-113, 81-85).  Select the most important and relevant 3 political science texts that define and explore policy entrepreneurs and include those only. There are way too many citations here.

 

Remove the extra parentheses around the citations on line 48.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

This paper would benefit from a strong grammatical edit.  There are numerous places where prepositions are missing throughout the paper. For example, line 123: “be witnessing any these factors except Machiavellian;…” is missing the preposition “of” between “any” and “these.”

 

Grammar checks: Line 258 missing “the” between “embrace prospect”

 

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper entitled "21st Century Conservative Policy Entrepreneurs and the Potential for Authoritarianism in the U.S." is a thoughtful and important contribution to the literature on policy entrepreneurs and political institutions in the United States. The authors provide a critical framework for understanding the shift in conservative policy actors over the past three decades and the potential consequences for democratic governance.

 

The paper is well-researched and the authors demonstrate a strong command of the relevant literature. The historical context and citations are used effectively to situate the analysis. The core argument - that conservative policy entrepreneurs (CPEs) have become more powerful and are pushing towards greater authoritarianism - is compelling and supported by the evidence presented.

 

I have a few suggestions that I believe could strengthen the paper further:

 

1. Expand the discussion on why CPEs tend to be drawn towards authoritarianism. The authors briefly touch on this towards the end of the second section, but more explanation is needed. What is it about the motivations, worldviews, and tactics of CPEs that make them more susceptible to authoritarian impulses compared to their liberal counterparts? Unpacking this causal mechanism in greater depth would add significant value.

 

2. Consider including a section on how this framework and analysis could be applied in other national contexts. Are the dynamics the authors describe unique to the U.S., or could similar patterns be observed elsewhere? Providing some comparative perspectives, even if brief, would enhance the paper's broader relevance and policy implications.

 

3. The final two sections, "Authoritarianism—What about the US Public" and "Conclusion", could be expanded and developed further. These sections raise important questions about public attitudes and the overall significance of the findings, but they feel a bit underdeveloped relative to the rest of the paper. Dedicating more space to exploring the public dimension and drawing out the full implications of the analysis would strengthen the conclusion.

 

Overall, this is an extremely well-crafted and important paper that makes a significant contribution to our understanding of conservative policy entrepreneurship and its relationship to authoritarianism. With a few targeted revisions along the lines I've suggested, I know it will be helpful for all scholars thinking about CPE in the future. The authors should be commended for their rigorous and thoughtful work.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf