Texas Governor Greg Abbott gives the thumbs up during the signing event for an executive order to shut down the Department of Education by U.S. President Donald Trump, in the East Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 20, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Behind yesterday's NO KINGS DAY 2.0 is a question of strategy and power. Marching is fine, but it’s hardly enough.

I keep hearing from Democrats that they have to “fight fire with fire” in meeting the Republicans’ authoritarian assault on American democracy. But what does this actually entail, and what’s the downside?

Consider, for example, California governor Gavin Newsom’s intent to redistrict California to elicit five new Democratic seats — the same number as Texas governor Greg Abbott has eked out for Republicans by redistricting Texas. Newsom calls this “fighting fire with fire,” but some critics worry he’s unleashing a race to the bottom. (Btw, I’m in favor of Newsom’s move and plan to vote “yes” on Proposition 50.)

Or think about the government shutdown, now well into its third week. Senate Democrats aren’t budging. Many Democratic voters applaud their tenacity. But critics worry that the standoff could wreak even more havoc on the federal government and workforce than the Trump regime has already wrought.

Finally, consider the oft-repeated threat by elected Democrats that when they’re back in power, they’ll do to Republicans exactly what Republicans have now done to them — including defunding and canceling projects that have been appropriated for Republican states and congressional districts. Where will this end?

Underlying all this is a fundamental issue that was raised in Michelle Obama’s famous quip that “when they [Republicans] go low, we [Democrats] go high.” As Trump’s Republicans go lower and more authoritarian than anyone ever imagined, should Democrats stop taking the high road? Or should they go as low as Republicans are going? Or even lower?

The danger is that going low may undermine the very democratic values that Democrats are trying to uphold.

To put the question bluntly, is it justifiable to use low-road authoritarian tactics to rescue democracy from authoritarians?

When I ask this question, I usually get back three types of answers. I’d be interested in knowing which of them you’re most comfortable with. Herewith:

1. It’s entirely justifiable to use authoritarian tactics to rescue democracy from authoritarianism. Otherwise, Dems are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. When they regain control of the presidency and Congress, they can once again take the high road. But unless they fight like Republicans, there won’t be any road left for them to run or govern on.

2. Democrats should only go so far as to neuter the authoritarian tactics Republicans are using. Instead of competing in a race toward authoritarianism, Democrats should simply remove any incentive for Republicans to enter the race to begin with. So, for example, Dems shouldn’t try to exceed the number of House seats Republicans are creating through redistricting; Dems should only seek to match them.

3. It’s not justifiable to use authoritarian tactics to rescue democracy from authoritarians. Doing so normalizes and legitimizes authoritarianism and sacrifices the moral authority of democratic institutions to an immediate political goal. Dems must stick to the high road even if that means losses in the short term, because they have to exemplify to America what the high road looks like and why democratic institutions and processes matter.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.