Freedom Without Democracy

Columnists are often accused of acting like we know everything. That’s obviously not true. I, for one, openly admit I know everything—except economics. When it comes to that science, I prefer to turn to the experts. That’s what I did this time, trying to understand why some people are so enthusiastic about the economic policies of Argentine President Javier Milei.

After a bit of online browsing, I came across a professional analysis that basically said: “Dude, what a boss, chainsawing everything, doesn’t give a fuck, total freedom, holy shit.” For those unfamiliar with economic jargon, let me clarify: this is expert approval of bold macroeconomic measures aimed at lowering inflation and boosting growth through radical public spending cuts, deregulation, and tax breaks for businesses. With a chainsaw.

A similar approach is expected in the second term of the newly re-elected U.S. president. As far-right American commentator Ben Shapiro put it, “Milei is to Trump what Pinochet was to Reagan—a working experiment in economic reform that can transform rotting social bureaucracies into thriving capitalist societies.” Pinochet, man. Freedom, damn.

Trump has delegated the task to wreck the shit out of (pardon the technical term) of the “rotting social bureaucracy” to Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Both businessmen will take on the task extracurricularly, while continuing their own business ventures—thereby supposedly eliminating any concerns about conflicts of interest. The newly re-elected American president plans to complement Milei’s doctrine with an aggressive trade policy and sharply increased import tariffs, aimed at screwing over anyone who gets on his nerves. Again, pardon the language—but it’s just the expert lingo.

With such a positive response from experts to this bold economic policy, one might rightly ask: why hasn’t anyone tried this before? Because, dude, this is gold. But we’ve actually seen this movie before.

Very similar methods underpinned the so-called Kansas Experiment in 2012, led by then-governor Sam Brownback. His tax reform—ironically dubbed the “march to zero”—slashed taxes for the wealthy, eliminated or severely reduced profit taxes for most businesses and self-employed professionals, cut social benefits, made health insurance harder to access for the poorest, closed a slew of schools, four public agencies, and laid off 2,000 public employees. The governor promised this would inject adrenaline into the economy, boost investment, and raise employment. Brownback proudly called his program the “march to zero.”

But of course, it didn’t work out. After initial spending cuts, within a few years he had turned a budget surplus into a billion-dollar deficit. Investment and employment growth failed to materialize. Kansas’s economic growth lagged far behind other states—except those that, inspired by Kansas, also began marching to zero. Brownback and his allies tried to plug the budget hole however they could: they raided infrastructure funds, stopped highway repairs, and sharply increased sales tax, which disproportionately hurt the lowest-income residents—who ended up paying more tax than before the reform.

After more than five years of chainsaw economics, even Brownback’s fellow Republicans had had enough. Despite holding the majority in the Kansas Senate, they repealed his reform laws. Chainsawing the economy is like fishing with dynamite: effective in the short term—but not without consequences.

You might think the people of Kansas, after such a painful experience, came to their senses and punished the Republicans who backed the governor for five years. Not a chance. Even during the reforms, Kansas voters backed Donald Trump—one of Brownback’s biggest supporters—by large margins, and did so again four and eight years later. Today, MAGA Republicans still hold a majority in Kansas. As a reward for his efforts, Trump appointed Brownback as a special envoy for international religious freedom after his first election victory.

The Kansas Experiment should be a cautionary tale for those hoping that the damage and suffering Javier Milei and Donald Trump will inevitably inflict—on everyone but the richest few—will eventually lead to a political turnaround and renewed support for more moderate economic and social policy. That’s wishful thinking that ignores the reality of post-rational voter behavior—not just in Argentina or the U.S., but in an increasing number of places around the world.

When people are exhausted, frustrated, and angry, they don’t want Beyoncé. They want a guy with a chainsaw. And if that guy makes things even worse, they’ll just be more exhausted, frustrated, and angry. Which only plays into the hands of the chainsaw guys—not the smooth-talking celebrities who sing about democracy and human rights.

Of course, post-rationality does have its limits. After enough repetition, even the most loyal fans of neoliberal populism might realize that their declining quality of life isn’t the fault of trans people, feminists, or migrants—but of the politics that exploited and deepened their suffering to gain power and profit. At that point, they might start to reconsider whether angry decisions are the best decisions—and whether they bet on the wrong horse.

In a functioning democracy, they’d have the chance to vote for change. But the chainsaw foresters and their billionaire pals know this too. That’s why this new Kansas-on-steroids experiment is also being accompanied by a deliberate weakening of democratic institutions and safeguards. Just in case. They’re determined to dismantle democracy in order to protect freedom. Their own freedom, naturally—and only for themselves.

If the original Kansas Experiment ended in farce, this time history could repeat as tragedy. This is exactly the kind of future envisioned by Tomaž Štih—known as Libertarec on Elon Musk’s social media platform—who is reportedly planning to launch a think tank to legitimize the liberation of freedom from democracy in Slovenia, too. “The U.S. will likely be less of a democracy and more of a classical liberal republic,” he writes, “since the individual will be somewhat strengthened and his surroundings won’t be able to outvote his decisions on all aspects of his life, including the contents of his workshop, his thoughts, and his speech.”

His like-minded colleague Jože Biščak—editor at Demokracija weekly and Nova24 TV—adds that “U.S. citizens have never considered their system a democracy. The word 'democracy' is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. They talk about a republic. What matters to them isn’t (European-style) democracy, but freedom.”

So now you know. Wham, bam, thank you ma’am, as the Americans say. They’re prepping us for freedom without democracy. Where a “somewhat strengthened” Individual will rule freely, unburdened by democracy, political freedoms, or human rights. If this reminds you of something, you’re absolutely right. We’ve seen this movie before—just in a different color—but the consequences will be the same.

It doesn’t matter whether democracy is abolished in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat or the exclusive freedom of slightly enhanced individuals. The paradise both types of liberators promise will never be seen—much less experienced—by the people.

As experts in economics or social sciences might put it: we’re screwed. Sorry, man. Better luck next time.