President-elect Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House sparks a pressing question: Can the guardrails of American democracy survive another four years of the only U.S. president who sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power?

Many of us on the center-right are worried the answer will be “no.” After all, conservatism, at its core, is about conserving the institutions, traditions and hard-won lessons of history.

The guardrails face a tougher test with Trump’s second term. In 2016, his inexperience and the presence of structural safeguards and institutionalists — military officers, establishment Republicans and professional bureaucrats — helped check his worst impulses. In 2025, Trump and his allies are better equipped to evade resistance. He has vowed to purge dissenters and surround himself with loyalists who have learned how to manipulate the levers of power.

As author and former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum warned (alluding to the movie “Jurassic Park”), “This time, the Velociraptors have figured out how to work the doorknobs.” Trump’s proposed Cabinet picks underscore this shift: Kash Patel, who has openly outlined an enemies list in his book “Government Gangsters,” is slated to head the FBI, while former “Fox News Weekend” co-host Pete Hegseth, a staunch ally, is poised to lead the Department of Defense. These appointments signal a deliberate strategy to consolidate power and weaken institutional checks.

Meanwhile, as Trump returns to power, he is now backed by a Republican Party reshaped in his image. Critics like former Rep. Liz Cheney and former Sen. Mitt Romney have been pushed out (the former lost a primary, the latter retired). Figures such as Sen. Mitch McConnell are too diminished to offer meaningful resistance. Former establishment Republicans, like Rep. Elise Stefanik, have fully embraced the MAGA agenda, completing the party’s transformation into a vehicle for Trump’s ambitions.

Outside of politics, the media and major institutions are also faltering as counterweights. Some, unable to stop Trump in the past, are now accommodating him. Settlements like ABC News’ payment to resolve Trump-related defamation claims risk chilling critical reporting (host George Stephanopoulos erroneously said Trump was found liable for rape because he forced himself on writer E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room in 1996, but under New York law the term for Trump’s offense is “sexual abuse”). Social media platforms like Meta seem to be aligning their policies with Trump’s base, for instance by eliminating a fact-checking system that was instituted after Facebook was used to boost the Trump campaign in 2016.

The courts have long served as a vital bulwark of democracy, but questions remain about how long that role can endure. The actions of Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whose rulings and maneuverings in the classified documents case appear to favor Trump, raise concerns about judicial impartiality. Further amplifying these worries are recent examples of potential conflicts of interest involving Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as well as controversies surrounding their spouses’ political activities.

President Biden has touted his judicial appointees as defenders of the rule of law, and in a recent ceremony, he boasted: “These judges also are a vital check on the excesses of — of other branches of government, including Congress and the executive branch when they overreach and run afoul of the constitutional and institutional safeguards.” Time will tell how effective Biden’s appointees will be at holding the executive branch accountable.

The risks are clear: intimidation and co-option of dissenters, consolidation of power within law enforcement and the military, and systematic weakening of democratic foundations.

Some will dismiss these concerns as hysteria. But conservatives are supposed to sound the alarm when traditional institutions are threatened. Not long ago, for example, many conservatives worried that liberal “social engineering” policies like redefining the institution of marriage or allowing women to serve in combat roles might begin to erode America’s foundational structures.

It is ironic that many of the same conservatives have little concern about preserving fundamental principles like the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power.

So what should those of us who are concerned about Trump’s strongman tendencies do?

First, reject hysteria — rhetorical warnings about “fascism” have proven ineffective at swaying voters, at least so far. We shouldn’t so easily take the bait when Trump trolls us, for example, by saying he wants to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.”

But complacency is equally dangerous. Trump’s return offers an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to democracy and push back against his most harmful impulses. To do so is not to be hysterical, but to be interested in preserving the “last best hope of Earth,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “ One Percent Doctrine” held that even a 1% chance of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon warranted treating that existential threat as a certainty. By that logic, the slim possibility of Trump finding a way to remain in office beyond 2028 demands serious attention.

This isn’t a perfect analogy, nor is it a call for panic or extreme measures. Rather, it’s a call for sobriety and vigilance — particularly given Trump’s ongoing efforts to erode the norms and institutions that have safeguarded our democracy.

As Ronald Reagan warned, “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Today, those words resonate as both a reminder and a warning. It’s up to us to protect the democratic institutions that safeguard our liberty — for this generation and the next.

____

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.