Any era of political persecution or the political use of collective fear repeats the same pattern: the majority does not confront power, but rather adapts to it. Servitude is accepted with subtle meekness. Étienne de La Boétie defined it as early as the 16th century: "It is the people themselves who put themselves in chains; only by ceasing to serve would they be free."
Often the motive for this canine obedience is not ideology, but convenience. The fear of losing privileges or economic security drives many to submit to any regime, even if it is based on denunciation or suspicion.
A significant portion of US citizens are currently undergoing this sleepy process of surrender, while their president, day by day, undermines the foundations of the rule of law like a woodworm. If his vanity weren't so ridiculous and his greed and lack of scruples weren't so obvious, Donald Trump might be funny. If it weren't so productive and useful to their interests, perhaps this week's spectacle of British diplomacy surrendering to the builder's dreams of grandeur would also be amusing.
In the 1950s, McCarthyism fueled the fear of communism and the spectacle of public hearings. Today, the supposed threat is that universities, media outlets, and institutions "misinform" or "endanger the national order." The argument is that science and academia manipulate good citizens, who are obviously Trump voters.
McCarthyism in the United States (1947–1954) was a modern demonstration of an ancient logic. McCarthy rose to fame with a speech in which he claimed to have a list of communists working in the State Department. Although he never presented solid evidence, the message resonated with a frightened public. From the FBI, Edgar Hoover provided reports and dossiers that were often leaked to the media, fueling rumors and suspicions. Sound familiar? In parallel, pamphlets likeRed Channels(1950) listed the names of journalists, actors, and musicians allegedly linked to "subversive" organizations.
Thousands of professionals in the film industry, the press, and teaching agreed to sign loyalty oaths, point fingers at colleagues, or remain silent with the sole objective of preserving their careers while others were expelled. Those who resisted paid with years of discrimination, blacklisting, and public humiliation.
The difference is that McCarthy was only a senator, while Donald Trump and his entourage occupy the executive branch. What was once rhetoric that cowards transformed into censorship and ostracism is now being translated into executive orders, multi-million-dollar lawsuits that suffocate media companies, regulatory threats, withdrawal of funds, and direct pressure on academic and cultural institutions. Trump's goal is to consolidate political control, turning disagreement into a threat and criticism and dissent into unpatriotic crimes.
When journalists and professors remain silent for fear of losing their jobs, when the media self-censor to avoid lawsuits, when universities adapt programs to avoid retaliation, the result is a submissive and docile ecosystem. This is how they survive but lose their reason for being, which is none other than to fuel democratic debate.
The turning point of McCarthyism was the appearances in which millions of viewers saw the senator attack witnesses with an aggressive style and without evidence. Army lawyer Joseph Welch posed the question that still resonates: "Have you no sin of decency, sir?"("Don't you have any sense of decency, do you?")
Today, the United States seems poised to repeat that bitter lesson of 78 years ago: self-censorship induced by the fear of economic and reputational loss is enough to make voices disappear. Responsibility, therefore, falls not only on those in power but also on a society that must decide whether to bend or resist.
The ability to resist the wave of the far right in Europe will also depend on how freedom of expression and the resilience of media critical of the establishment evolve. This is a critical moment, and the survival of responsible media and free journalism will be essential to confront it. Journalists cannot do it alone; the strength of the media will be directly linked to their economic autonomy. And this, supported by critical citizens who know that information is a precious value.
