I should start by noting that cultural analysis is not my area of expertise—I typically focus on economic policy and market-driven explanations. However, recent developments in American political culture have been striking enough that I feel compelled to address them, even if they fall outside my usual analytical framework.
As someone who has long felt aligned with American political culture, I find myself increasingly alarmed by its trajectory. The widening gap between my Nordic perspective and contemporary American governance is not just a matter of shifting rhetoric but of fundamental institutional changes. This shift deserves scrutiny, even from those of us who typically focus on economic rather than political matters.
The Breakdown of Anglo-Saxon Institutional Architecture and the Cultural Divide
Frank Knight, a key figure at the University of Chicago from 1927 to 1952, distinguished between governance based on rules and governance based on authority. Rules-based governance fosters stability and predictability, while authority-driven governance centralises decision-making and increases institutional fragility. Knight cautioned that excessive reliance on authority erodes trust in institutions and leads to arbitrary governance.
The United States, historically grounded in the Anglo-Saxon/Nordic governance tradition, has traditionally followed a rules-based system that values institutional stability, checks and balances, and technocratic competence.
However, the period following Trump’s re-election suggests that this is not just a cyclical political fluctuation but a structural transformation toward a more Latin-style model of governance—one that prioritises personal authority and executive discretion over institutional continuity.
The contrast between these traditions is stark. In Northern Europe and the UK, governance is designed to prevent excessive executive influence by embedding stability and decentralisation into political frameworks.
By contrast, Southern European and Latin American models, seen in countries like Italy under Berlusconi or Argentina under Perón, concentrate power in the hands of dominant leaders, frequently bypassing institutional constraints.
Hungary under Viktor Orbán provides a cautionary example of how executive power can steadily erode democratic norms.
This shift in governance has significant implications. The American system of checks and balances, historically a safeguard against power centralisation, is increasingly being replaced by a model where political success is determined more by personal loyalty than by institutional robustness or long-term policy vision. The volatility and discretionary decision-making that characterise Latin-style governance appear to be gaining ground in the U.S., with far-reaching consequences for both democracy and economic stability.
The Dangers of Centralised Power and the Yes-Men Syndrome
A key risk of power centralisation is the emergence of an echo chamber, where dissenting voices are suppressed, and decision-makers become insulated from reality. Leaders who surround themselves with yes-men—advisers who validate their viewpoints rather than challenge them—become vulnerable to perception bias, where they mistake agreement for legitimacy.
Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes offers a fitting analogy. When authority figures are shielded from criticism, they risk becoming detached from practical concerns, leading to governance based on personal judgment rather than institutional expertise. The erosion of checks and balances accelerates, making it easier for executive overreach to become self-reinforcing, as each unchecked decision further legitimises discretionary rule.
This form of governance is incompatible with the Anglo-Saxon/Nordic tradition of institutional independence. Without robust institutions acting as counterweights, political leaders may disregard expertise in favour of ideological or loyalty-based appointments, weakening the very structures that ensure stability.
The Rise of Personality-Driven Governance and Executive Overreach
The American system, once thought resilient against personality-driven governance, now appears increasingly vulnerable. The dramatic surge in executive orders (EOs) is a clear indication of the shift toward a discretionary governance model, where political power is wielded unilaterally by the executive rather than balanced by legislative oversight.
Clik here to view.
Images of Trump seated in the Oval Office, signing executive orders on an almost daily basis—dictating policies ranging from tariffs on Mexico and Canada to bans on paper straws—illustrate the extent of this trend.
EOs, while legally valid presidential tools, were never intended to replace the legislative process. The U.S. Constitution mandates that EOs must be grounded in either constitutional authority or existing federal law.
However, the unchecked expansion of EO use erodes legislative power and weakens the role of Congress. Courts or future presidents may overturn them, but the damage to institutional norms is already done.
Trump’s governance style bypasses the deliberative mechanisms that ensure laws are crafted with input from multiple branches of government. Instead of engaging with Congress, he relies almost exclusively on executive decrees, further consolidating power within the presidency.
The Unprecedented Surge in Executive Orders
To illustrate the scale of this shift, I have compiled data from The American Presidency Project comparing the average annual number of executive orders issued by U.S. presidents in modern history.
For Trump, I have separated his first and second terms. While his first term already demonstrated an increased reliance on EOs relative to contemporary presidents such as Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and both Bushes, his second term has seen an exponential increase.
Clik here to view.
As the chart demonstrates, Trump is issuing EOs at an unprecedented pace, surpassing even Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose tenure was defined by the Great Depression and World War II. Even acknowledging that this projection is based on early data, the trend is unmistakable: the presidency is increasingly governing by decree rather than legislation.
This shift represents a severe erosion of checks and balances and a dangerous concentration of executive power. If left unchecked, it could establish a precedent for a quasi-autocratic presidency that governs without meaningful legislative input.
The Global Implications of Executive Overreach
This is not just an American problem. I have also been deeply concerned by similar trends in Europe. Hungary under Viktor Orbán provides a stark example of how democratic backsliding can occur through the gradual accumulation of executive power. The erosion of judicial independence, increasing media control, and the curtailing of parliamentary oversight show how a democracy can transition towards authoritarian rule in small, incremental steps.
Future Trajectories: An Uncertain Outlook
The fundamental question now is whether the U.S. can re-establish institutional resilience or whether it has embarked on an irreversible shift toward discretionary, personality-driven rule. If the latter proves true, the long-term consequences will extend beyond governance, affecting economic expectations, investment behaviour, and institutional trust for years to come.
Markets, as always, will respond accordingly, and the implications will be far-reaching.