July 23, 2025
"All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful."
—Mao Zedong, 1946
Mao understood something about institutional power that transcends ideology: the most dangerous moment for any authority comes when someone tests whether that authority is real or performed. His insight about "paper tigers" wasn't just military strategy—it was a theory of sovereignty itself. Power that depends on the appearance of strength rather than actual capacity becomes vulnerable the moment someone refuses to be intimidated by the performance.
America is about to discover whether it's a sovereign nation with rule of law or the most elaborately constructed paper tiger in political history.
The test is happening right now, in real time, in the marble halls of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts sits at the center of a constitutional crisis that will determine whether American sovereignty rests on law or performance, whether our institutions constrain power or simply provide aesthetic cover for its exercise.
This isn't about liberal versus conservative jurisprudence. This is about whether law governs power or power shapes law. Whether America has constitutional government or aristocratic rule with constitutional theater.
Sovereignty and the Paper Tiger Principle
Mao's genius wasn't recognizing that some enemies were weak—it was understanding that institutional authority often depends more on collective belief than actual capability. A paper tiger looks fearsome until someone tests whether it can actually bite. Then the illusion collapses, and what seemed terrifying reveals itself as elaborate performance.
American constitutional government operates on exactly this principle. The Constitution has no enforcement mechanism. The Supreme Court has no army. Congress controls budgets but can't compel compliance. The entire system functions because people agree to be bound by it, not because it has the power to force obedience.
This has always been America's genius and vulnerability: a nation built on performance as power. Hollywood taught the world that spectacle could substitute for substance. Military parades projected strength while wars were lost. The mythology of meritocracy convinced people that success proved virtue rather than luck or leverage. America perfected the art of making performance feel like reality until the distinction became irrelevant.
"America perfected the art of making performance feel like reality until the distinction became irrelevant."
What we're witnessing isn't democracy's corruption—it's the inevitable collision between a system built on collective belief and power that no longer needs to maintain that belief to operate.
This worked for centuries because American political leaders, however much they disagreed about policy, shared basic assumptions about the legitimacy of constitutional constraints. Even when they pushed boundaries, they accepted that some boundaries existed and that violating them carried genuine consequences.
But what happens when power is exercised by people who reject the fundamental premise that law should constrain political authority? When the very idea of constitutional government becomes a quaint notion held by people who don't understand how power really works?
America is about to find out.
The Supreme Court as Sovereignty's Last Stand
The Supreme Court represents the purest expression of constitutional authority in the American system. Unlike other branches, their power derives entirely from moral authority—the collective agreement that their interpretations of law matter because law itself matters.
Roberts understands this better than anyone. He knows that the Court's legitimacy depends on maintaining the fiction that they interpret law rather than making political decisions. He also knows that maintaining this fiction requires that political actors accept judicial authority even when it's inconvenient.
But Roberts is choosing something more personal: historical legacy over justice, reputation over principle, decorum over democracy. He understands that history will remember not what the Court argued, but what it allowed. And he's betting that institutional survival—even as a captured institution—preserves more of his legacy than principled resistance that might be ignored.
This creates an impossible situation when confronted by power that recognizes no constraints except force. If the Court consistently rules against Trump, Trump will simply ignore them—and then what? The moment a president successfully defies the Supreme Court without consequence, constitutional government ends not with a bang but with a shrug.
But if the Court systematically legitimizes presidential power to avoid confrontation, they become something else entirely: a judicial branch that exists to provide constitutional cover for whatever the executive wants to do.
"The moment a president successfully defies the Supreme Court without consequence, constitutional government ends not with a bang but with a shrug."
This is the genius of Trump's approach to institutions: he doesn't need to destroy them, just reveal their powerlessness. Either the Court constrains him and he ignores them, proving they're irrelevant, or they legitimate his power and prove they're captured. Either way, constitutional government as we understood it ends.
The 6-3 Rationalization
Here's where Mao's insight becomes particularly relevant: the most effective way to neutralize institutional authority isn't through direct confrontation but by convincing the institution to surrender its authority voluntarily.
The six conservative justices provide the perfect mechanism for this surrender. They can convince themselves they're following their sincere constitutional principles while actually participating in the destruction of constitutional government.
Watch how this works: When Trump claims executive privilege, the conservative majority can rule in his favor by invoking separation of powers. When he argues for immunity from prosecution, they can cite the need for presidential effectiveness. When he defies congressional oversight, they can defer to executive branch prerogatives.
Each ruling will be legally defensible and constitutionally grounded. Each will also move us closer to a system where presidential power is essentially unlimited when exercised by the right person. The beauty of this approach is its plausible deniability—these justices aren't betraying the Constitution, they're interpreting it according to their sincere beliefs about executive power.
The fact that these interpretations happen to serve a particular president's authoritarian ambitions is just...convenient.
"The most effective way to neutralize institutional authority isn't through direct confrontation but by convincing the institution to surrender its authority voluntarily."
This is institutional capture at its most sophisticated: not crude intimidation, but the alignment of ideological rationalization with authoritarian convenience to produce outcomes that gut constitutional constraints while maintaining constitutional language.
American Sovereignty as Performance
What we're witnessing is the transformation of American sovereignty from substance to theater. The forms remain—the Supreme Court still meets in their marble temple, Congress still convenes, the president still takes the oath—but increasingly, these are performance pieces that maintain the aesthetic of constitutional governance while power operates according to entirely different rules.
This isn't solely the legacy of one party. Republicans perfected institutional capture; Democrats perfected the performance of restraint. Republicans mastered the art of wrecking the structure while Democrats mastered the art of pretending it was still intact. Different sins, same outcome: a country left with ruins and theater.
Mao would recognize this dynamic immediately. It's the same process he identified in weakening institutional authority: the moment when power becomes more concerned with appearing legitimate than actually being constrained by legitimacy.
Real sovereignty means that law constrains all actors, including the most powerful. Theater sovereignty means that powerful actors follow law when convenient and ignore it when not, while institutions provide cover for this selective compliance by maintaining the fiction that constitutional government still exists.
The Supreme Court's role in this transformation is crucial because their participation makes the performance credible. When they issue rulings that legitimize network power while maintaining constitutional language, they provide the legal cover that makes the transition from constitutional government to aristocratic rule appear legitimate.
"Real sovereignty means that law constrains all actors, including the most powerful."
This explains why Trump's relationship with the Court is so strategically important. He doesn't need them to love him—he needs them to legitimate his power while maintaining their reputation as an independent institution. Their willing participation in this process proves that American sovereignty has become what Mao would call a paper tiger: impressive in appearance, hollow in reality.
The Sovereignty Test
Here's the test that reveals whether a nation has real sovereignty or performed sovereignty: what happens when the most powerful actors simply refuse to be bound by law?
In systems with genuine sovereignty, such refusal triggers institutional responses that impose real consequences. Laws get enforced regardless of who breaks them. Institutions maintain their authority by demonstrating that authority extends to everyone.
In systems with performed sovereignty, such refusal triggers institutional accommodation. Laws get reinterpreted to legitimize what was previously illegal. Institutions maintain their relevance by demonstrating their usefulness to power.
America is in the middle of this test right now. Trump has shown that he considers law optional, constitutional constraints advisory, and institutional authority contingent on its service to his interests. The question is whether American institutions will enforce sovereignty or perform it.
"The question is whether American institutions will enforce sovereignty or perform it."
Early signs suggest performance over enforcement. Rather than treating Trump's defiance of law as a constitutional crisis requiring institutional response, we're treating it as a political problem requiring electoral solutions. Rather than defending institutional authority, we're negotiating with power that recognizes no authority except its own.
This is exactly what Mao predicted would happen to paper tigers when tested: they would reveal themselves as elaborate constructions designed to look powerful while being fundamentally hollow.
Beyond Constitutional Theater
The implications extend far beyond any single administration or political party. If American constitutional government can't constrain power when that power chooses not to be constrained, then what exactly is American sovereignty?
If the Supreme Court becomes a constitutional cover operation for unlimited executive power, what distinguishes American governance from any other system where authority serves power rather than law? If Congress can't meaningfully oversight the executive, if courts can't meaningfully constrain presidential action, if constitutional limits only apply to people who choose to respect them, then what kind of nation are we?
These aren't rhetorical questions. They're empirical ones that we're answering through our institutional responses to institutional capture.
Mao understood that the most dangerous enemies often aren't the most obviously threatening ones—they're the ones that convince you they're still allies while systematically undermining everything you thought they were protecting. American constitutional institutions may be proving his point.
"If constitutional limits only apply to people who choose to respect them, then what kind of nation are we?"
Strategic Positioning for Sovereignty Transition
The Supreme Court's trajectory over the next few years will tell us everything we need to know about whether America has moved from constitutional government to constitutional theater. Their choices will reveal whether we have rule of law or rule of networks, whether sovereignty means institutional constraint or institutional performance.
But here's what Mao understood that most people miss: recognizing that authority is performed rather than real creates strategic opportunities for people who understand the difference.
"Recognizing that authority is performed rather than real creates strategic opportunities for people who understand the difference."
When institutions serve power rather than law, smart people stop depending on institutions and start building alternatives. When sovereignty becomes theater, people who value actual accountability create systems that function regardless of whether the performance continues.
This isn't about revolution—it's about intelligent positioning while options still exist.
Build real accountability. Mutual aid networks that function when government services fail. Local mediation systems that resolve conflicts without depending on captured courts. Community land trusts that remove land from speculation. Worker cooperatives that operate according to democratic principles.
Build information independence. Independent media that answers to readers rather than advertisers. Local information networks that cover what matters to your community. Communication systems that don't depend on corporate platforms for basic functionality.
Build local governing capacity. School boards, city councils, community organizations—these make decisions that affect daily life in ways that captured federal institutions don't. Local organizing creates the relationships that make larger coordination possible.
The strategic principle: Every action should build capacity to function independently of captured systems while creating community with others doing the same work. Not isolation, but intelligent interdependence with people who share values around accountability and mutual aid.
What gives me hope is Mao's other insight about paper tigers: once people stop being intimidated by their roar, they become manageable. Systems that depend on performance rather than substance are more fragile than they appear. When enough people understand that institutions serve power rather than justice, those institutions lose the only thing that made them powerful in the first place: our belief that they deserved our respect.
"When enough people understand that institutions serve power rather than justice, those institutions lose the only thing that made them powerful in the first place: our belief that they deserved our respect."
The Test Results
So here is the test Mao identified: the moment when authority must prove it's more than performance.
And here is America's answer: The Supreme Court chooses institutional survival over constitutional principle. Congress treats oversight as suggestion. The presidency operates as if law were optional.
The test is complete. The results are clear.
American constitutional government has revealed itself as the most elaborate paper tiger in political history—impressive in appearance, hollow in reality, dangerous only as long as people believe in its roar.
But Mao understood something else about paper tigers: once people stop being intimidated by the performance, what seemed terrifying becomes manageable. Systems that depend on collective belief rather than actual capacity are more fragile than they appear.
The Supreme Court will show us whether they're a constitutional bulwark or the judicial branch of an aristocratic network dressed in constitutional costumes. Either way, we'll know what we're dealing with.
And knowing what we're dealing with means we can stop pretending and start building. Real sovereignty exists in relationships and communities, not institutions and performance. Real accountability functions through mutual aid, not hierarchical authority. Real justice serves people, not power.
The window for strategic positioning is closing. Smart people are using it to build alternatives that work regardless of whether captured institutions choose to function.
The paper tiger's roar is losing its power. What comes next depends on who understands the difference between authority and legitimacy—and who's willing to build accordingly.
Let that be enough—for now.
Nailed it.