American democracy faces a crisis of legitimacy as the ruling minority party rips apart the fabric of the republic by disenfranchising Americans, pressuring election officials to cheat, misusing official power to investigate rivals, and soliciting foreign election interference.

It's a frustratingly asymmetric struggle, as one party is constrained by the need to discourage members from operating outside the norms and laws of the republic it defends and the other party sees benefit in tearing down anticorruption mechanisms intended to guard that republic.

There are exceptions, and no party can claim purity as to all its members. But shifting demographics appear to have led the minority party to conclude that it can't compete on a playing field tilted only somewhat in its favor and that holding power matters more than democracy.

This is now an apocalyptic struggle for the soul of the republic, pitting a broad coalition of far left, left, center, and center right supporters of democracy against an extreme far right movement intent on replacing the republic in all but name with authoritarian rule.

In this respect, America is not alone. Authoritarianism is rising in the Western world and beyond. Russia, China and others stoke the illiberal sentiment. But the biggest threat, as Fiona Hill has warned, seems to come from within. Turning back this tide will be hard.

Inherent in this asymmetric fight is the need for a nuanced response by leaders who resist the temptation to respond in kind, which could accelerate the degradation of democracy, but do not shy away from confronting it forcefully. Striking that balance will not be easy.

Because it is easer to destroy than to create or maintain, the authoritarians have an advantage. But it's not an insurmountable advantage. The pro-democracy forces have more expertise in governing for the simple reason that, unlike their rivals, they have sought to govern.

All of this is to say I believe a strong response is needed, one that includes vigorous criminal and noncriminal investigations free of political influence. Language and consequences should match the threat, and care should be taken not to harm to structures of democracy.

* (easier not "easer")