In today’s society, Donald Trump’s presidential legacy still lurks within US democracy. More specifically, Trump’s claims of election fraud haunt the country’s political climate. Many citizens believe that Biden, the current president of the United States, gained office illegitimately and stole the election. High ranking politicians, like Florida’s Ron DeSantis, continue to use Trump’s divisive rhetoric and make issues like fixing “election integrity” main platform points despite the many investigations that have shown little fraud occurred.
Along with concerns of a broken US electoral system, Trump’s presidency exposed fears of powerful political actors not facing consequences for anti-democratic actions. Although Trump was impeached twice by the House for the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and inciting a riot on the US Capitol, he was also acquitted on both counts by the Senate. This not only shows a polarized Congress that votes on party lines, but also sets a potentially dangerous precedence of a president not being held accountable democratic actions. Although he was publicly vilified by many high ranking elected officials, he was also openly supported by others. With these outwards signs of a system in turmoil, it begs the question is Donald Trump a warning sign of democratic erosion in the United States?
To answer this question, we must first understand what democratic erosion is. One way to define this idea is that rather than happening all at one, democratic erosion is a process that happens over time and committed from within by elected officials. It is done step by step and is not always noticeable until it has become a pressing problem. One scholar that has studied democracy erosion is Daniel Ziblatt. In the first chapter of his book, How Democracies Die, he explains that populist outsiders are a key actor that can help drive democratic erosion. Often, they gain power during times of economic crisis or public discontent. Ziblatt also notes that authoritarian politicians will erode democracy by rejecting democratic rules of the game, deny legitimacy of opponents, tolerate and/or encourage violence, curtail civil liberties, like the media.
Now, with this in mind, let’s examine how it can be applied to the current situation in the US. Throughout former president Trump’s time in office, former President Trump rejected democratic rules of the game by claiming voter fraud and perpetuating the “big lie.” He denied the legitimacy of opponents, like President Biden, especially after the result of the 2020 election. He encouraged violence during his January 6th rally, resulting in the riot at the Capitol, and continuously calls mainstream media “fake news.” Trump’s outwardly divisive and anti-democratic actions do not stop with him. Rather, he has inspired many politicians, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and already mentioned Ron DeSantis, and given them a platform to co-opt and gain support.
Only time will tell if Trump was a one off populist politician elected to such a prestigious position of power or if he is a symptom of a failing system. However, at the end of his time in office, Trump had not done irreparable damage to US institutions; Biden still took office on January 20th, elections were proven to be virtually voted fraud free, and Trump’s so called “fake news” continued to publish their stories. The problems Trump exposed during his time in office are not new; they were just at the forefront of political discourse because of Trump’s populist undertones. He voiced his opinions and took action. Trump’s presidency should serve as a warning to US officials and citizens of how fragile democracy can be. To maintain it, they must be wary of authoritarian politician and try to prevent them from gaining the support of high ranking officials. If not, who knows who the next Trump could be.
Hi Grace! I enjoyed reading your post about Trump and democratic erosion, which has become an increasingly important topic in the past few years. You point out that Trump’s impeachments and following acquittals may set a dangerous precedent for a president not being held accountable for democratic actions. This analysis makes me wonder how accountability can be separated into horizontal and vertical forms (drawing from political scientists Ellen Lust and David Waldner). Do you think there is one form that Trump was more successful in attempting to dismantle? Is one form working better than the other in the American government? Towards the end of your post, you also mention how Trump’s presidency should serve as a warning, as he had not done irreparable damage. However, I would argue that his actions could be detrimental and much more than just a warning. The parties are heavily polarized, a significant portion of the population still does not trust elections, and there is also a stronger sense of political homophily. I would argue that Trump has hurt the legitimacy of American institutions and made people question their faith in the government and leaders. While that may not be devastating now, it can quickly lead to irreparable damage.
I agree with the author’s point that Donald Trump’s election has shown how easy it is for anti-democratic leaders to get away with their actions. However, I question if it’s true that his presidency has not done irreparable damage to the country’s institutions. I believe that there might be several ways in which Trump has damaged the country’s institutions and the people’s faith in democracy. Firstly, in a country that is already deeply divided, Trump capitalized on the divisions in society and used them to his advantage. He blamed minorities and immigrants for economic and social problems, using them as scapegoats and furthering the distance between the country’s majority white population and minorities. As mentioned by Lieberman, this has helped contribute to the homogenization of the country’s political parties along racial lines [1], pulling the Republican and Democratic parties even further from one another.
Secondly, democracy has been damaged by the former president’s embrace of populist rhetoric and association and seeming acceptance of fringe right-wing leaders and ideas have pushed the traditionally center-right party even more so to the right. This has proven to be an especially dangerous consequence of Trump’s presidency as center-right parties are essential to the stabilization of democracy and the maintenance of the center of democracy, as stated by Levitsky and Ziblatt [2]. The Republican party’s position has been one that, previously, was willing to reach out and work with the Democrats and work to slowly enact change. But by abandoning this position and moving further right, the party has turned into another symptom of a failing democratic system.
Additionally, by using a common populist tactic and claiming that only he is capable of fixing the country’s problems, Trump reduced a defining characteristic of democracy, which is that it is an exchange of ideas. By refusing to acknowledge that solutions can come by working with the other side, Trump has effectively diminished the ability of the political parties to cooperate. The author mentioned the insurrection on January 6th. This is a particularly dangerous example of the harm that the former president has brought to the country, in that he encouraged and legitimized political violence. Along with refusing to recognize political opponents as legitimate, by condoning political violence, Trump contributed to the rising difficulty of having civilized discussions on policies. This has decreased the ability of political parties to find common ground on issues. Donald Trump’s claim that only he is capable of fixing the issues that the big, establishment government has been unable to solve has also pushed people towards the idea that democratic governments are not fast enough, or as Robert Dahl states, responsive enough to the demands of their citizens [3]. Trump’s claim that he can fix the issues, and his subsequent attempts to do so while in office have attracted more of his followers towards his authoritarian style of thinking and have made authoritarian leaders seemingly more appealing.
Another important institution that has been damaged by Donald Trump’s presidency is the media. Historically, the media has played an important role in holding those in office accountable for their actions, and reporting on issues that they believe are important and relevant to the people. As the author stated, Trump often attacked the media for being “fake news”. The author argues that there has not been irreparable damage done because the media can still publish their stories. However, I believe that Trump has committed significant damage to the media’s role as an institution in this country. By attacking the media as printing “fake news”, claiming that they are biased and liars, he has helped to destroy their credibility and has contributed to the decline in people’s trust in the media.
The author also described how Donald Trump claimed voter fraud and claimed that there were issues with the country’s election integrity. Although it was proven that the election was practically free of any voter fraud, the damage was still done. Trump’s repeated claims that people voted illegally and that there were votes for him that were not counted convinced many people that there is a conspiracy taking place in the government, further distancing them from reality and also creating a false perception that still exists that the election was stolen from Trump. As stated by Levitsky and Ziblatt, this is a dangerous sign of the rejection of the democratic rules of the game2.
When examining all the individual ways in which Donald Trump abused the democratic government and attempted to dismantle it, it is clear that not only is the government unable to hold antidemocratic leaders accountable for their actions, but that there are several ways in which the former president has most likely irreparably damaged the country’s democratic institutions. These factors all indicate an erosion of democracy in the United States that Trump’s presidency capitalized on and exacerbated.
References:
[1] Robert Lieberman et al, The Trump Presidency (2018), 1-10.
[2] Steven Levitksy and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (New York: Crown Publishing, 2018).
[3] Robert Dahl, On Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 145-179.
Your post is very interesting, and brings up some important points concerning the democratic erosion in the U.S, in reaction to Donald Trump’s 2016 election The 2016 election exposed the developing weaknesses and threats to the United States’ democracy. I’d like to expand on the point you made about the high party polarization within the United States’ political area and its threat to democracy, and add a few points on some of the factors that expose the country’s vulnerability to democratic erosion, connecting them back to Trump’s 2016 election.
The growing polarization in the United States’ political arena has intensified and the divide between the Republican and Democratic parties has significantly widened over the past years. The division and radicalization of opinions on topics of gender, immigration, and tax rates, just to mention a few, is alarming. Unfortunately, this high-level polarization has had a huge impact on the role of political parties as to the ‘gatekeepers’ of democracy, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt discuss in their book How democracies die[1]. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt explain that in the past when democratic institutions were at the risk of being compromised by a politician with authoritarian or populist ideologies, the democrats and republicans set aside different opinions and worked together to ensure that democratic institutions were maintained and preserved. However, the high polarization has hindered this necessary bipartisanship alliance that has been effective in preserving democracy in the United States.
Political parties were instrumental in preventing the rise of populist or authoritarian leaders, by leading the selection of prospective presidential candidates and keeping “outsiders” out. However, the extension of the selection of candidates to the unreliable, and unstable voters, paved a way for outsiders like Donald Trump to get into the political arena. This extension made the system particularly vulnerable to individuals with enough fame or money to win the favor of the voters. Mutual tolerance, which is the idea that as long as our rivals play by constitutional rules, we accept that they have an equal right to exist, compete for power and govern, has also been affected by this high polarization. This unwritten democratic norm has kept the ideal form of the competitive nature of democracy. Unfortunately, the increase in hate speech, partisan violence, and denial of the legitimacy of opponents has shown the fading of this norm.
The use of mainstream digital media in the 2016 election also brought a diverse threat to democracy. The high use of social media and cable news made it easier for a person of fame or money to become more popular and gain public support in the shortest possible time. Donald Trump, in particular, took great advantage of this opportunity. Nathaniel Persily notes that insider information suggests that half of Trump’s campaign’s media budget went to digital media[3]. Trump’s Twitter account was very effective in increasing his popularity and was perfectly tailored for this internet age. The formation of pro-trump websites, Facebook group chats, and machine bias contributed to the increase in radical and extreme group polarization amongst voters. Persily further alludes to the uncertain geographic origin of bots as a feature that could potentially facilitate interference by foreign governments. He adds that the official report of the US intelligence community revealed Russia’s involvement in campaigning Hillary Clinton through the use of social media, webpages and cable television stations. This foreign interference goes against one of Robert Dahl’s conditions for a democratic government: that there should be no strong foreign influence in the electoral process[2].
One of the most worrisome implications of the digital media campaigns in the 2016 elections to Democracy, was the integrity of the information the voters were exposed to as they chose between candidates. Because voters make their decisions based on their knowledge of the aspiring candidates, the type of information they receive is very cardinal. The 2016 campaign period was characterized by an abundance of fake news and propaganda. The propagators of this fake news and propaganda did this not with satirical intent, but with intentions of either making profit – by attracting crowds to their websites – or discrediting the opposition, Persily notes. The impact of media information on the population hinges on the virality of its content. Viral fake stories and misinformation quickly spread, and its effects were significant.
To sum it all up, the rise of Donald Trump – a populist leader and outsider that passed all of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s four indicators of authoritarian rule, as stated in your post – exposed the vulnerable state of the United States’ democracy. The erosion of democratic norms (Mutual tolerance and Institutional forbearance), the ineffectiveness of political parties in their gatekeeping role, and unsound use of digital media for campaigns all highlight the degree of democratic erosion in the U.S. Adding to these, Paul Howe’s study reveals a rise in antisocial attitudes amongst the United States’ younger generation[4]. All these signs and symptoms call for citizens to be alert, and for the government to provide a robust civic education of democratic principles that will awaken the will of citizens to defend them, and develop a sense of belonging to a society in which the essential preferences of everyone are rightly respected. Reestablishment of the democratic norms and revival of the democracy gatekeepers could help stop the democratic erosion.
How can democracy survive in the internet age? How can we find and maintain the level of polarization necessary for democracy to survive? Those are some of the questions that we may still need to study and find answers to.
References
[1] Levitsky, Steven,, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. First edition. New York: Crown, 2018. Print.
[2] Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Print.
[3] Persily, Nathaniel. “The 2016 U.S. Election: Can Democracy Survive the Internet?” Journal of Democracy, vol. 28 no. 2, 2017, p. 63-76. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jod.2017.0025.
[4] Howe, P. “Eroding Norms and Democratic Deconsolidation”. Journal of Democracy, vol. 28, no. 4, Oct. 2017, pp. 15-29.