Donald Trump seems to defy all reason. Despite his persona that was uncharacteristic of a world leader, he won the US presidential elections in 2016. Despite the notoriety of his presidential term, he maintains considerable support from a loyal base. Despite his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 US presidential elections, as well as the many legal scandals that followed him after, the reality TV star turned populist politician is back for another shot at a second term. How did this come to be? Could it have been prevented? Who, if anyone, is at fault? These are all questions in dire need of answers. Perhaps more gravely, what might a second Trump presidency mean for the state of US democracy?

13th of June, 2024 – Former US President Donald Trump visits Capitol Hill for the first time since the January 6^th insurrection three years prior. Delivering a speech on unity, the potential Republican nominee seeks to rally broad support from his party and reignite the fervor of his following. This worries many, and rightfully so. 

While the United States has long been the bastion of Western liberal ideals, its brand of  democracy has not been the same since the emergence of Donald Trump as a candidate in the 2016 presidential elections. His win may have been the catalyst for its longwinded, steady descent – the effects of which were felt throughout the rest of the world. While populist fascism is not a new phenomenon, its rise in the 2010s prompted questions as to why and how the popularity of such leaders and political approaches have become so sustainable. Trump, especially, seems to be the embodiment of this longevity in the limelight and favor of many. 

Trump is a symptom of a greater illness of US democracy. The phenomenon of his ascendance may be attributed to a wide range of matters, however the role that institutions played (or rather, failed to play) needs looking into. Topping the list are the media institutions, both legacy and new. For example, Fox News — ever partisan to the Grand Old Party — undeniably played a key role in paving the way for the rise of Trump. In fact, a recent survey shows that Republicans who do not identify Fox News as their regular news source are less likely to back Trump. Aside from this news outlet or any “Fox-Newsifying” media, conservative faith-based groups like the Trump-supporting Evangelicals also lend a religious dimension to his populist narrative, fanning the flames of polarization he causes. 

Failures of the mechanisms for transparency and accountability are also to blame. The mere fact that Trump got away with his decades-long troubles with the law, not to mention he may still be allowed to pursue his second term despite being already convicted of crimes, shows how corrupt the US legal system can become. 

These instances show how democratic ideals like freedom of the press, freedom of belief, and the existence of the technicalities of the law — all of which should be at the service of liberal democracy — can be exploited by a populist. Also rubbing salt into the wound is the opposition who is expected to prevent Trump’s return by protecting such democratic institutions from perversion. Its members do express their dislike, nay, abhorrence of him, but their efforts are found wanting. 

“It’s not enough to defeat him. We must reform the system that got us here in the first place,” writes former US labor secretary Robert Reich. But that is the problem. The opposition is determined to defeat Trump but not the establishment he has been claiming to attack and for which his supporters love him. They want to get rid of a single symptom but do not intend to cure the syndrome. 

Should Trump succeed at once again setting foot in the White House, implications on US democracy may be worse than when he first emerged as a figure of considerable disruption. It is not only him who have learned his lessons and have seen the laxity of the opposition, but also the extremist right-wing groups who may reappear, or rather regain the same (if not more) momentum during Trump’s leadership that paved the way for the outrage of January 6th. It means that the overall culture of intolerance, polarization, and downright violent hate that seemed to blossom during his time in office might once again ensue.

Still and all, the optimist tends to look for a silver lining in the face of such a tumbledown democracy. For instance, some scholars claim that populism — or to make it sound less disturbing, a “healthy” dose of it — is actually indicative of pluralism, making democracy more representative and thus improving democratic deliberation and accountability. Others, while insisting that populism is not a corrective but rather a real danger to liberal democracy, nonetheless point out that the former can force the advocates of the latter to do introspection and acknowledge there are indeed broken promises of democracy. There are also those who do not necessarily support Trump, but see his return anyway as the continuation of the positive developments during his first term. They say, “Yeah, Trump’s populist, but at least . . .” and begin citing Trump’s staunch anti-China policy (e.g., rallying the world against the Red Dragon’s 5G dominance, utilizing a “whole of government” approach towards its competition with China, and so on),  or maybe his attacks against monopolistic firms like Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Although even a broken clock can be right twice a day, the damage has already been done. Trump’s brand of leadership already proved to be lethal to democratic values. The hostile polarization he continues to sustain in no way indicates a “healthy dose” of populism. Whatever good he may have offered cannot diminish the severity of the blow he struck at democracy.

Still, is Trump’s second presidency truly imminent? Well, regardless of whether his return to office is likely, his return to the limelight that still generates traction and support should already be a cause for concern. This sustained popularity might indicate a shift in how a significant portion of the American public might perceive (and will continue to perceive) leadership. Besides, Trump does not need to be in the White House to erode US democracy — all the more reason to bar him from pursuing his second term. 

Marc Kevin M. Maralit contributed to the writing of this article.

*Photo by Jon Tyson, “Untitled” (Unsplashed), Creative Commons license