The last few weeks of American governance have come as a massive surprise to vast swathes of the American public. Among the various events that have rocked the American Political Circus: the establishment of an executive-contracted organization, which lacked an act of Congress to formally establish a mandate, widespread federal employment insecurity driven by a new campaign to encourage deferred resignation, with various government agencies now on the brink of being completely wiped from existence.

The sitting president, in his executive order creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), listed “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity” as the premier mandate of the new agency. Across the aisle, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed the actions of DOGE as a being akin to that of a “shadow government.” Included within his statement was a very poignant set of ideals to which he seemed to hold American Democracy to:

“Because democracy does not work in the shadows. Democracy does not skirt the rule of law. Democracy does not shun accountability and restraint. It does not run away from transparency, but welcomes it. And it does not give privilege to the needs – and even the ideas – of a small group of ultra–wealthy people at the expense of working people.”

-Chuck Schumer

With all due respect to the Senator from New York, it would be fair to counter that if these are the standards to which he holds a Democracy to, then it would be far from possible to place the United States within this category. Definitions notwithstanding, it is undeniable that the political tradition of America since its inception is also the history of the development of liberal democracy throughout the world. But with this stifling vision of Democracy often sold wholesale to all those taught about the lofty ideals upon which the United States was founded, the social conditions upon which a liberal democracy may come into being to begin with are often left as an afterthought, if ever mentioned at all.

The most effective way to frame the founding of America is by gauging the background of the various parties signatory to the Declaration of Independence, which worked to proudly proclaim the ideals of American liberal democracy. One look will instantly reveal that a great number were bourgeoise owners of Capital, descendants of landed gentry, or a combination of the two. Our country was founded in service of particular class interests, which were at odds with the imperial throne of the United Kingdom, which sought to rule with impunity and for the sake of the Crown. The American state grew from this initial conflict, and incorporated the ideology of Democracy primarily in service of its determination to break away from their colonial overlords, both ideology and literally, with various moments of ‘social progress’ made along the way as long as they were not at the immediate expense of large swathes of that same class which found its interest at the helm of society. This outlook matches most with the “Political Economy” school of political thought, in which “the reciprocal relationship between the organization and exercise of power… and of production” takes precedent in understanding the social relations which then dictate phenomena such as the birth of liberal democracy.

Today, we exist in that same exact system. Triumphs such as the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of women acted as natural extensions of liberal democratic ideals set back by now archaic and outdated beliefs. But now, after over 250 years of increasing liberalization, Donald Trump enters the fray, seemingly looking to tear it all to shreds and completely overturn the present state of society. His methods are not new, however, but rather the result of decades of Republican strategizing which seeks to further obfuscate American politics for the average voting citizen. Allowing “open borders” which bring in “dangerous people”, “indoctrinating kids” with “gender ideology” in classrooms, and the enforcement of “radical and wasteful DEI programs”, are among the various charges leveed by the Trump administration against his predecessors, and were large parts behind the rhetorical and electoral victory made by him in the recent election, coupled alongside a promise to curb inflation. It is without a doubt that Donald Trump managed to play upon existing cultural divides to stoke paranoia within Americans, giving his current actions an air of legitimacy in his war of perceived government mismanagement.

How was Donald Trump and his campaign strategy able to best that of the Democrats, who seemed to take the entire situation lying down? We may return to the founding of our country for our answer. In a post Citizens United vs. FEC world, now more than ever, owners of capital quite literally have more of a say in political campaign outcomes. In such a media driven political scene, more money means more ads, more content creators you can pay to support your platform, and more airtime on television. By using open secrets, we can see that a whopping 40 percent of Kamala Harris’ campaign was financed by small donations, as opposed to a mere 28 percent by Trump, perhaps signaling a shift not necessarily among all American people, but likely in the American upper class. This holds further weight upon further investigation of the various agencies targeted by DOGE and the myriad executive orders signed by Donald Trump, both targeting regulation of industry, notably including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a rather new agency formed after the failures that lead to the 2008 Financial Recession.

It is fair to say that none of this is new, but is simply being taken to the next level. What this means for the ideals that allowed most Americans to sleep easy at night is up for debate, but the current prognosis is looking grim. If the first few weeks are anything to go off of, we are in for a wild four years, if not more.