The President of The United States threatened genocide in the Middle East over a social media post. This is not an exaggeration nor a bizarre example of being hacked. The post is also not the first time that President Donald Trump has utilized his own social media platform, Truth Social, to post threats and other inappropriate comments. While this post may be the most jarring thus far, it joins a laundry list of divisive rhetoric ridden posts from the president. With every outlandish post, every rejection of the electoral system, and every threat to the media our sense of democratic norms diminishes. The President’s posts on Truth Social are doing more than just generating chatter, they are actively destroying democratic norms in the United States and eroding our democracy.
Democracies no longer change regimes due to violent coups d’etat. Men armed as militias no longer storm the home of the executive or violently take over capital buildings to signal the end of a democracy. Modern democracies instead now slowly erode as pieces of it are subtly chipped away by actions of the executive or major institutions. These subtle steps are barely visible to the ordinary citizen and most don’t realize the changes occurring until it is too late to stop them.
What are Democratic Norms?
Democratic norms are the foundation of a functional modern democracy. They are the unwritten rules and customs that uphold each and every democratic system. While democratic institutions are important, their mere existence is not enough to validate them. The actions of the citizens in daily life and a mutual respect of democratic institutions and norms are what give these institutions their validity and power. Levitsky and Ziblatt’s “How Democracies Die” outlines how democracies depend on norms as much as they depend on formal rules and law.
Respect for the rule of law, mutual toleration of opposing parties, and institutional forbearance are some of the most essential formal democratic norms to maintain a civil democratic society. Respect for the rule of law requires an independent judicial system that treats all people, including executives, as equals and accountable for the laws of the land. Institutional forbearance is a customary action of political actors in positions of great power to keep themselves in check. These actors restrain themselves from deploying the full extent of their powers to coerce others.
The mutual toleration of opposing parties and actors represents the traditional respect political actors have for one another, especially within the public sphere. Politicians in a democracy must recognize their opponents or opposing parties as legitimate rivals who respect their country despite any fundamental policy differences. Mutual toleration of political actors in the public sphere has a direct effect on civility in public discourse throughout the country. If an executive does not act with respect towards their opponents despite disagreements, why should their citizens?
“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested place from which they came,” is an exact quote from a tweet the current president sent out in 2019 regarding senators of color. “He was, by far, our WORST and most Incompetent President,” is another post from the current president that was sent out just last week regarding former president Joe Biden. This type of divisive rhetoric and lack of respect and toleration for those of opposing views doesn’t end with Donald Trump. When an executive acts with such outlandish behavior, their followers believe that it is okay for them to do so as well. In fact there are direct statistical links between Trump’s posts on social media and a rise in political violence and racism throughout the country.
Electoral Integrity
President Donald Trump has bulldozed through the traditional respect for rule of law and electoral integrity that previous executives have respected despite their differences. Beginning with his rejection of GOP primary election results in 2016 all the way to rejecting the results of the presidential election in 2020, Donald Trump has never formally admitted that he lost in the 2020 election. The closest the current president got to admitting his defeat was a tweet stating “He (Joe Biden) won because the Election was Rigged.” Trump was permanently suspended from the platform just three months later due to his incitement of violence regarding the election outcome.
President Donald Trump’s various complaints of rigged elections are so extensive that Congress themselves have published a timeline outlining each one. The current president and his subsequent businesses have filed close to 4,000 lawsuits in the past eight years regarding elections. The Department of Justice themselves have sued 24 states just in the past six months regarding electoral matters. The repeated rejection of electoral results and the irresponsible rhetoric surrounding this main democratic institution only acts to instill distrust in institutions among citizens.
The Use of Truth Social
Despite the president’s well known history with nontraditional communication, his recent handling of the war in Iran has sent shockwaves through the country. Trump has utilized his own platform, Truth Social, as his official mouthpiece narrating the war and further blurring the lines of official vs. personal messages. These blurred lines create confusion that furthers the spread of disinformation and disregards the traditional spread of information to the public.
Over ninety posts have been made by the current president about the war, most contradicting each other. In comparison, he has held only two official press conferences regarding the war. His most recent posts, which came out on the morning of Easter Sunday, are explicit and threat-filled posts that even his closest supporters have condemned.
Rules and customs mean nothing if they are not followed. When democratic norms are weakened by the executive branch institutions become much more vulnerable despite formal laws remaining unchanged. The president is seen as the leader and mouthpiece of a country and they are intended to represent the values of the citizens. Donald Trump’s behavior is a complete breakdown of everything that the American people have come to know as traditional democratic norms. In a country already so polarized, the influx of divisive rhetoric will continue to have devastating effects on democracy. Words have power.
It is extremely concerning to have a “democratic” leader threaten genocide. It rather shows how undemocratic they are. Trump has demonstrated that he lacks mutual tolerance or institutional forbearance as a leader. He uses extreme language and threats against his fellow American politicians as well as foreign citizens and leaders. Trump is showcasing how dangerous a leader he is. A trustworthy democratic leader should be able to easily demonstrate the democratic norms of mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance. Though the genocide he threatened against the people and nation of Iran did not happen, it is still a disgusting statement that should be taken seriously.
Very thoughtful post, it lines up pretty precisely with what Levitsky and Ziblatt warn about (i.e.) the gradual chipping away at mutual toleration and other standard American political norms. Trumps use of truth social fits that pattern to a tee. The election denialism, blurring of official communication and constant attacks on his political opponents all weaken the “soft guardrails” that keep institutions stable. What I find most troubling is the normalization of this rhetoric. Im concerned that even when Trump is gone from public life that this sort of behavior will be echoed by the public, and the democratic backsliding will deepen.
I really appreciated reading this post! I think it perfectly captures a pattern that scholars have been warning about for years: democratic erosion often begins with rhetoric that pushes the boundaries of what leaders are expected to say or do. What you describe aligns with research showing that when executives repeatedly violate norms of restraint or mutual toleration, it gradually shifts what the public sees as acceptable.
On a personal level, I’ve noticed myself becoming increasingly numb to some of the more extreme statements circulating online, and I know many people who feel the same way. But the recent comments about Iran broke through that numbness and reminded me how destabilizing this kind of rhetoric can be, not just emotionally, but for the health of democratic norms. Reading your explanation of the broader pattern, and the research behind it, genuinely helped me understand the situation rather than just react to it. Being informed feels far less frightening than being overwhelmed, so thank you for laying this out so clearly
First off, I want to say that I love the title of your post. I always wonder whether the political environment we live in is what we will have to experience for the rest of our lives. Trump’s posts absolutely matter. He is the President of the United States. He’s not an online troll. When the president uses social media to threaten people, attack opponents, or question elections, it sends a message to everyone else in the United States that this kind of behavior is acceptable.
It is not acceptable, and will never be acceptable.
Your conclusion about democratic norms was very strong. Democracy depends on basic respect and trust. The words that President Trump uses destroy any semblance of respect for others and people we disagree with politically.
In the future, our generation needs to do a better job of treating each other online with respect and dignity, instead of dehumanizing people.
It’s sort of an abstract theory and very difficult to quantify. Still, the idea that Trump’s followers, the MAGA party, are so steadfast behind him, I believe, is also due to how transparent and vulgar his online and in-person rhetoric is. There has long been a racist and xenophobic side to America that, in the Obama years, may have gone slightly overlooked, a subdued remnant of the Confederacy, if you will.
The President’s rhetoric on such a large and influential stage has given voice and confidence to these party members, something they haven’t truly freely had since the civil rights movement. And I believe the gratefulness for such an act has resulted in either an unwillingness or inability to criticize the President, or break ranks. This blind faith fuels polarization, allowing supporters to ignore or justify anti-democratic actions by leaders, such as attacks on the press, courts, or election integrity, in order to protect the party…the person.