Trump threatens American democracy in part because US institutions were not designed to deal with an autocratic populist who is willing to break norms and even laws. As I pointed out in 2017, American voters and civil society are ultimately the only forces that can stop such a figure. Although American democracy withstood Trump’s presidency in 2017-21, he exploited every institutional weakness he could find, deepened the divisions of an already polarised society, and tried to overturn the result of a free and fair election that he lost.
The Democrats successfully reclaimed the White House in the 2020 election, despite Trump’s coup attempt on January 6, 2021, because they had a major advantage: his own incompetence. Although long-standing political norms had been severely damaged, democracy survived.
Trump’s incompetence as president had two dimensions. First, he was incapable of demonstrating any consistency. His only real agenda was to concentrate power in his own hands and elevate and enrich his family and cronies, but he lacked the discipline and focus to see it through. The terrifying implication, of course, is that somebody more disciplined could have done far more damage. Second, Trump failed to win the unconditional personal loyalty of many of his underlings, and that ultimately meant that most of his wildest schemes and decisions were exposed or blocked from within.
Unfortunately, Trump poses a far greater threat to American democracy today for five key reasons. First, he has grown only angrier, which means he will be more determined to concentrate power in his own hands and deploy it against his enemies (real and perceived). If he returns to the White House, he will be not only more vicious but also potentially more consistent in pursuing his personal agenda.
Second, Trump and his ideological fellow travellers will have put much more thought and vetting into high- and mid-level appointees, as they have already done for his implicit governing agenda: the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Although Trump claims to renounce this comprehensive policy blueprint, it has already become a valuable tool for identifying potential administration personnel. Supporting the Heritage Foundation’s dark vision is a litmus test, ensuring that no whistleblowers or defenders of democracy can serve as the “adults in the room” this time around.
Third, the GOP is now Trump’s personal cult, which means that local Republican officials across the country will be willing to do whatever he commands. Some may go so far as attempting to rig elections and seize control of local law enforcement and public services. If Trump once again demands that local election officials “find” more votes in his favour, he might just get what he wants.
Fourth, owing to a variety of mistakes by intellectual elites and Democratic Party leaders – such as advocating extreme “woke” positions like open borders, defunding the police, and so forth – many right-leaning, moderate, and non-college voters have concluded that Democrats are left-wing extremists. Those who see the Democrats as lacking patriotism will be much less likely to break with Trump, even though Harris and Walz are taking steps to appeal to them.
Fifth, for all these same reasons, effective civil-society action against Trump has become more difficult. After years in which the left has applied its own ideological purity tests and shamed anyone who falls short, fewer independent voters and moderate Republicans will be willing to join a big-tent anti-Trump coalition. Progressive Democrats could end up standing alone against his unconstitutional or anti-democratic behaviour, and that would not be enough.
For all these reasons, Trump’s threat to US institutions must be taken seriously. Once again, the only way to defend American democracy is to use democratic means to defeat him. Democracy thrives when it delivers real-world results and helps people fulfil their aspirations. In practice, that means promoting economic prosperity, security, fairness, competent governance, and stability. The latter is especially important for withstanding periodic shocks and challenges, including threats to democracy itself.
Trump is not the first anti-democratic demagogue to attract a strong following, and he will not be the last. US institutions became stronger after withstanding a proto-fascist challenge from Father Charles Coughlin in the late 1930s; resistance to Black civil rights in the Jim Crow South of the 1950s and 1960s; the segregationist George Wallace’s 1968 presidential run; and Watergate. If Trump is defeated this November, US institutions will emerge stronger once again.
But for democracy to withstand such challenges, there must be good alternatives on the ballot. People must be able to cast a vote for politicians with good track records of solving problems, inspiring people, and defending free institutions. The Harris-Walz ticket looks like it fits the bill. Now begins the hard work of mobilising people and restoring support for democracy. But the even harder work will be to deliver on the promises of democracy, by combating poverty and inequality, reducing polarisation and extremism from both sides, and demonstrating that government does work for the common people. — Project Syndicate
- Daron Acemoglu, Institute Professor of Economics at MIT, is co-author (with Simon Johnson) of Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.
