Young adults, who comprise an increasingly influential voting bloc, are pessimistic about the state of democracy in the United States, according to new polling by Harvard University.
The data, released Wednesday, shows that only 7 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds believe the United States is a “healthy democracy” while 13 percent say it is a “failed democracy.” Another 39 percent describe the U.S. as “a democracy in trouble.” Just over a quarter of respondents said the U.S. is a “somewhat functioning democracy.”
The research team sees the results as a call to action, saying the nation’s leaders must pay more attention to young American adults.
“In the 2020 election, young Americans proved with their record-shattering turnout that they are a formidable voting bloc and eager to make their voices heard,” said Mark Gearan, director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “Our political leaders on both sides of the aisle would benefit tremendously from listening to the concerns that our students and young voters have raised about the challenges facing our democracy and their genuine desire for our parties to find common ground on solutions.”
Those concerns about democracy are echoed in sentiments about the nation’s outlook: 55 percent of young adults said they were “fearful” about the future of America, with only 44 percent saying they were “hopeful.”
In addition, only 18 percent said the nation is “generally headed in the right direction” while 45 percent said it’s “on the wrong track” while 37 percent were not sure.
These feelings lead to some dire predictions. One-third of young Americans believe they will see another civil war during their lifetimes, and one-quarter predict at least one state will secede. Forty-six percent of young Republicans think it’s more likely than not that there will be a second civil war, compared to 32 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independents.
Young Americans believe that the nation needs to turn a corner, with 78 percent saying it is very or somewhat important that the United States is a democracy. Just 7 percent said it's not very or not at all important.
And a plurality believes the best way to achieve progress is through compromise: 43 percent said elected officials should “meet in the middle” while 21 percent want officials to pursue preferred policies “at the expense of compromise.” (Just over a third said they “don’t know.”)
That split carried across parties, with 49 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans agreeing that it’s better to compromise.
“After turning out in record numbers in 2020, young Americans are sounding the alarm. When they look at the America they will soon inherit, they see a democracy and climate in peril — and Washington as more interested in confrontation than compromise,” said IOP’s polling director, John Della Volpe.
An estimated 50 percent of people ages 18-29 voted in the 2020 presidential election, up 11 points from 2016, according to an analysis by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University’s Tisch College.
While the data tells a story about negative attitudes, there are a number of organizations seeking to create more opportunities for civic engagement about young adults. One of the newer groups in that space is GenUnity, which convenes aspiring leaders for three-month programs targeting the needs of their communities.
While the demographics have evolved from the first cohort, GenUnity started out by marketing to the 18-34 age group.
“The big thing that we focus on when we look at this demographic is there’s record high interest in getting engaged and playing a part in driving change,” said Jerren Chang, GenUnity’s co-founder and CEO. “Young people do care about these issues and do care about getting involved.”
The challenge to getting them more involved, said Chang, is creating an equitable model that allows people from diverse backgrounds to participate. GenUnity’s solution includes working with companies that will cover the costs of employees’ participation and developing flexible schedules.
“We’re bringing together a cohort of people from all different lived experiences. They bring different sets of values and priorities. That creates more inclination toward compromise,” said Chang. “I think that what we've seen in our programs is an ability for folks to work together in a way that would lead to what we think of as compromise rather than winner-take-all solutions.”
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.