Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Will Our Democracy Survive? Will it Prove Fragile or Resilient?

Opinion

Will Our Democracy Survive? Will it Prove Fragile or Resilient?
black white and red star flag
Photo by IIONA VIRGIN on Unsplash

As the new administration settles in, many ask: How resilient is our democracy?

Since the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, America has undergone many challenges, but today, the foundational democratic system faces an alarming test. Amid this uncertain moment, key questions arise: Will our government's system of checks and balances withstand this unprecedented challenge, and how should ordinary citizens respond when their government appears to be moving away from its democratic ideals?


Framing this Critical Moment in U.S. Politics

The Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) and The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University convened experts in history, political science, and law to examine the state of American Democracy under the Donald Trump administration.

Professors Lisa L. Miller of Rutgers, Beau Breslin of Skidmore College, and Henry L. Chambers, Jr. of the University of Richmond discussed our institutions and assessed their ability to survive the current political storm.

Will our Democracy prove fragile or resilient in the face of rising authoritarianism? Professor Breslin opened the discussion by describing the current moment in American political history as "alarming," emphasizing the increasing centralization of power. From there, the conversation unfolded into a debate on the resilience of our democratic institutions.

Assessing the State of Our Democracy

Professor Miller argued that the American political system has been in crisis for some time. "It is time to admit that we have a problem," she remarked, acknowledging the growing disconnect between the elites and the needs of ordinary citizens. Miller further argued that the actions of the new administration, particularly its disregard for traditional checks and balances, suggest that democracy is genuinely under threat.

Miller referred to specific actions that reflect an authoritative governing style, specifically key appointments in the administration, which, Miller argued, prioritize loyalty over competence. This approach undermines democratic principles and weakens government efficacy. Miller also pointed to the administration's early actions, including cutting federal spending, pardoning criminals while targeting law enforcers, and eliminating key civil rights protections, as clear signs of authoritarian overreach.

According to Miller, the President's reliance on executive orders instead of working through the legislative process signals that even with the Republican-held Congress, many of these orders would be unlikely to pass through Congress due to their popularity with the electorate.

The System: a Fragile Design

Professor Chambers focused his remarks on the Constitution and the roles of government and institutions. He stressed that any discussion of institutional resilience must begin with a deep understanding of the roles outlined in the Constitution.

According to Chambers, the core purpose of the American government is to serve its citizens, not any individual. Focusing on the oath taken by all elected officials and federal employees, precisely the idea to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, Chambers asked, 'What are those elected officials and employees supposed to be doing at this time?"

Chambers raised a critical question: What happens when the system of checks and balances begins to blur? In particular, he pointed to the recent executive decisions about funding and appropriations, asking whether the President should have the authority to refuse to spend money that Congress has already appropriated. He explains that if the executive branch gets all the power, who can stop that branch is not exactly clear.

Miller posited that the crossing-the-line moment will occur if the President ignores a Supreme Court decision.

The Role of Elites and Public Discontent

The conversation also explored the influential role of wealthy elites in influencing the current administration, with both Miller and Chambers expressing concerns about the extent to which the wealthiest individuals can shape policy. "It's crucial that we recognize the problem of elite influence and the concerns that ordinary Americans have about day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues that often don't make their way to the political classes," said Miller.

The panelists discussed the hyper-partisan environment that has come to define U.S. politics. With both political parties seemingly unable to offer meaningful alternatives, Miller argued that there is an urgent need for a broad political movement that presents an affirmative agenda for change—not just a reactionary stance against the current administration.

The Way Forward: What Can We Do?

The audience asked: What can ordinary citizens do in this political turmoil? Miller suggested that actions at the state and local level can significantly impact Washington, signaling what is and is not working for the people. For Miller, grassroots movements and local protests can effectively push back against government overreach.

On the other hand, Chambers reminded the audience that Trump ran as the candidate of change and that he won by a very slim margin. He added that if this is the 'change' people voted for, they need to explain how all this change has brought down the price of eggs.

To view the entire program video, please click here.

Moving Forward Together

At The Network for Responsible Public Policy, we remain committed to fostering thoughtful, fact-based conversations that educate the public on our time's most pressing political issues. Our mission is to encourage dialogue based on truths. Please join us as we continue to explore key issues with renowned experts.

Our upcoming events:

Thursday, March 27 at 7:30P PM (Eastern) - Is Rule of Law Enough to Protect Democracy? A panel discussion moderated by Susan Herman, the inaugural Ruth Bader Ginsburg Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School

Thursday, April 3 at 7:30 PM (Eastern). The War in Ukraine. A continuing conversation moderated by Gideon Rose, former editor of Foreign Affairs and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

To register for an upcoming NFRPP program, please visit our website at nfrpp.org and click on subscribe. All our programs are conducted virtually via Zoom and Facebook Live. Videos of all previous programs are available free of charge on our website for personal viewing and classroom use. Please visit nfrpp.org

For further information about the Network for Responsible Public Policy, please email info@nfrpp.org.

Jennie Smith Wilson is a board member and program host of the Network for Responsible Public Policy.




Read More

What the World Cup Teaches Us About Democracy

Charles De Ketelaere #17 of Belgium scores his team’s first goal past Unai Simon #23 of Spain during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Quarter Final match between Spain and Belgium at Los Angeles Stadium on July 10, 2026, in Inglewood, California.

(Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)

What the World Cup Teaches Us About Democracy

As live sporting events go, nothing comes close to the World Cup. I was in the stands when South Africa, my birth country, hosted the event in 2010 after decades of exclusion from global athletics. In June of this year, I had a full-circle moment when South Africa played in the knockout rounds for the first time, and I stood with my two American sons, arms around them, singing South Africa's anthem — the only national anthem that weaves multiple languages into a single, unifying song. Later in the week, I was in the stands again, cheering Spain's win over Austria, a country to which my only connections are a brief holiday…and the fact that my mother's family fled from there during the Inquisition.

The magic of the World Cup is that everyone in the stands wears the flags and shirts of countries that are “theirs” in some way. For some, it’s where they were born; for others, where they live or where their ancestors hailed from. For some, it is simply a country they have adopted for the afternoon. It is impossible to know how deep a person’s connection runs simply by looking at them. And next to a person waving one team’s colors is a stranger, family member, or close friend supporting the opposing team—or wearing the jersey of a team that isn’t playing that day at all.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Former President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton pose together.

Former President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton pose ahead of the dedication ceremony for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center, in John Lewis Plaza, on June 18, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais - Pool / Getty Images

America Shouldn't Need a Political Savior to Hold It Together

America is waiting for a political savior, but the problem is structural.

This dynamic was illustrated during two recent broadcast appearances by journalist Katy Tur. Discussing modern secessionist movements on June 15, 2026, Tur found optimism in a poll showing 54 percent of Americans still believe we share core values, and she later expressed hope that future leaders could reunite the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less