Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Guatemalan workers farming tomatoes using tools provided by the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project.

Guatemalan workers farming tomatoes using tools provided by the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project.

Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez.

Seeds of Abandonment: How USAID Cuts Left Thousands of Farmers in Guatemala Struggling

Maria Lopez was thriving.

Her tomato farm in rural Guatemala was flourishing since a worker from the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala (UVG) came in to show her climate-smart agricultural practices in her drought-stricken community.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining the Democracy Movement: Aditi Juneja
- YouTube

Defining the Democracy Movement: Aditi Juneja

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

Aditi Juneja is the Executive Director of Democracy 2076, an organization dedicated to reimagining democracy for the next generation. Democracy 2076 is intentionally taking a long-range view of democracy, bringing together diverse stakeholders to explore what democracy should look like within a 50-year time horizon.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kathy Placencia is the director of elections for Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg M. Amore.

Kathy Placencia is the director of elections for Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg M. Amore.

Issue One.

Meet the Faces of Democracy: Kathy Placencia

More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of a series highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.

Kathy Placencia is the director of elections for Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg M. Amore. Before joining the Department of State, Placencia served as the administrator of elections for the City of Providence for 17 years.

Keep ReadingShow less
View over Harvard Yard of Harvard University.

View over Harvard Yard of Harvard University.

Getty Images, SBWorldphotography

Why Harvard’s Fight Is Everyone’s

The great American historian, Richard Hofstadter, author of the prophetic, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” (1964) wrote, “A university's essential character is that of being a center of free inquiry and criticism—a thing not to be sacrificed for anything else." Unfortunately, up until now, no great university has heeded these words when it came to challenging the Trump administration’s war on higher education and other key social institutions.

Harvard is finally standing its ground. As Trump escalates his campaign against higher education, President Alan Garber’s rejection of the White House’s outrageous demands is both overdue and essential. His defiance could mark the beginning of broader resistance to an agenda determined to reshape—or dismantle—America’s leading universities. This bold move could inspire other institutions to defend their autonomy and uphold the principles of academic freedom. But one question remains: why didn’t Columbia, or powerful institutions like the Paul Weiss law firm, take a similar stand?

Keep ReadingShow less