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

Social media apps on a phone

A Pentagon watchdog confirms senior officials shared sensitive military plans on Signal, risking U.S. troops. A veteran argues accountability is long overdue.

Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images

There’s No Excuse for Signalgate

The Defense Department Inspector General just announced that information shared by Defense Secretary Hegseth in a Signal chat this spring could have indeed put U.S. troops, their mission, and national security in great peril. To recap, in an unforced error, our Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, and Vice President conducted detailed discussions about an imminent military operation against Houthi targets in Yemen over Signal, a hackable commercial messaging app (that also does not comply with public record laws). These “professionals” accidentally added a journalist to the group chat, which meant the Editor-in-Chief of the Atlantic received real-time intelligence about a pending U.S. military strike, including exactly when bombs would begin falling on Yemeni targets. Had Houthi militants gotten their hands on this information, it would have been enough to help them better defend their positions if not actively shoot down the American pilots. This was a catastrophic breakdown in the most basic protocols governing sensitive information and technology. Nine months later, are we any safer?

As a veteran, I take their cavalier attitude towards national security personally. I got out of the Navy as a Lieutenant Commander after ten years as an aviator, a role that required survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training before ever deploying, in case I should ever get shot down. To think that the Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, and Vice President could have so carelessly put these pilots in danger betrays the trust troops place in their Chain of Command while putting their lives on the line in the service of this country.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democrat's Plan for Ending the War in Gaza
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

A Democrat's Plan for Ending the War in Gaza

Trump's 21-point peace plan for Gaza has not and will not go anywhere, despite its adoption by the UN Security Council. There are two reasons. One is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ultra-orthodox nationalist allies will not agree to an eventual Palestinian state in the occupied territories. The other is that Hamas will not stand down and give up its arms; its main interest is the destruction of Israel, not the creation of a home for the Palestinian people.

Democrats should operate as the "loyal opposition" and propose a different path to end the "war" and establish peace. So far, they have merely followed the failed policies of the Biden administration.

Keep ReadingShow less
How the Unprecedented Redistricting War Is Harming Election Officials, Politicians, and Voters

The Indiana State House is the site of the latest political fight over new congressional maps for the 2026 election.

Lee Klafczynski for Chalkbeat

How the Unprecedented Redistricting War Is Harming Election Officials, Politicians, and Voters

The redrawing of states’ congressional districts typically happens only once per decade, following the release of new U.S. Census data. But we’re now up to six states that have enacted new congressional maps for the 2026 midterms; that’s more than in any election cycle not immediately following a census since 1983-84. Even more are expected to join the fray before voters head to the polls next year. Ultimately, more than a third of districts nationwide could be redrawn, threatening to confuse and disenfranchise voters.

The truly unusual thing, though, is that four of those states passed new maps totally voluntarily. Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina all redrew their districts after President Donald Trump urged them to create more safe seats for Republicans to help the GOP maintain control of the House of Representatives next year, and California did so in order to push back against Trump and create more safe seats for Democrats. (The other two states redrew for more anodyne reasons: Utah’s old map was thrown out in court, and Ohio’s was always set to expire after the 2024 election.) To put that in perspective, only two states voluntarily redistricted in total in the 52 years from 1973 to 2024, according to the Pew Research Center.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

For the People, By the People

Democracy was once America’s proudest legacy — the last best hope on earth, a torch that lit the path for nations worldwide. Today, dysfunction grips all three branches of government: Congress abandons its duty to the people, the President exploits power for retribution, and the Supreme Court fails to enforce accountability. This betrayal of trust places our republic at risk. Americans must reclaim democracy from dysfunction and abuse of power.

The United States is both a participatory democracy — by the people, for the people — and a constitutional republic. Power lies with the people, and elected officials are entrusted to serve them. The President enforces the laws, Congress checks executive power, and the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. These checks and balances are designed to prevent abuse of power, yet Congress and the Court have abandoned their duty (U.S. Constitution).

Keep ReadingShow less