Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Could the end of “the democratic century” be the wake-up call we needed?

Opinion

Hand erasing the word "democracy"
Westend61/Getty Images

What the century scholars call “ the democratic century ” appears to have ended on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump was sworn in as America’s forty-seventh president. It came almost one hundred years after German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolph Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.

Let me be clear. Trump is not America’s Hitler.


He is a duly elected president entitled to his views of the presidential power that he is authorized to exercise under the Constitution. As the New York Times explains, “President Trump’s expansive interpretation of presidential power has become the defining characteristic of his second term.”

It is right to say that he has launched a “second American Revolution.” Many Americans think he is bringing much-needed change to Washington, and, as columnist Bret Stephens observes, displaying the kind of “energy in the executive” that the U.S. Founders valued.

Still, the consequences of his view of presidential power and his revolution have been grave so far, leaving democracy and the rule of law in the United States staggering and some political leaders and citizens stunned that things they had long taken for granted could unravel so quickly.

But maybe, over the long term, what Trump is doing will work like an electric shock applied to a heart in cardiac arrest and jolt people out of their democratic slumber. This may sound odd. This is not something anyone would wish for.

As the lyrics from a 1960s rock song put it, “You don’t know what you got ‘til it’s gone.”

That is one way of understanding why the rise of fascism in Europe turned out to be a boon for democracy, although no one knew it or could have foreseen it at the time. The incubation period for democracy’s century began on that tragic day, January 30, 1933.

The struggle against fascism and its unspeakable acts deepened democratic commitments here and around the world. Achieving a similar thing in our time will, hopefully, not require slaughter, war, and global catastrophe.

A crisis may be a terrible thing to waste but there is no guarantee that if we don’t waste it we come out better on the other side.

Just ask Woodrow Wilson.

Recall that, in 1917, President Wilson tried to rally support for America’s entrance into World War I by claiming that fighting the war was essential if the world were to “be made safe for democracy.” In his address to Congress asking for a Declaration of War, Wilson said, “Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up among the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles.”

Going to war, “with this natural foe to liberty…[would require]…the whole force of the nation… We are glad…to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of…peoples… for the rights of nations great and small, and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life…”

But, almost as soon as the war ended, Wilson‘s hopes for that lasting outcome were dashed. Instead, “the U.S. opted not to join the burgeoning League of Nations, even though it had been the nation to first propose such international cooperation. Instead, the United States focused on building the domestic economy by supporting business growth, encouraging industrial expansion, imposing tariffs on imported products, and limiting immigration.”

Three decades later, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt rallied the nation for war in Wilsonian language. The United States would be “fighting for the universal freedoms that all people possessed.”

FDR identified four such freedoms: freedom of speech, the freedom to worship in one’s own way, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

This time it worked. After the Second World War, there was no retreat.

At home, the fight against Hitler’s racist ideology helped propel the effort to make America’s democracy more democratic and inclusive. It deepened America’s appreciation of and attachment to democracy. This is registered by surveys that show that among people born in the 1930s, 75% of them say that it is “essential to live in a society governed democratically.”

Moreover, as Harvard University Professor Steven Levitsky said, “[T]here’s no question that after World War II…the United States, for decades, was a model to many aspiring Democrats and many democratic activists across the world.”

Since January 20, that is no longer the case.

The Washington Post observes that “as Trump upends democratic norms at home, his statements, policies, and actions are providing cover for a fresh chill on freedom of expression, democracy, the rule of law, and LGBTQ+ rights for autocrats around the world—some of whom are giving him credit.”

Professors Jason Brownlee and Kenny Miao note that since Trump came on the scene, we have witnessed what they call, “’a wave of autocratization’ threatening to engulf the world’s most venerable polities.” They point out that Trump returning to the Oval Office would mean “democracy is gone.”

What does this have to do with the possibility of a Trump-inspired democratic awakening?

My argument is this: In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism, Americans began to take democracy for granted. They didn’t have to think about it. They didn’t have to be taught why it is valuable.

That is one reason young people are less attached to democracy than their parents or grandparents. They are not opposed to it; they just have not invested a lot in thinking about its preservation.

For them and all of us, the Trump Administration’s first days have been a reminder of democracy’s fragility and vulnerability. We can no longer assume that this country will always be a democracy or ignore the work that needs to be done to ensure that it will be.

Even as we come to this realization, it is important to pay attention to the lessons of history and the experiences of other countries. If we do, we will see that, to use Brownlee and Miao’s words, “the road from [democratic] backsliding to breakdown may be less traveled than previously assumed.”

“[N]orm erosion, institutional gridlock, and other woes, while certainly troubling—are not portents of dictatorship,” they wrote.

That is why Americans need to realize that we still have choices to make and those choices still matter. Our destiny is neither sealed nor guaranteed.

In fact, as Americans experience life under a government in which one person’s will is supreme, they may be inspired to stand up for democracy by Winston Churchill’s wisdom: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest.”

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

Read More

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep ReadingShow less