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

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