Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

We no longer have a shared view of ‘democracy.’ Should we abandon it?

Hand erasing the word "democracy"
Westend61/Getty Images

Singer is communications lead at Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement.

The term "democracy" has become a focal point in American politics, with Democrats and Republicans viewing it through different lenses. A term that once united Americans now has the potential to divide them … or lose them.


“They talk about democracy, I’m a threat to democracy. They’re the threat to democracy,” former President Donald Trump said during the debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. One recent study found that members of both parties believe their opponents are highly likely to subvert democratic norms. Other polls show that the state of democracy trails far behind other issues considered most important by voters in 2024.

For leaders and organizations engaged in American politics and civic life, understanding the nuanced perceptions of "democracy" is crucial. We can no longer assume a shared understanding or interpretation of this fundamental concept, nor that touting it is going to inspire everyday people. New data from PACE's Civic Language Perceptions Project offers valuable insights for those still hoping to effectively use the term “democracy.”

CLPP’s findings reveal that 70 percent of American voters hold a “positive” view of the term democracy, suggesting it still has general appeal. However, its appeal isn't uniform across the political spectrum. Liberals and Democrats tend to view the term more favorably than conservatives and Republicans.

Bar graphic showing views of "democracy" and "republic" by political ideology

PACE also found that the conversation around "democracy" and "republic" continues to evolve across the political spectrum, with very conservative respondents preferring republic to democracy by 14 points while very liberal respondents prefer democracy to republic by a whopping 45 points.

These dynamics arose in the spring at the state Republican convention in Washington, where delegates approved a resolution urging members to refrain from using the term "democracy."

The resolution states: “We encourage Republicans to substitute the words ‘republic’ and ‘republicanism’ where previously they have used the word ‘democracy.” Every time the word ‘democracy’ is used favorably it serves to promote the principles of the Democratic Party, the principles of which we ardently oppose.”

It might surprise some that a relatively low percentage (17 percent) of CLPP participants selected democracy as their most positive term when given a choice of seven options, while over a quarter (27 percent) chose democracy as their most negative term. This suggests that while “democracy” is generally viewed favorably, it may not be the most compelling or motivating concept for many Americans. This dovetails with the observations of political analysts who note that the term is increasingly being trivialized among the general public, particularly among young voters. Many of these voters are skeptical about whether America genuinely operates as a functioning democracy.

The term "democracy" may evolve further during and after the upcoming elections. As political tensions rise, it is possible that partisan interpretations of the word will become more entrenched. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that leaders and organizations should abandon the term altogether. Despite diminishing confidence among both political parties that “democracy” will inspire voters, CLPP findings suggest that civic leaders should keep an open mind about the term. For example, CLPP found that the term is perceived more positively in 2023 (61 percent net positivity) than in 2021 (53 percent net positivity), with young people, independents and Black Americans seeing the most gains in positivity. The term also continues to be perceived more favorably by older Americans.

The challenge for civic leaders lies in reimagining how to use and define democracy to be more inclusive. CLPP found that liberals and conservatives emphasize different themes in their definitions of democracy, with liberals emphasizing the role of government as a tool for social justice and equality whereas conservatives highlighted the limits of government and the importance of individual liberty. Yet, there may be opportunities to promote shared values, such as fair elections, rejecting dictatorship and reducing political polarization, that resonate across political divides.

One might also cite a shared history of bipartisan support, spanning decades. In his Westminster Address, President Ronald Raegan said, “Democracy is not a fragile flower; still, it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy.” In his November 2022 remarks on standing up for democracy, President Joe Biden said, “From the very beginning, nothing has been guaranteed about democracy in America. Every generation has had to defend it, protect it, preserve it, choose it. … We must choose that path again.” Both emphasize that democracy is worth whatever effort and vigilance is required to protect and nurture it.

The way Americans think about "democracy" is evolving. While many still have a positive view of the term, it is essential that leaders rethink when, how and with whom they use the term, cognizant that it has the potential to unite as well as divide people across the political spectrum.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is sworn in as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Department of Homeland Security has faced criticism over it's handling of immigration enforcement leaving the department unfunded.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Kristi Noem deserved to get axed. After ignoring thousands of stories of officers detaining American citizens in violent, indiscriminate, unconstitutional roundups, posing for a gleeful photo-op at a hellacious El Salvadoran prison, labeling American protesters as domestic terrorists, and lying under oath multiple times, Democrats and even many Republicans lauded her exodus. Still, in what was a brief, volatile tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security, Noem transformed the agency charged with the protection of the American people into a theater for performative cruelty. Now, as the door hits Noem on the way out, it is important to note that her ouster was not a triumph of ethics or the law or even a sudden recollection of what competence looks like. Despite no lack of legitimate grounds for dismissal, most sources say the final straw was a $220 million ad blitz, possibly complicated by an alleged affair with her adviser. But who among Trump’s inner circle doesn’t come with a laundry list of wasteful spending and personal embarrassments? The rest of the Cabinet is chock full of unqualified Trump-loyalists demonstrating incompetence so regularly that in any other era they would have all resigned or been canned long ago. Given the purported reasons Noem was ultimately fired, and where the conversation has lingered since, to the untrained eye, it seems like Noem may have been the first to get the boot, at least in part because she’s not a man.

There’s nothing Noem did that another member of the cabinet or Trump himself couldn’t top. Consider the shameful tenure of our Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, who engaged in intimate business deals with Epstein years after Epstein’s first conviction, and even planned family vacations to his private island. While Noem is fired for a $220 million ad buy, Lutnick remains the face of American business, despite once being in business with a convicted sex trafficker and lying about it. And our wannabe-fraternity-pledgemaster Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is, if possible, an even greater liability. Hegseth breached security protocol in his second month on the job and oversaw a record $93 billion of spending in a single month, $9 million going to king crab and lobster tails, and $15 million to ribeye steaks. More gravely, in his zeal to project “lethality," Hegseth gutted civilian harm mitigation programs by 90 percent; shortly thereafter, on his watch, in what is the most devastating single military error in modern history, the U.S. fired a Tomahawk missile into a school full of children, killing at least 168 children and 14 teachers. Noem may have turned federal agents against American civilians (which is not why she was fired), but Hegseth is committing war crimes around the globe.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less