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

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