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

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