America’s democratic foundation has undergone a significant transformation over the last ten years, which experts now characterize as gradual but firmly established. Political scientists highlight that what undermines democracy frequently appears to be legal, procedural, and even benign at first glance by drawing a comparison between institutional behavior and the gradual erosion of a riverbank. However, the checks that used to maintain equilibrium have been seriously undermined.
The alarm has been raised with increasing urgency by Professor Benjamin Goldsmith, whose background in illiberal regimes gives his research a practical perspective. Goldsmith describes how subtle actions—media control and legal norm manipulation—can destroy a democratic system without ever suspending elections, drawing parallels to Putin’s early consolidation of power in Russia. He asserts that the similarities are no longer merely theoretical.
The intentional destruction of norms that once held the political system together but are now not legally codified is what makes the American case so alarming. According to Goldsmith, Trump’s second term as president is not merely a rerun of his first but rather a more sophisticated and perilous one. Supported by organizations with similar ideologies, such as America First Legal and Project 2025, Trump has demonstrated the ability to not only disregard institutional boundaries but also reinterpret them for political purposes.
| Attribute | Details |
|---|---|
| Name | Professor Benjamin Goldsmith |
| Profession | Political Scientist, Democracy Expert |
| Affiliation | Australian National University – School of Politics and International Relations |
| Known For | Research on democratic decline and political culture in the United States |
| Academic Focus | U.S. foreign policy, democratic resilience, international political systems |
| Notable Works | “The End of U.S. Democracy and What This Means for International Relations” |
| Public Profile | ANU Reporter – Democracy Article |
| Expertise Area | Democratic backsliding, authoritarian trends, institutional breakdown |
The political strategy has become exceptionally successful by utilizing executive power and partnering with media organizations that serve more as amplifiers than as watchdogs. Although this approach differs in form, it has a strikingly similar effect to what Viktor Orbán of Hungary accomplished, which was to use elections as a front for a political system that was becoming more and more closed. Trump’s frequent compliments of Orbán are aspirational, not coincidental.
At the same time, state-level democratic regression has sped up. According to political scientist Jake Grumbach’s State Democracy Index, the difference between states that uphold and restrict the right to vote is growing. While some states, especially those with unified Republican control, saw a sharp decline in democratic institutions over the last ten years, 17 states saw improvements. This difference isn’t just window dressing; it’s changing who gets to vote, how votes are tallied, and how elections are portrayed.
According to research from the Brookings Institution, there has been a noticeable rise in election manipulation since 2010, particularly in the areas of gerrymandering and vote suppression. These changes may seem like technical ones to some voters, but they have far-reaching effects. They have consolidated power and drastically diminished electoral competition, making sizable voter blocs moot. These changes cause democracy to become unrecognizable as skewed, but they do not eradicate it.
Historically a check on overreach, the judiciary has not stood its ground. A watershed was reached when the Supreme Court decided to weaken the Voting Rights Act. The Court inadvertently made room for voter ID laws and district maps that lessen the influence of minorities by eliminating important protections. Serious concerns regarding partisan motivation have been raised in recent years by the Court’s interventions in emergency voting adjustments and redistricting cases.
The independence of the civil service has been especially threatened at the executive level. Tens of thousands of nonpartisan career officials could have been fired in a mass firing under Schedule F, a broad directive promoted by Trump’s administration. Similar frameworks are reportedly being prepared for future Republican administrations, despite the fact that this effort was halted. These policies, if implemented, would transform governance into a partisan control mechanism, which is extremely effective at concentrating power but disastrous for maintaining institutional integrity.
There are resilient areas in spite of these alarming patterns. Relative stability prevailed during the 2022 midterm elections, and a number of candidates who opposed the election were unsuccessful. Additionally, the fact that Trump and other January 6th participants were prosecuted shows that the rule of law is still in place, even at the highest levels. Those who are hoping for a democratic recovery will find these developments especially encouraging.
But problems still exist. The legitimacy of the 2020 election is still disputed by a sizable portion of Republican voters. The normalization of anti-democratic rhetoric in mainstream conservative politics is even more concerning. The Republican National Committee’s call for the Capitol attack to be “legitimate political discourse” reflects a more profound change in political leadership’s moral compass as well as in language.
It is important to remember that democracy deteriorates when the fundamental conviction that democratic principles should be followed is abandoned, not when voting stops. The system no longer operates fairly when elected officials oppose their own institutions, refuse to make concessions, and advocate for policies that favor one party over another. This change is rarely characterized by a single event, but rather by a gradual and intentional sequence of events that culminate in a markedly different political environment.
The combination of low political elite resistance and high institutional sophistication distinguishes the American case. It has been remarkably effective to systematically recalibrate the democratic process through the use of courts, state legislatures, and the media. Even though journalists, civil society, and some government officials have resisted, structural changes aimed at solidifying power long after any one leader leaves are gradually reducing their influence.
Goldsmith notes that even robust constitutions become brittle when the cultural dedication to democracy wanes. A growing portion of the American electorate is now losing that commitment, which was founded on mutual acceptance of election results and shared norms. Without it, democracy turns into a procedural theater where authority rules over morality.
The future hasn’t been written yet. Civic leaders, institutions, and voters all have agency, and what they do in the upcoming years will make all the difference. Restoring faith in the worth of democratic governance itself is the challenge, not merely maintaining elections. The road to democratic renewal is difficult but not insurmountable, whether it involves voting rights reforms, civic education funding, or legislative restraints on executive power.
