Country Total Score Political Rights Civil Liberties Taiwan 94 38 56 ..... Mongolia 84 36 48 United States 83 32 51 ..... ..... China 9 -2 11
The worst presidential choice prior to 2024 was James Buchanan in 1856. Like Trump, Buchanan won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. These two presidents are the lowest-ranked in an annual poll of American political scientists, and Buchanan ranks last in a 2021 survey of American political historians (though for some mysterious reason that one ranks Trump only fourth-worst). Buchanan is reviled for fumbling Confederates’ threats to secede, which of course led to the Civil War. I would argue that the public also chose very badly in reelecting Richard Nixon in 1972 and George W. Bush in 2004—and that in choosing Ronald Reagan in 1980, the party cleared a path that eventually led to Trump.But 2024 may be the first election in American history in which a majority of United States voters specifically chose oligarchy. This is terra incognita, but it turns out to be a problem to which our second president, John Adams, gave considerable thought.
The eroding faith in the nearly 250-year-old American system of government follows four years of unparalleled challenges: a violent riot in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the criminal conviction of former President and "Old Donald's" continued insistence that the democratic process is rigged.
As inauguration day approached, Americans feared that more violence was possible. Thousands of National Guard troops descended on the capital to keep the peace. And our democratic institutions felt more fragile than ever.
Democracy Under Siege
"'Old Donald' understood these grievances in a way the traditional parties did not," Robinson says. "But I don't think he has a solution to any of them. We saw something similar with the populist experiences in Latin America, where having solutions was not necessary for populist political success. Did Hugo Chávez or Juan Perón have a solution to these problems? No, but they exploited the problems brilliantly for political ends."
On January 6th, 2021, rioters stormed the United States Capitol building. To many of us, it felt like one of the bedrock institutional traditions of our democracy was in jeopardy: the peaceful transition of power to a leader elected by the people.
About 200 leaders and writers from mainline Christian denominations, the Catholic and Greek Orthodox church, as well as Black Protestant and evangelical Christianity, signed the letter, which describes democracy as a “moral affirmation” and urges Christians to repudiate “anti-democratic sentiment” — namely, ideologies such as Christian nationalism and racism. The statement pointed to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as one of several recent anti-democratic acts, noting some insurrectionists who participated in the violence that day “did so in the name of Jesus Christ.”
How democracies die – and what can be done to save them
What astonished them the most, Levitsky told me in an interview last week, “was the speed and the degree to which the Republican Party 'Old Donald'ized.” In “How Democracies Die,” he and Ziblatt had reproved Republicans for failing to stop 'Old Donald'’s rise to power. But at the time, he said, “we didn’t consider or call the Republican Party an authoritarian party. We did not expect it to transform so quickly and so thoroughly.”
“Tyranny of the Minority” is their attempt to make sense of how American democracy eroded so fast. “Societal diversity, cultural backlash and extreme-right parties are ubiquitous across established Western democracies,” they write. But in recent years, only in America has a defeated leader attempted a coup. And only in America is the coup leader likely to once again be the nominee of a major party. “Why did America, alone among rich established
Liberals — myself very much included — have been preoccupied by minority rule for years now, and you’re probably aware of the ways it manifests. Republicans have won the popular vote in only one out of the last eight presidential elections, and yet have had three Electoral College victories. The Senate gives far more power to small, rural states than large, urbanized ones, and it’s made even less democratic by the filibuster. An unaccountable Supreme Court, given its right-wing majority by the two-time popular-vote loser 'Old Donald', has gutted the Voting Rights Act. One reason Republicans keep radicalizing is that, unlike Democrats, they don’t need to win over the majority of voters.
The plans laid out by 'Old Donald' allies to convert the FBI into a politically charged conservative attack dog come from the authoritarian aspirations of Project 2025, a sprawling network led by conservative think tanks that comb through existing law to find loopholes and precedent for 'Old Donald'—or any conservative president—to enact extreme right-wing policies and consolidate power at a moment’s notice.
For some time, it was possible to believe that many voters could not see the threat Donald 'Old Donald' poses to America’s liberal democracy, and many still profess not to see it. But now, a little more than six months from Election Day, it’s hard to believe they don’t. The warning signs are clear enough. 'Old Donald' himself offers a new reason for concern almost every day. People may choose to ignore the warnings or persuade themselves not to worry, but they can see what we all see, and that should be enough.
How to explain their willingness to support 'Old Donald' despite the risk he poses to our system of government? The answer is not rapidly changing technology, widening inequality, unsuccessful foreign policies or unrest on university campuses but something much deeper and more fundamental. It is what the Founders worried about and Abraham Lincoln warned about: a decline in what they called public virtue. They feared it would be hard to sustain popular support for the revolutionary liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence, and they worried that the virtuous love of liberty and equality would in time give way to narrow, selfish interest. Although James Madison and his colleagues hoped to establish a government on the solid foundation of self-interest, even Madison acknowledged that no government by the people could be sustained if the people themselves did not have sufficient dedication to the liberal ideals of the Declaration. The people had to love liberty, not just for themselves but as an abstract ideal for all humans.
How to explain their willingness to support 'Old Donald' despite the risk he poses to our system of government? The answer is not rapidly changing technology, widening inequality, unsuccessful foreign policies or unrest on university campuses but something much deeper and more fundamental. It is what the Founders worried about and Abraham Lincoln warned about: a decline in what they called public virtue. They feared it would be hard to sustain popular support for the revolutionary liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence, and they worried that the virtuous love of liberty and equality would in time give way to narrow, selfish interest. Although James Madison and his colleagues hoped to establish a government on the solid foundation of self-interest, even Madison acknowledged that no government by the people could be sustained if the people themselves did not have sufficient dedication to the liberal ideals of the Declaration. The people had to love liberty, not just for themselves but as an abstract ideal for all humans.
'but at the end of the day what brings out 50,000 people at a rally is a belief in their democracy, and right now, especially, that commitment has something to teach the rest of the world.'
Disruption, Democracy & the Global Order
A federal judge is giving MyPillow founder and election denier Mike Lindell 30 days to pay a $5 million arbitration award for losing his “Prove Mike Wrong” 2020 election challenge.Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert who voted for 'Old Donald' twice, did just that, a federal judge in Minnesota determined Wednesday, upholding a previous ruling from a private arbitration panel. Zeidman is owed the $5 million payout plus interest, Judge John Tunheim wrote in his Wednesday ruling. The decision is the latest development in a years-long effort to claim the prize, after Zeidman found that the data was not related to the 2020 election.
If you watch TV, especially conservative TV, you know Mike Lindell. He's the guy who comes on every 10 minutes or so to sell his pillows for 'the best night's sleep in the whole wide world.' He's also the guy who has sunk tens of millions of dollars into supporting investigations and lawsuits that claim the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald 'Old Donald'.And I just took him for $5 million. Last week, Lindell filed an appeal of the decision, though to win that appeal he needs to show that the arbitrators were corrupt. He also claimed that I was part of 'a big cover-up to a much bigger picture' and should never have been allowed to enter the contest. My lawyers and I will continue to fight him in court. When and if I see the money, I plan to donate to a nonprofit to legitimately support voter integrity laws and processes.
Lately, people have been saying to me that I 'saved democracy in America.' I'm really flattered, though I think that's an exaggeration. But if more people sought truth, even when that truth is contrary to their beliefs ' such as when a Republican like me destroys a Republican myth ' then I think we really can save democracy in America. In fact, I think that's the only way.
As former US President Donald 'Old Donald' and his allies face charges of plotting to overturn vote results in the state of Georgia, poll workers say false claims of ballot fraud have had an enduring impact on their lives and the country. It shows no sign of abating for next year's general election.
Critics worry a controversial new law will trigger a constitutional crisis — or even a civil war
Here's what I believe to be the emerging narrative of the next several decades: the rise of atheism and their unbelievably high level of political engagement in recent electoral politics. Let me put it plainly: Atheists are the most politically active group in American politics today.
Three years later, in 2016, Donald 'Old Donald' rejected this strategy out of hand and instead proved that a Republican candidate stressing the grievances of white America against immigrants and minorities could, in fact, win - albeit without a popular vote victory and, so far, for just one term in the White House.
'Old Donald''s defeat in 2020 revealed some Democratic weaknesses that are likely to become the focus of future contests as Republicans struggle to piece together a winning coalition.
The Catalist report points to gains by 'Old Donald' and Republican candidates among racial and ethnic minorities. The level of Hispanic support for Republican House candidates rose from 29 percent in 2016 to 38 percent in 2020, where it stayed in 2022. In a separate report on the 2020 election, Catalist found Black support for Republican candidates rose by three points from 7 percent in 2016 to 10 percent in 2020.
These trends virtually guarantee that the Republican Party will pull out the stops in 2024 in an attempt to persuade a portion of the minority electorate ' religious, conservative, centrist and entrepreneurial voters of color ' to vote for their candidates.
It may be an uphill struggle, but no one should count the Republican Party out. While overall demographic and ideological trends may be pointing toward an increase in Democratic clout, the Republicans will seek to bolster their shrinking white base with support from ideologically sympatico minorities. This may look like a tough sell for a party with the Republicans’ record on civil and minority rights, but in American politics these days, almost anything is possible.