We hope all dangers may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise, would itself be extremely dangerous.
-Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address
Is American democracy losing ground? A lot of experts say yes. Footnote 1 Support for democracy among the public might be slipping, as Foa and Mounk Footnote 2 suggest. And political leaders’ commitment to democratic norms seems to be weakening too, according to Levitsky and Ziblatt (Reference Levitsky and Ziblatt2018), putting liberal democracy’s stability at risk. These problems appear worse because of deep partisan divides (Fishkin and Pozen Reference Fishkin and Pozen2018) and a cultural backlash fueling authoritarian-populist movements in the U. S. and Europe (Norris and Inglehart Reference Norris and Inglehart2018).
It’s still too soon to tell if American democracy will suffer long-term damage. The country has strong assets like wealth and a long history of democratic governance. But warning signs are everywhere.
We’re sharing original survey data from both everyday Americans and political science experts that track possible democratic decline in the U. S. Here’s what we found: First, people generally agree on what matters most in democracy, but they’re split on how well it’s doing now. Second, this divide is getting bigger. Third, the public values some democratic principles differently than experts do. Fourth, experts’ views on how fast democracy is eroding align with stories about backsliding around the world over the last year or so. Taken together, these results highlight why polarization poses a serious challenge to keeping democracy strong-and explain why many actions against democratic norms since Trump took office haven’t sparked big public outrage.
Democracy and Finding Common Ground
To check on America’s democratic health-what threatens it and what protects it-we did surveys called Bright Line Watch (BLW) with both experts and regular folks. These surveys ask how important certain key democratic principles are considered (which we’ll explain later) and whether people think those principles are being upheld in the U. S.
This method comes from Weingast’s framework (Reference Weingast1997), which connects citizens’ values directly with how stable their democracy is. Going back to Locke (Reference Locke1689), Weingast says limits on government only work when society agrees to enforce them-not just words on paper. Footnote 3 So for politicians to follow rules-and for democracy to sustain itself-two things need to happen:
• First, citizens have to agree that breaking a particular rule or right is a serious violation of law.
• Second, citizens have to agree that such a violation actually happened.
This “compound consensus” is tough. For self-enforcement , people not only affected but also others – maybe even rivals – have to see violations as threats they need protect themselves against (Weingast Reference Weingast1997 , 251 -252 ). If citizens don’t share ideas about government limits or won’t defend them , then officials can break rules without losing support. So those limits don’t hold up ”(Weingast Reference Weingast1997 , 246 ).
This theory helps us understand how America might keep checks on a president who often disrespects legal , constitutional , or traditional boundaries. But exactly how much agreement society needs is an open question. Also tricky today : there are tons of rights or rules leaders could break(Dahl Reference Dahl1973). Back in England ’s Glorious Revolution days , focus was taxes , property confiscation , religion. Today ’s list includes free elections plus fairness issues tied up with lots more rights(Coppedge et al. Reference Coppedge, Gerring, Altman, Bernhard, Fish, Hicken, Kroenig, Lindberg, Mc Mann, Paxton, Semetko, Skaaning, Staton, and Teorell2011).
So our BLW surveys cover a wider range of formal institutions plus informal habits seen as vital for modern US democracy. Over one-and-a-half years we’ve tracked :(a) agreement among experts & ; public about which priorities matter ;(b) agreement within each group about whether key principles were violated. Together these show where coordination might exist-or get blocked-in defending democracy. That gives us a detailed look at where American democracy is tough versus fragile.
Next up : we describe our surveys measuring priorities & ; ratings of performance by both experts & ; representative samples of Americans. Among the public sample , we compare supporters vs opponents of President Trump & ; show changes over his first 18 months in office. People mostly agree on what matters for democracy but disagree sharply on whether those ideals are being met today.
Why Study This Now?
Let ’s start by looking at evidence showing US democracy under pressure. Our May 2017 survey asked political scientists across US universities to rate US democratic quality from zero-to-100 during nine periods between 1800-2015. In six expert surveys from Feb ’17-July ’18 we asked similar ratings for current times as well
Figure 1 shows average responses with confidence intervals compared against V-Dem project scores-a top source for global comparative data on democracies(Coppedge et al. Reference Coppedge, Gerring.. Pemstein et al. Reference Pemstein,..2018). Footnote4
Figure 1 Ratings o f U. S. democracy fro m V-Dem an d Bright Lin e Watc h
Experts ‘ retrospective ratings match V-Dem closely. They show steady improvement through the nineteenth/twentieth centuries. Then recent decades score high. But latest readings drop sharply covering years around Trump’s presidency. Footnote5
Explaining these ratings more deeply as we’ve done elsewhere about BLW Wave 2(2017): The period from1850-1900 included Civil War abolition, some reforms, but ended Reconstruction abandonment&Jim Crow rise. The1900-1950 span saw women voting guaranteed, civil rights gains,&New Deal growth. Between1950-1975 civil rights movement peaked w/laws increasing equality. Democracy rating jumped steeply here. More recently(from1975-2015), ratings flattened despite various presidents-from Reagan through Obama. The sharpest decline came after Trump took office. Footnote6
Together BLW&V-Dem give systematic proof that many experts worry seriously about current American democracy. We now look closer into specific areas where experts see erosion happening.
Measuring What Matters And How Democracy Performs
At BLW core lie27 statements describing key democratic principles. Footnote7 Unlike narrower election-focused definitions(e. g., Przeworski et al.’s classic study2000), our goal’s broader-to spot potential threats emerging piece-by-piece(Bermeo2016; Levitsky&Ziblatt2018).
Below lists full statements grouped into categories. Footnote8 Six waves measured these(Wave1-Feb17, W2-May17, W3-Sept17, W4-Jan18, W5-Apr18, W6-July18).
All our surveys ran online. Expert samples came from email lists gathered via websites of political science faculties whose members attended APSA meetings in ‘16. Invites went out repeatedly removing nonrespondents/unsubscribers. Participants completed Qualtrics-based online forms. Waves3-6 also used You Gov panels representing general public. Table1 summarizes designs.
Table 1 Bright Line Watch surveys: Waves 1 t o6
The core democratic principle statements used throughout:
Elections
- Elections run fairly without widespread fraud or tampering.
- Voters get info relevant about candidates’ governing styles.
- Electoral district borders aren’t skewed toward any party.
- Campaign funding sources are publicly disclosed.
- No policy influenced by big donations.
- Elections stay free from foreign meddling.
Voting
- All adults have equal chances to vote.
- Each vote counts equally toward outcomes.
- A good number turn out during elections.
Rights
- Every adult enjoys equal legal/political rights.
- No party/candidate banned due their beliefs or ideologies.
- The government defends unpopular speech/expression rights.
- Citizens can protest peacefully without interference.
- Civilians voice opinions openly during policy debates.
Protections
- No govt interference w journalists/news groups.
- No private actors allowed politically motivated violence/intimidation.
- No govt spying/punishing opponents.
Accountability
- Misdemeanors by officials punished legally.
- No personal gain allowed using office.
- Lawmaking investigations free from politics.
Institutions
- No executive power beyond constitutional limits.
- Congress blocks exec excesses effectively.
- Court blocks exec excesses effectively.
- Elected branches respect court independence.
Discourse
- A common factual understanding exists despite ideological splits.<Lil Elected leaders compromise rather than escalate conflict.<Lil No attacks questioning loyalty/patriotism during campaigns.
This survey battery rotates randomly assigned items except wave one when everyone saw all. Asking “How well does this describe USA today?” options include: • Doesn’t meet standard • Partly meets standard • Mostly meets standard • Fully meets standard • Not sure In waves one & three before rating performance, we asked “How important is this characteristic for democracy?” options were: • Not relevant – no effect • Beneficial – helps but not essential • Important – absence harms demo • Essential – must-have element Later waves skipped importance questions; instead wave two had historical quality ratings(0-100 scale), wave four rated other countries similarly. All waves asked overall current US demo quality after performance questions.Testing Consensus On Democratic Values Which features do both elites & everyday folks rate highest? Figure two shows % rating each principle either important or essential. Ratings line up pretty well(r=.77 correlation), though overlap weakens around highly prized principles except fraud-free elections that topped both sets. Citizens may differ widely yet still recognize scheduled elections publicly observable(Fearon Reference Fearon2011). Most specialists (~96%) plus general public(~89%) agree equal voting crucial. Majorities value sanctions against misconduct (~91% vs84%), constitutional limits(~88% vs83%). Both groups also emphasize foreign-free elections(~82%,~83%) along with several voting/accountability points. Judicial independence & legislative checks rank mid-level. Experts value institutional checks more than laypeople. Informal norms like fact-sharing, seeking compromise, no loyalty attacks rank lowest across all. But big gaps emerge regarding basic freedoms. Experts nearly unanimous (~97%-98%) say protest/free press/free speech protected. Public less so(73%-82%). Experts highly rank protection against politically motivated punishments/private violence; fewer public do(68%). These differences may help explain puzzling lack of mass outrage over administration missteps. Elites lament divergence tracking priority gaps. For example, trump’s threats toward libel laws hit First Amendment protections valued less widely outside academia. Some voters downplay politically-motivated violence risks. Maybe this explains steady approval post-Charlottesville despite elite condemnations. Among ordinary voters, is there consensus at least within pro/con Trump camps? Our findings show decent alignment. Supporters/opponents largely agree across most principles. Of27 tested, differences significant only on12, but usually small. Generally majorities regardless side view all listed principles important/save one(opponents’ patriotism not questioned). This suggests some foundation for Weingast’s self-enforcing concept. Still notable divisions center around election fairness/institutional checks. Opponents worry more about foreign election influence (+16pts gap) likely tied Russia probe controversy. And gerrymandering complaints widen partisan divides (+13pts). Supporters tend share president’s media skepticism(free press importance65%vs80%). Opponents want stronger legislative/judicial executive checks/support anti-interference stances. Gaps probably reflect shifting partisan attitudes over time(Pew poll showed Republicans grew less wary presidential power after Trump’s win while Democrats more worried). Yet broad support remains around limiting executive branch powers. Trump critics/supporters respectively rate importance ~84%/~81%. So core limited-government idea still finds wide backing. What about shared views if leaders cross bright lines?Searching For Clear Limits In US Democracy Agreement over government constraints isn’t enough. Citizens also must see clear violations warrant action. Without consensus that transgressions occur, broad unity evaporates-even if values align perfectly. First looking at expert/public perceptions(July ’18): Figure four shows % saying USA mostly/fully meets each principle. Election openness scored highest (>80%), rights protections too. But districts fair/diplomatic behavior perceived worst(<10%). Public opinions compress somewhat-but open participation/protest/speech rate high. Political norms like compromise/fact-agreement low. Performance differences exist notably. Equal voting rights rated better by public(60%) than experts(37%), while fraud-free election trust higher among experts(76%) than laypeople(44%). Other large gaps appear re excluded parties, presidential investigation integrity, and protection against political punishment. Combining importance/performance reveals few shared bright lines. Two scatter plots(Figs five/six) plot importance (% ranking principle vital) vs perceived fulfillment(% rating mostly/full success). Both groups show positive link-more valued traits seen performing better. Of interest : lower-right quadrant means high value+low fulfillment=candidates for defense triggers. For experts(biggest concern lies here): political/legal equality (#3), voting equality (#7)-both valued strongly but barely half think standards met. Votes counting equally(#18) & unbiased districts(#20) ranked poorly too. Also accountability related items(sanctions #12; legislative #14; constitutional exec limits#16). For general public, the bright lines focus mainly accountability: not equality/electoral fairness. Top three low-performance/high-value items concern no private gain (#21), misconduct sanctions (#12), and untainted investigations (#8). Drilling down further(Fig seven): Trump supporters/opponents rates diverge sharply across many areas. Yet strikingly small gaps (30 pts gaps) seen elsewhere(e. g., foreign influence, voting rights, district bias, judicial constraints). Hence biggest polarization hits same spots identified critical by academics(except misconduct sanctions stand apart agreed upon). To sum up little overlap exists between expert/public bright-line picks. Common ground centers narrowly around official accountability especially sanctioning wrongdoing. Divisions inside general populace mirror growing splits over Trump era events. Most promising potential unity appears focused solely on holding officials accountable rather than broader electoral/civil liberties concerns.Where Things Stand Now With American Democracy Opinions shift quickly. Last eighteen months brought worsening expert views. Public divides grew deeper-including over candidate bright-line issues. Neither trend inspires confidence. During study period(expert views declined significantly across almost half statements see figure eight.) Biggest drops hit judicial/executive checks down ~24 points. Legislature ability/check dropped ~18 points. These resemble patterns abroad(Hungary Poland etc.) where elected autocrats erode institutions slowly. Notably, fears rose too regarding foreign meddling/fraud.(fraud belief fell from88% good->76%) Figure nine ranks changes Sept ‘17-July ‘18. No improvements statistically found. Many drops exceed10 points esp. in courts, equal citizenship safeguards, election integrity, mishandled official sanctions etc. Across same window(public assessments dropped uniformly-all27 criteria fell significantly22 cases) Separating supporters/opponents reveals nuance. Initial declines Sep ‘17-Jan ‘18 similar indicating early erosion felt broadly. By April declines continued modestly. July witnessed divergence however. Opponents worsened perception especially judiciary, fraud protests. Supporters actually improved some ratings notably agencies avoid punishing/misconduct probes. No appreciable losses noted. Climate polarized severely widening opinion chasms(e. g. foreign interference +41 pts gap July)-also accountability topics stretched faultlines.Wrapping Up Thoughts On Democracy Today Last eighteen months sparked urgent debate among scholars, journalists, citizens alike globally including countries facing backsliding(Europe Americas Asia). Agreed point : democracy isn’t one thing declining simultaneously. Backsliding often targets bits & pieces strategically exploiting division/mistrust. Trying maintain grip evade consequences(Bermeo Levitsky Ziblatt Huq Ginsburg Posner references) To spot trouble early, we need detailed measures reflecting diverse valued traits. Bright Line Watch aims fill this gap. What does it find post Trump’s initial term? Surprisingly broad accord exists about most important ideals free/honest elections, equal voting/legal rights checked exec power/rule-abuse behavior next. Behavioral norms valued least. Hard decide correct ranking philosophically, but Americans clearly share core beliefs despite sharp divides. Now looking at current performance however judgments split exper ts confident clean ballots while publics doubtful. public trusts voting access more. Expert-public assessment divide widens along pro/con Trump lines marked disagreement grows re fundamental fairness/voting equality. Trump supporters judge system healthier opposers see grave flaws. Middle-ground fading fast. Two-step enforcement demands consensus values+agreement breaches happen. Our data optimistic partly showing agreement which breaches matter. But far less encouraging given rising disagreement whether breaches even occurring. Trump advocates/detractors view reality differently making sharp boundary drawing unlikely. Above all leader wrongdoings triggering biggest reaction revolve mostly financial/self-dealing corruption not court independence/freedom press. This narrowness may help coordinate resistance focusing attention but leaves deeper systemic cracks vulnerable. Unfortunately growing polarization clouds collective defense capacity meaning drawn lines remain blurry shadows.
Source link
