Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:23, 16 July 2024

Democratic backsliding in the United States has been identified as a trend at the state and national levels in various indices and analyses. Democratic backsliding is "a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection".

The Jim Crow era is among the most-cited historical examples of democratic backsliding, with Black Americans in particular seeing their rights eroded dramatically, especially in the southern United States. Backsliding in the 21st century has been discussed as a largely Republican-led phenomenon, with particular emphasis placed on the administration of Donald Trump. Frequently cited possible drivers include decisions made by the Supreme Court (especially those regarding money in politics and gerrymandering), attempts at election subversion, the concentration of political power, a growing interest in political violence and White identity politics.

Jim Crow era

Lead-up to Jim Crow

The first reconstruction started with the Emancipation proclamation in 1863. In the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, the federal government of the United States initially took an active role in reducing racial discrimination. Between 1865 and 1870, three amendments to the Constitution were passed to address racial inequality in the South: the Thirteenth (which abolished most forms of slavery), the Fourteenth (which addressed Citizenship Rights and equal protection under the law) and the Fifteenth (which made it illegal to deny the right to vote on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude"). With this, the number of African American men who could vote went from 0.5% in 1866 to 70% in 1872. These amendments would have offered more sweeping protections but some Republican lawmakers wanted to limit their impact so that they would not apply to immigrants or poorer people in their districts.

By the late 1870s, however, white backlash against the social, economic and political gains of Black people (exemplified by the violence and persecution they faced from terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan) contributed to the Compromise of 1877, wherein the Democratic Party (then-dominated by Southern white supremacists) agreed to let Republicans win the 1876 presidential election, in exchange for removing federal troops in the South and, in the words of historian James M. McPherson, "the abandonment of the black man to his fate." Former supporters of Reconstruction era policies began to argue that the government had made "too many changes too fast", and a White conservative movement within the Republican Party also started to gain influence.

Jim Crow era

The Jim Crow Era saw an erosion of political and civil rights that would span decades; between the 1890s and 1910s, Southern governments passed Jim Crow laws, which instituted poll taxes, literacy tests and other discriminatory systems, barring many Black and impoverished White Americans from voting. By 1913, this disenfranchisement extended into the federal government, as the Wilson Administration introduced segregation there as well. Jim Crow policies have been described as a democratic breakdown (or backsliding).

Twenty-first century

The twenty-first century saw the erosion of voting rights and the rise of partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures. The presidency of Donald Trump accelerated the undermining of democratic norms. A paper published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science said, "Trump undermined faith in elections, encouraged political violence, vilified the mainstream media, positioned himself as a law-and-order strongman challenging immigrants and suppressing protests, and refused to denounce support from far-right groups."

In 2019, political scientists Robert R. Kaufman and Stephan Haggard saw "striking parallels in terms of democratic dysfunction, polarization, the nature of autocratic appeals, and the processes through which autocratic incumbents sought to exploit elected office" in the United States under Trump compared to other backsliding countries (Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary). They argued that a transition to competitive authoritarianism is possible but unlikely. In 2020, Kurt Weyland presented a qualitative model for assessing democratic continuity and reversal using historical data from the experience of other countries. His study concluded that the United States is immune to democratic reversal. In 2021, political scientists Matias López and Juan Pablo Luna criticized his methodology and selection of parameters and argued that both democratic continuity and reversal are possible. With regard to the state of scholarly research on the subject, they wrote that "the probability of observing democratic backsliding in the United States remains an open and important question". According to commentators, Canada may reevaluate historically close Canada–United States relations in response to democratic backsliding in the U.S.

Origins

Some have linked the war on terror and the Iraq War as enabling later democratic backsliding under the Trump administration.

A resurgence of authoritarian, white-ethnic identity politics has been cited as well. Some have linked that rise to social media, Google, YouTube and other algorithms of the attention economy that prioritize more sensational content. The changing media landscape has also resulted in a loss of journalists, with local journalism being offered as a partial solution for political polarization.

Inequality and the role of money in politics

Political scientists including Wendy Brown and H.A. Giroux argued that the United States has been de-democratizing since the 1980s because of neoconservatism and neoliberalism. Aziz Huq and Behrouz Alikhani cited the growing political influence of the wealthy and global corporations with the loosening of campaign finance laws, especially the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Undemocratic institutions

Huq also cited the inadequate democratization of national institutions since 1787. Levitsky and Ziblatt agree, finding 2016-2021 to be a period of democratic backsliding due largely to the inability to reform minoritarian institutions like the Electoral College and Senate that enabled reactionary xenophobic candidates to win office much more easily than in other democracies that had successfully reformed their institutions in the 20th century to be more representative. Tom Ginsburg and Bridgette Baldwin made similar arguments, citing the Supreme Court's role in shifting political power enough to enable authoritarianism. The Economist argues that the American constitution is more vulnerable to backsliding than parliamentary democracies, pointing to examples throughout history of backsliding to countries that copied the American model.

Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that the US Constitution is the most difficult in the world to amend "by a lot" and that this helps explain why the US still has so many undemocratic institutions that most or all other democracies have reformed.

Gerrymandering

The Republicans took initiative in pushing state redistricting in their favor using the results of the 2010 United States Census. They implemented the Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP, which was aimed to redistrict states where Republicans were in control of the district maps to push for stronger Republican representation, typically through partisan gerrymandering. This led to the Republicans gaining control of the U.S. House by winning over 33 seats in the 2012 United States House of Representatives elections.

These new Republican-drawn district maps were met by several lawsuits challenging their validity. The Roberts Court has never struck down an election law for infringing suffrage or Equal Protection rights. On the other hand, it struck down the Voting Rights Act pre-clearance regime in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which existed to prevent disenfranchisement by states. It has also not acted on partisan gerrymandering. As a whole, according to Huq, these changes shift the institutional equilibrium to "enable the replication of the system of one-party dominance akin to one that characterized the American South for much of the twentieth century". However, this has not always been the norm. In June 2023, the court ruled 5–4 to uphold rulings of the lower court which used Voting Rights Act of 1965 to instruct the state of Alabama to draw a second majority-black congressional district, which was hailed as a win for voting rights advocates. The court ruled 6–3 that state courts can adjudicate matters related to federal elections held in their state and the North Carolina Supreme Court was allowed to adjudicate whether the congressional map drawn by the North Carolina Legislature complied with the state constitution, because the United States Constitution "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review." The court rejected the Independent state legislature theory, which contended that state legislatures have "effectively unchecked authority" to draw maps according to their wishes.

Supreme Court

In addition to decisions on gerrymandering, Thomas Keck argues that because the Court has historically not served as a strong bulwark for democracy, the Roberts Court has the opportunity to go down in history as a defender of democracy. However, he believes that if the court shields Trump from criminal prosecution (after ensuring his access to the ballot), then the risks that come with an anti-democratic status-quo of the current court will outweigh the dangers that come from court reform (including court packing). Aziz Z. Huq points to the blocking progress of democratizing institutions, increasing the disparity in wealth and power, and empowering an authoritarian white nationalist movement, as evidence that the Supreme Court has created a "permanent minority" incapable of democratic defeat.

In a 2024 Vox article, Ian Millhiser describes the court as having become a partisan institution, giving itself more and more power to decide political questions. He worries that the court, especially if it adds more Republican appointees, could permanently entrench Republican rule.

Election subversion

By 2020, most state legislatures were controlled by the Republican Party, though some of those states had Democratic governors. As part of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, many Republican legislators in seven battleground states won by Joe Biden created fraudulent certificates of ascertainment composed of "alternate electors" to declare Donald Trump had actually won their states, thereby overruling the will of voters. They hoped to pass these fraudulent certificates to vice president Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, so he would reverse Biden's election and certify Trump as the winner, a scheme which became known as the Pence Card. Pence instead counted the authentic slates of electors and properly declared Biden the victor. By June 2022, participants in the alternate electors scheme began receiving subpoenas from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack and the United States Department of Justice. Investigations into a Trump fake electors plot ensued.

Leonard Leo is also involved with the Honest Elections Project (HEP), a major proponent of the independent state legislature theory (ISL), which asserts that a textualist or originalist reading of the Constitution grants state legislatures exclusive authority to establish and enforce state election rules for federal elections, unfettered by oversight from state courts or governors. This interpretation was contrary to previous interpretations of the Constitution, which held that legislatures, courts and governors shared that authority. Critics said that if the ISL was adopted, it would be possible for state legislatures controlled by one party to establish and enforce election rules to suit their partisan objectives, including rejecting certain ballots or procedures to overrule the voting majority in federal elections and declare their party candidates the winners. The only restriction of this authority would be the Electoral Count Act, which requires governors to certify their states' election results; after the 2020 presidential election, the Act was found to have a flaw that Trump attorney John Eastman sought to exploit to advance his Pence Card scheme.

HEP had for years submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court advocating the ISL. In June 2022, the Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case brought by the North Carolina Republican Party, during its next term beginning October 2022. At least four justices had previously signaled support for using the case to rule in favor of the ISL. J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge who is highly regarded in conservative legal circles, remarked, "Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine ... and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency." He testified weeks later during a January 6 committee hearing that "Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy." The Supreme Court rejected the ISL in a 6–3 decision in June 2023.

Restrictions on voting

Despite extensive research over decades finding that voting fraud is extremely rare, many Republicans assert it is widespread and that actions must be taken to prevent it. Amid persistent false allegations that widespread fraud had led to Trump's 2020 election loss, in 2021 Republicans in multiple states began taking actions to gain control of state and county election apparatuses, limit ballot access and challenge votes. By June, Republicans had introduced at least 216 bills in 41 states to give legislatures more power over elections officials. Republican lawmakers had stripped authority from secretaries of state, who oversee state elections. In Georgia, Republicans removed Democrats of color from local election boards. In Arkansas, they stripped election control from county authorities.

Wisconsin Republicans, led by senator Ron Johnson, sought to dismantle the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, which the party had created five years earlier. In Michigan and other swing states, Republicans sought to create an "army" of poll workers and attorneys who could refer what they deemed questionable ballots to a network of friendly district attorneys to challenge. Through May 2022, Republican voters had nominated at least 108 candidates, in some 170 midterm races, who had repeated Trump's stolen election lies; at least 149 had campaigned on tightening voting procedures, despite the lack of evidence of widespread fraud. Dozens of these nominees sought offices to oversee the administration and certification of elections.

Antidemocratic and authoritarian tendencies

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their 2018 book How Democracies Die analyze major modern presidential candidates against four key indicators of authoritarian behavior and found that Richard Nixon met one, George Wallace one, and Donald Trump all four. The four indicators the authors use are 1) rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules of the game, 2) denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, 3) toleration or encouragement of violence, and 4) readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents (including the media). In their 2023 book, Tyranny of the Minority, Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that the decision by partisans when faced with an authoritarian faction on whether to stay loyal to democracy by breaking with that faction has determined the fate of a number of democracies. They cite the Republican Accountability Project, which in 2021 estimated that 6% of national Republicans politicians consistently stood-up for democracy, with many of those who did losing reelection or retiring.

By 2021, polling and research indicated a significant shift against democracy among Republican voters, both in terms of rhetoric and acceptance of potential political violence. The shift was most pronounced among Republicans who trusted Fox News, and more so Newsmax and One America News (OAN), who were more inclined to believe the disproven assertion that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from Trump. A November 2021 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll found that two-thirds of Republicans believed the election had been stolen, as did 82 percent of those who trusted Fox News more than any other media outlet. Ninety-seven percent of those who trusted Newsmax and OAN believed the election was stolen. Thirty percent of Republicans agreed with the statement, "true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country," rising to 40 percent among those who trust Newsmax and OAN; eleven percent of Democrats agreed.

Robert Jones, CEO of PRRI, said he was deeply concerned about the poll findings and "we really have to take them seriously as a threat to democracy." Political scientist John Pitney, who was previously a domestic policy and legislative aide for congressional Republicans, remarked, "Back in the 1980s, Republicans aspired to be the party of hope and opportunity. Now it is the party of blood and soil. The culture war is front and center, and for many Republicans, it is close to being a literal war, not just a metaphorical one." Political scientist Larry Bartels, a co-director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Vanderbilt University, wrote in August 2020 that "substantial numbers of Republicans endorse statements contemplating violations of key democratic norms, including respect for the law and for the outcomes of elections and eschewing the use of force in pursuit of political ends." He ascribed the primary cause to "ethnic antagonism" among Republicans toward immigrants and minorities seeking political power and claims on government resources.

A survey between 2017 and 2019 found a third of Americans want a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with Congress or elections", and one-quarter had a favorable view of military rule. A research study administered in 2019 found Trump supporters were more likely to condone executive aggrandizement, while Republicans were more likely to support a candidate who suspends Congress or ignores court verdicts. The January 6 Capitol attack has been described as an example of de-democratization and democratic backsliding. It has also been described as a coup d'état or self-coup.

Religious and white nationalism

During the Trump era, a far-right, populist movement based on Christian nationalism surged, gaining a significant degree of mainstream acceptance, typified by the once-fringe New Apostolic Reformation. The ideology of Trumpism broadly adheres to a deeply-held belief that America was founded as a Christian nation. Philip Gorski, a Yale professor of the sociology of religion, calls this "a mythological version of American history." Movement adherents believe their Christian dominance has been usurped by other races and faiths, which Gorski characterizes as a form of racial tribalism: "a 'we don't like people who are trying to change or people who are different' form of nationalism." Multiple studies have found that support for democracy among white Americans is negatively correlated with their level of racial prejudice, resentment, and desire to maintain white power and status.

Researchers have observed that many in the movement seek to reduce or eliminate the separation of church and state found in the Constitution. Some also believe Trump was divinely chosen to save white Christian America. In their 2022 book, The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy, Gorski and co-author Samuel Perry, a professor of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma, wrote that white Christian nationalists share a set of common anti-democratic beliefs and principles that "add up to a political vision that privileges the tribe. And they seek to put other tribes in their proper place." Some believe in a "Warrior Christ" they will follow with the use of righteous violence.

During a September 2020 presidential debate, Trump was asked if he would condemn white supremacists and militia groups that had appeared at some protests that year. After his opponent Joe Biden mentioned Proud Boys, Trump stated, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by," adding "somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem." After Trump and his allies exhausted legal avenues to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, several leaders of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were indicted and convicted on federal seditious conspiracy charges for their roles in the January 6 United States Capitol attack as Congress assembled to certify Biden's election. The Department of Homeland Security stated in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting that the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS. The release of the DHS findings had been delayed for months, which a whistleblower, the department's acting intelligence chief Brian Murphy, attributed to reluctance of DHS leaders to release information that would reflect poorly on the president in an election year.

Every Republican voted against a July 2022 House measure requiring Homeland Security, the FBI and the Defense Department to "publish a report that analyzes and sets out strategies to combat white supremacist and neo-Nazi activity" in their ranks. A 2019 survey of active service members found that about one third had "personally witnessed examples of white nationalism or ideological-driven racism within the ranks in recent months." About one fifth of those who were charged for participating in the January 6 attack were veterans, with some on active service.

Rachel Kleinfeld, a scholar of global political violence and democracy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, found in July 2022 that Trump's affinity for far-right militia groups dated to his 2016 campaign and such groups had since become increasingly mainstreamed in the Republican Party. She argued the militia influence had spread since the January 6 attack among Republican leaders at the national, state, and local level. Political scientist Barbara Walter, who has studied political violence leading to civil war, commented in March 2022 that "There are definitely lots of groups on the far right who want war. They are preparing for war ... We know the warning signs. And we know that if we strengthen our democracy, and if the Republican Party decides it's no longer going to be an ethnic faction that's trying to exclude everybody else, then our risk of civil war will disappear."

Reactions

In September 2023, thirteen presidential centers dating from Herbert Hoover to Barack Obama released an unprecedented joint message warning of the fragile state of American democracy. The statement called for a recommitment to the rule of law and civility in political discourse, as well as respect for democratic institutions and secure and accessible elections.

President Joe Biden warned of threats to democracy during addresses in 2022 and 2023. At a fundraiser in August 2022, Biden said Donald Trump's MAGA philosophy was "like semi-fascism." In September 2023, weeks after Trump had been indicted on federal and state charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and as most Republicans still refused to accept Trump's 2020 election loss, Biden said:

There's something dangerous happening in America now. There's an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy: The MAGA movement. There's no question that today's Republican Party is driven and intimidated by MAGA Republican extremists. Their extreme agenda, if carried out, would fundamentally alter the institutions of American democracy as we know it.

Hillary Clinton, whom Trump defeated in 2016, said in October 2023 that Trump was likely to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee and if elected "will wreck our democracy," likening his MAGA supporters to a "cult."

Unitary executive theory

While the theory remains well outside of mainstream thinking around the powers of the president, it has grown in prominence on the right since the Reagan administation and has been cited as justification for many of the increases in presidential power since. Donald Trump embraced the theory when in office and plans to use it more aggressively if reelected.

In April 2023 as part of its Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation released its 920-page "Mandate for Leadership" that details comprehensive plans for the next Republican president to consolidate control over the executive branch. Over 100 conservative organizations contributed to the project. Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes in the federal government relating to social and economic issues by cutting funding for, dismantling, or abolishing altogether major Cabinet departments and agencies, with the objective of placing their functions under the full and direct control of the president to impose an array of conservative policies on a national scale. The proposal includes replacing thousands of career federal civil servants with Trumpism loyalists to implement the plan, and includes the deployment of military forces for domestic law enforcement, pursuing Trump's political adversaries, and infusing government policies with Christian beliefs.

Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, wrote in May 2024 that Project 2025 "is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name," characterizing participants in the project as "American incarnations of fascism." Announcing in June 2024 the formation of a task force to address Project 2025, Democratic congressman Jared Huffman characterized it as "an unprecedented embrace of extremism, fascism, and religious nationalism, orchestrated by the radical right and its dark money backers." Some academics worry Project 2025 represents significant executive aggrandizement, a type of democratic backsliding.

Indicators

National indices

As part of their Freedom in the World survey series, Freedom House downgraded the United States's score significantly in their civil rights and political liberties index between 2010 (94) and 2020 (83), citing the need for 3 main reforms: removing barriers to voting, limiting the influence of money in politics, and establishing independent redistricting commissions.

The Economist Democracy Index started the U.S. at the index's launch in 2006 at an 8.22/10 (full democracy) though the rating started declining in 2010 and dropped to its lowest rating yet of 7.85 in 2021 (flawed democracy). The Economist cited functioning of government and political culture (both related to polarization) as major reasons for the lower score.

The V-Dem Democracy indices show significant declines from 2016 to 2020. V-Dem has measures on democracy starting in 1789, providing rare historical data to compare backsliding events, though comparing across centuries has challenges. V-Dem also scores political parties in an annual illiberalism score, and ranked the Republican Party more similar to authoritarian parties than typical center-right governing parties.

International IDEA labeled the US a "backsliding democracy" after evaluating 2020 and 2021 events, including January 6 and a poorly functioning legislature. IDEA's democracy scores started sliding for the United States in 2016.

State Democracy Index

Jacob Grumbach published the State Democracy Index which evaluates states between 2000 and 2018 on the strength of their electoral democracy. While starting in 2002 and accelerating after the 2010 elections and redistricting, Grumbach finds American states under unified Republican Party control began significant backsliding, while Democratic Party-controlled and divided states have become more democratic. Grumbach found Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Carolina were the worst performers (with Wisconsin and North Carolina previously ranking at the top), and suggested a sense of racial threat was one of the main drivers in these states with larger black populations becoming more anti-democratic. Grumbach also cites economic inequality, the nationalization of state politics through declining journalism and an increase in national donors as contributors of backsliding. While he notes it would be difficult to compare across eras, he believes that the slavery and Jim Crow eras in particular had far greater gaps in the quality of democracy between states than the present day gaps he analyzes and notes that the US, in the eyes of some, was not a democracy until 1964.

Public opinion

Bright Line surveys from the University of Chicago have taken frequent measurements on attitudes around democracy in the US from political scientists and a representative sample of the public, and have shown democratic decline consistent with V-Dem and the Economist Democracy Index.

A 2022 Quinnipiac University poll found that 69 percent of Democrats and Republicans and 66 percent of Independents think American democracy is "in danger of collapse".

Heading toward the 2024 elections, polls indicated that Democrats and Republicans alike had serious concerns about democratic backsliding, though for starkly different reasons. FiveThirtyEight analysis of polls found most Democrats were concerned about the implications for democracy of a second Donald Trump presidency, while most Republicans were concerned about election integrity, as most Republicans continued to incorrectly believe that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected in 2020. A June 2024 Fox News poll of registered voters found the "future of democracy" was the top issue.

See also

• American decline
• Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution § Convention of States Project
• Electoral fusion in the United States
• Juries in the United States
• October surprise

References

Citations

1. ^ Mietzner, Marcus (2021). "Sources of resistance to democratic decline: Indonesian civil society and its trials". Democratization. 28 (1): 161–178. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1796649. S2CID 225475139.
2. Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017) Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96. ISBN 978-0-19-023487-4
3. Laebens, Melis G.; Lührmann, Anna (2021). "What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of accountability". Democratization. 28 (5): 908–928. doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1897109. S2CID 234870008.
4. Daly, Tom Gerald (2019). "Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field". Hague Journal on the Rule of Law. 11: 9–36. doi:10.1007/s40803-019-00086-2. S2CID 159354232.
5. Huq, Aziz Z (2021). "How (not) to explain a democratic recession". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 19 (2): 723–737. doi:10.1093/icon/moab058.
6. Chull Shin, Doh (2021). "Democratic deconsolidation in East Asia: exploring system realignments in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan". Democratization. 28 (1): 142–160. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1826438. S2CID 228959708.
7. Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "What Autocratization Is". Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–35. ISBN 978-3-030-03125-1.
8. ^ Walder, D.; Lust, E. (2018). "Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding". Annual Review of Political Science. 21 (1): 93–113. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628. Backsliding entails a deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance.
9. ^ McPherson 1978, p. 140.
10. ^ McPherson 1978, p. 135.
11. "All Amendments to the United States Constitution". University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. Archived from the original on December 30, 2020.
12. "Reconstruction Amendments". Slavery by Another Name. PBS. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
13. McPherson 1978, p. 138.
14. Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 3". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
15. McPherson 1978, pp. 136–137.
16. McPherson 1978, p. 143.
17. Heersink, Boris; Jenkins, Jeffery A. (April 2020). "Whiteness and the Emergence of the Republican Party in the Early Twentieth-Century South". Studies in American Political Development. 34 (1): 71–90. doi:10.1017/S0898588X19000208. ISSN 0898-588X. S2CID 213551748.
18. Olson, Michael P. (2024). ""Restoration" and representation: Legislative consequences of Black disfranchisement in the American South, 1879–1916". American Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1111/ajps.12868. ISSN 0092-5853.
19. Parker, Christopher Sebastian; Towler, Christopher C. (May 11, 2019). "Race and Authoritarianism in American Politics". Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 503–519. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-064519. ISSN 1094-2939.
20. Grumbach, Jacob M. (August 2023). "Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding". American Political Science Review. 117 (3): 967–984. doi:10.1017/S0003055422000934. ISSN 0003-0554.
21. Alizada, Nazifa; Cole, Rowan; Gastaldi, Lisa; Grahn, Sandra; Hellmeier, Sebastian; Kolvani, Palina; Lachapelle, Jean; Lührmann, Anna; Maerz, Seraphine F.; Pillai, Shreeya; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2021). "Autocratization Turns Viral. Democracy Report 2021" (PDF). University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 14, 2021. Retrieved November 13, 2022.
22. ^ Jardina & Mickey 2022, first section.
23. Rowland 2021, p. 158.
24. ^ Kaufman & Haggard 2019, p. 417.
25. Weyland 2020.
26. López & Luna 2021, p. 421.
27. Gillies 2022.
28. Tunney, Catharine (May 19, 2022). "Canada should rethink relationship with U.S. as democratic 'backsliding' worsens: security experts". CBC News. Retrieved May 29, 2022.
29. Sky, Emma (April 2023). "The Iraq Invasion at Twenty: The Iraq War and Democratic Backsliding". Journal of Democracy. 34 (2): 135–149. doi:10.1353/jod.2023.0023. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 258184706.
30. Greenberg 2021, pp. 6–7.
31. ^ Huq 2022, p. 50.
32. "'#Republic' Author Describes How Social Media Hurts Democracy". NPR. February 20, 2017.
33. Hull, Gordon (November 6, 2017). "Why social media may not be so good for democracy". The Conversation. Retrieved July 14, 2024.
34. "What's driving America's partisan divide and what might be done to reverse it". PBS News. May 31, 2023. Retrieved July 14, 2024.
35. Goo, Sara Kehaulani (June 28, 2022). "Nobelist Maria Ressa: Social media is corroding U.S. democracy". Axios.
36. Molla, Rani (November 10, 2020). "Social media is making a bad political situation worse". Vox. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
37. "Once considered a boon to democracy, social media have started to look like its nemesis". The Economist. November 4, 2017. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
38. "Loss of newspapers contributes to political polarization". AP News. January 30, 2019. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
39. Moore, Thomas (May 21, 2021). "Study: Decline in local journalism increases political polarization". The Hill.
40. Dunaway, Johanna; Darr, Joshua P.; Hitt, Matthew P. (May 27, 2021). "Local newspapers can help reduce polarization with opinion pages that focus on local issues". The Conversation. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
41. Brown 2006, p. 690.
42. Giroux, Henry A. (2006), "The Conservative Assault on America", America on the Edge, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 23–41, doi:10.1057/9781403984364_2, ISBN 978-1-349-53303-9, retrieved October 28, 2023
43. Alikhani 2017, pp. 196–198.
44. Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
45. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Introduction". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
46. Ginsburg, Tom (2018). "Democratic Backsliding and the Rule of Law". Ohio Northern University Law Review. 44: 351–369.
47. Baldwin, Bridgette (April 24, 2015). "Backsliding: The United States Supreme Court, Shelby County v. Holder and the Dismantling of Voting Rights Act of 1965". Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity. 7 (1).
48. "Why America is vulnerable to a despot". The Economist. May 16, 2024. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved July 16, 2024.
49. Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 7". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
50. Millhauser, Ian (September 11, 2019). "The cracks in the GOP's gerrymandering firewall". Vox. Retrieved August 12, 2023.
51. ^ Huq 2022, Enabling Durable Minority Entrenchment.
52. Sullivan, Caroline (June 22, 2023). "Two Weeks Later, Allen v. Milligan Has Impacted These States". Democracy Docket. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
53. Millhiser, Ian (June 27, 2023). "The Supreme Court decides not to destroy democracy in the United States". Vox. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
54. Beauchamp, Zack (June 27, 2019). "The Supreme Court's gerrymandering decision reveals a profound threat to democracy". Vox. Retrieved June 12, 2024.
55. Keck, Thomas M. (February 2024). "The U.S. Supreme Court and Democratic Backsliding". Law & Policy. 46 (2). Rochester, NY: 197–218. doi:10.1111/lapo.12237.
56. Huq 2022.
57. Millhiser, Ian (June 10, 2024). "Justices Sotomayor and Kagan must retire now". Vox. Retrieved June 13, 2024.
58. "State Partisan Composition". National Conference of State Legislatures.
59. Kim, Ellis (January 28, 2022). "January 6 committee subpoenas 14 individuals who acted as 'alternate electors'". CBS News.
60. Cohen, Zachary; Murray, Sara; Polantz, Katelyn; Perez, Evan; Cohen, Marshall (June 23, 2022). "DOJ subpoenas Georgia Republican Party chairman as it expands Trump fake elector probe". CNN.
61. ^ Robert Barnes (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court to review state legislatures' power in federal elections". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. ISSN 0190-8286. OCLC 1330888409.
62. ^ Liptak, Adam; Corasaniti, Nick (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court to Hear Case on State Legislatures' Power Over Elections". The New York Times.
63. Florido, Adrian; Baldwin, Robert III; Winston, Natalie (June 18, 2022). "Former federal judge warns of danger to American democracy". National Public Radio.
64. Luttig, J. Michael (April 27, 2022). "Opinion: The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election". CNN.
65. Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2023). "Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections". The New York Times.
66. Sullivan, Andy; Ax, Joseph (September 9, 2020). "Despite Trump claims, voter fraud is extremely rare. Here is how U.S. states keep it that way". Reuters.
67. Epstein, Reid J.; Corasaniti, Nick (March 17, 2022). "Republicans Push Crackdown on Crime Wave That Doesn't Exist: Voter Fraud". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
68. ^ Multiple sources:
    • Izaguirre, Anthony (March 27, 2021). "GOP lawmakers seek greater control over local elections". Associated Press.
    • Vasilogambros, Matt (July 28, 2021). "Republican Legislators Curb Authority of County, State Election Officials". Pew Trusts.
    • Scanlan, Quinn (August 16, 2021). "10 new state laws shift power over elections to partisan entities". ABC News.
    • Arnsdorf, Isaac; Clark, Doug Bock; Berzon, Alexandra; Damon, Anjeanette (September 2, 2021). "Heeding Steve Bannon's Call, Election Deniers Organize to Seize Control of the GOP — and Reshape America's Elections". Pro Publica.
    • Epstein, Reed J. (November 19, 2021). "Wisconsin Republicans Push to Take Over the State's Elections". The New York Times.
    • Przybyla, Heidi (June 1, 2022). "'It's going to be an army': Tapes reveal GOP plan to contest elections". Politico.
    • Schouten, Fredreka (January 10, 2022). "Pro-Trump Republicans try to rewrite state election laws as a voting rights showdown looms in Congress". CNN.
    • Riccardi, Nicholas (December 30, 2021). "'Slow-motion insurrection': How GOP seizes election power". Associated Press.
    • Skelley, Geoffrey (May 17, 2021). "How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections". FiveThirtyEight.
    • Amy Gardner; Isaac Arnsdorf (June 14, 2022). "More than 100 GOP primary winners back Trump's false fraud claims". The Washington Post.
    • Reid J. Epstein; Nick Corasaniti (June 15, 2022). "Far-Right Republicans Press Closer to Power Over Future Elections". The New York Times.
69. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2019). How Democracies Die. New York: Broadway Books. pp. 62–65. ISBN 978-1-5247-6293-3.
70. Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 2". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
71. Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). Tyranny of the minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point (First ed.). New York: Crown. pp. 130–132. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
72. ^ Multiple sources:
    • Wilson, Reid (November 1, 2021). "Stunning survey gives grim view of flourishing anti-democratic opinions". The Hill. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
    • "Competing Visions of America: An Evolving Identity or a Culture Under Attack? Findings from the 2021 American Values Survey". Public Religion Research Institute. November 1, 2021.
    • Beauchamp, Zack (March 1, 2021). "The Republican revolt against democracy, explained in 13 charts". Vox. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
    • Larry Bartels (August 31, 2020). "Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans' commitment to democracy". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 117, no. 37. pp. 22752–22759. doi:10.1073/pnas.2007747117.
    • Scully, Aidan (February 11, 2022). "Point of No Return: The Authoritarian Parties". Harvard Political Review.
73. ^ Jardina & Mickey 2022, Mass Support for Democracy and Racial Animus.
74. Gidengil, Stolle & Bergeron-Boutin 2021, p. 15.
75. ^ Castañeda, Ernesto; Jenks, Daniel (April 17, 2023). Costa, Bruno Ferreira; Parton, Nigel (eds.). "January 6th and De-Democratization in the United States". Social Sciences. 12 (4). MDPI. doi:10.3390/socsci12040238. ISSN 2076-0760. What the United States went through on January 6th was an attempt at a self-coup, where Trump would use force to stay as head of state even if abandoning democratic practices in the U.S. Some advised Trump to declare martial law to create a state of emergency and use that as an excuse to stay in power.
76. Eastman v Thompson, et al., 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM Document 260, 44 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2022) ("Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower – it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process... If Dr. Eastman and President Trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.").
77. Eisen, Norman; Ayer, Donald; Perry, Joshua; Bookbinder, Noah; Perry, E. Danya (June 6, 2022). Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Hearings and the Question of Criminality (Report). Brookings Institution. Retrieved December 16, 2023. tried to delegitimize the election results by disseminating a series of far fetched and evidence-free claims of fraud. Meanwhile, with a ring of close confidants, Trump conceived and implemented unprecedented schemes to – in his own words – "overturn" the election outcome. Among the results of this "Big Lie" campaign were the terrible events of January 6, 2021 – an inflection point in what we now understand was nothing less than an attempted coup.
78. Multiple media sources:
    • Graham, David A. (January 6, 2021). "This Is a Coup". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Retrieved December 16, 2023.
    • Musgrave, Paul (January 6, 2021). "This Is a Coup. Why Were Experts So Reluctant to See It Coming?". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Retrieved December 16, 2023.
    • Solnit, Rebecca (January 6, 2021). "Call it what it was: a coup attempt". The Guardian. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved December 16, 2023.
    • Coleman, Justine (January 6, 2021). "GOP lawmaker on violence at Capitol: 'This is a coup attempt'". The Hill. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Retrieved December 16, 2023.
    • Jacobson, Louis (January 6, 2021). "Is this a coup? Here's some history and context to help you decide". PolitiFact. Retrieved January 7, 2021. A good case can be made that the storming of the Capitol qualifies as a coup. It's especially so because the rioters entered at precisely the moment when the incumbent's loss was to be formally sealed, and they succeeded in stopping the count.
    • Barry, Dan; Frenkel, Sheera (January 7, 2021). "'Be There. Will Be Wild!': Trump All but Circled the Date". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 28, 2021. Retrieved December 16, 2023.
    • Duignan, Brian (August 4, 2021). "January 6 U.S. Capitol attack". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. Retrieved September 22, 2021. Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d'état.
79. Harvey, Michael (2022). "Introduction: History's Rhymes". In Harvey, Michael (ed.). Donald Trump in Historical Perspective. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003110361-1. ISBN 978-1-003-11036-1. As with the Beer Hall Putsch, a would-be leader tried to take advantage of an already scheduled event (in Hitler's case, Kahr's speech; in Trump's, Congress's tallying of the electoral votes) to create a dramatic moment with himself at the center of attention, calling for bold action to upend the political order. Unlike Hitler's coup attempt, Trump already held top of office, so he was attempting to hold onto power, not seize it (the precise term for Trump's intended action is a 'self-coup' or 'autogolpe'). Thus, Trump was able to plan for the event well in advance, and with much greater control, including developing the legal arguments that could be used to justify rejecting the election's results. (p3)
80. Pion-Berlin, David; Bruneau, Thomas; Goetze, Richard B. Jr. (April 7, 2022). "The Trump self-coup attempt: comparisons and civil–military relations". Government and Opposition. FirstView (4): 789–806. doi:10.1017/gov.2022.13. S2CID 248033246.
81. Davis, Susan (November 15, 2023). "Speaker Johnson's close ties to Christian right — both mainstream and fringe". National Public Radio. Sheets is a leading figure among a faction of once-fringe Christian evangelical and Pentecostal leaders affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, an ideology that has existed for decades on the fringes of the religious right. Adherents of this ideology have risen in prominence and power since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, in which he became an unlikely hero of the Christian right and cultivated relationships with leaders in the NAR movement.
82. ^ Multiple sources:
    • Blake, John (July 24, 2022). "An 'Imposter Christianity' is Threatening American Democracy". CNN.
    • Boorstein, Michelle (January 14, 2021). "For some Christians, the Capitol riot doesn't change the prophecy: Trump will be president". The Washington Post.
    • Jones, Sarah (June 4, 2022). "White Christian Nationalism 'Is a Fundamental Threat to Democracy'". New York.
    • Dias, Elizabeth (July 8, 2022). "The Far-Right Christian Quest for Power: 'We Are Seeing Them Emboldened'". The New York Times.
    • Owen, Tess (July 18, 2022). "Christian Nationalism Drove These People Out of Their Churches". Vice.
83. Jardina & Mickey 2022, abstract.
84. Multiple sources:
    • Kathleen Ronayne; Michael Kunzelman (September 30, 2020). "Trump to far-right extremists: 'Stand back and stand by'". Associated Press.
    • Teaganne Finn; Daniel Barnes (January 13, 2022). "Oath Keepers leader, 10 others charged with 'seditious conspiracy' in Jan. 6 Capitol attack". NBC News.
    • Reilly, Ryan J. (June 6, 2022). "Enrique Tarrio, other Proud Boys indicted on seditious conspiracy charges". NBC News.
    • Geneva Sands (October 6, 2020). "White supremacists remain deadliest US terror threat, Homeland Security report says". CNN.
    • Bump, Philip (March 2, 2021). "FBI Director Wray reconfirms the threat posed by racist extremists". The Washington Post.
    • "White supremacists on par with ISIS as 'top threat,' FBI director says at Captiol [sic] riot hearing". The Independent. March 3, 2021.
    • "DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat". Politico. September 4, 2020.
    • Zolan Kanno-Youngs (October 6, 2020). "Delayed Homeland Security Report Warns of 'Lethal' White Supremacy". The New York Times.
    • Edmondson, Catie (July 14, 2022). "Republicans Oppose Measure to Root Out White Supremacy in the Military". The New York Times.
85. Edmondson, Catie (July 14, 2022). "Republicans Oppose Measure to Root Out White Supremacy in the Military". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 14, 2022. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
86. Dreisbach, Tom; Anderson, Meg (January 21, 2021). "Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military". National Public Radio. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
87. Kleinfeld, Rachel (July 6, 2022). "The GOP's Militia Problem: Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Lessons from Abroad". Just Security. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
88. Ottesen, KK (March 8, 2022). "'They are preparing for war': An expert on civil wars discusses where political extremists are taking this country". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
89. Fields, Gary (September 7, 2023). "Presidential centers from Hoover to Bush and Obama unite to warn of fragile state of US democracy". Associated Press. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
90. Miller, Zeke; Boak, Josh (September 2, 2023). "Biden sounds newly strong alarm: Trumpism menaces democracy". Associated Press. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
91. "Remarks by President Biden on the Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation". The White House. September 1, 2022. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
92. Shabad, Rebecca (August 26, 2022). "Biden blasts MAGA philosophy as 'semi-fascism'". NBC News. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
93. Liptak, Kevin; Lee, MJ; Tausche, Kayla; Saenz, Arlette (September 28, 2023). "Biden previews 2024 message by warning that Trump's movement is a threat to American democracy". CNN. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
94. Baker, Peter (September 28, 2023). "Biden Issues a Blistering Attack on Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
95. Hudspeth Blackburn, Piper (October 5, 2023). "Exclusive: Hillary Clinton says Trump is likely GOP 2024 nominee but Biden can still beat him". CNN. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
96. Phillips, Amber (July 12, 2024). "What is Project 2025?". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
97. Wendling, Mike (July 12, 2024). "Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency, explained". BBC News. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
98. Bob Ortega; Kyung Lah; Allison Gordon; Nelli Black (April 27, 2024). "What Trump's war on the 'Deep State' could mean: 'An army of suck-ups'". CNN. Archived from the original on April 28, 2024. Retrieved April 28, 2024. Project 2025's blueprint envisions dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI; disarming the Environmental Protection Agency by loosening or eliminating emissions and climate-change regulations; eliminating the Departments of Education and Commerce in their entirety.
99. Arnsdorf, Isaac; Barrett, Devlin; Dawsey, Josh (November 5, 2023). "Trump and Allies Plot Revenge, Justice Department Control in a Second Term". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 5, 2023. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
100. Stone, Peter (November 22, 2023). "'Openly Authoritarian Campaign': Trump's Threats of Revenge Fuel Alarm". The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved November 27, 2023.
101. Ward, Alexander; Przybyla, Heidi (February 20, 2024). "Trump Allies Prepare to Infuse 'Christian Nationalism' in Second Administration". Politico. Archived from the original on February 24, 2024. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
102. Ben-Ghiat, Ruth (May 16, 2024). "The Permanent Counterrevolution". The New Republic. Archived from the original on June 7, 2024. Retrieved June 13, 2024.
103. Woodward, Alex (June 12, 2024). "How Democrats are plotting against Project 2025, the 'dystopian' manifesto for Trump's second term". The Independent. Archived from the original on June 12, 2024. Retrieved June 13, 2024. This is an unprecedented embrace of extremism, fascism, and religious nationalism, orchestrated by the radical right and its dark money backers.
104. Tomazin, Farrah (June 14, 2024). "A 920-page plan lays out a second Trump presidency. Nadine has read it and is terrified". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved June 21, 2024. Cornell University political scientist Rachel Beatty Riedl says Project 2025 is emblematic of a broader global trend in which threats to democracy are emerging not just from coups, military aggression or civil war, but also from autocratic leaders using democratic institutions to consolidate executive power. This type of backsliding, known as 'executive aggrandisement', has taken place in countries such as Hungary, Nicaragua and Turkey but is new to America, says Beatty Riedl, who runs the university's Centre for International Studies and is the co-author of the book Democratic Backsliding, Resilience and Resistance. 'It's a very concerning sign,' she says. 'If Project 2025 is implemented, what it means is a dramatic decrease in American citizens' ability to engage in public life based on the kind of principles of liberty, freedom and representation that are accorded in a democracy.'
105. Ordoñez, Franco (December 6, 2023). "Trump allies craft plans to give him unprecedented power if he wins the White House". NPR. It's not that the federal service isn't in need of reforms, says Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, a senior fellow at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. But she says Trump wants to create a class of federal workers who will do whatever the president wants — and if they don't, they can be easily fired. 'It's just a dangerous sign,' she says. 'It really suggests that a president wants to aggrandize more authority and more power. And that should make everybody nervous.'
106. Levine, Sam (March 24, 2021). "US sinks to new low in rankings of world's democracies". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
107. Repucci, Sarah (March 2021). "From Crisis to Reform: A Call to Strengthen America's Battered Democracy". Freedom House. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
108. Holodny, Elena (January 25, 2017). "The US has been downgraded to a 'flawed democracy'". Business Insider.
109. Millson, Alex (February 9, 2022). "'Flawed' U.S. Falls Down List of World's Most Democratic Countries". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
110. Meyers, David (February 14, 2022). "U.S. remains a 'flawed democracy' in annual rankings – The Fulcrum". thefulcrum.us. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
111. "Why America is a "flawed democracy"". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved June 18, 2024.
112. "Country Graph". V-Dem. V-Dem Institute. Retrieved November 11, 2022.
113. Lührmann & Lindberg 2019, p. 1097.
114. ^ Grumbach, Jake (December 1, 2022). "Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding". Cambridge University Press.
115. Levitsky, Steven; Ziblatt, Daniel (2023). "Chapter 4". Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point. New York: Crown. ISBN 978-0-593-44307-1.
116. Sundaresan, Mano; Isackson, Amy (December 1, 2021). "Democracy is declining in the U.S. but it's not all bad news, a report finds". NPR.
117. "United States Democracy Indices: 1975–present". IDEA International. Retrieved October 31, 2023.
118. Grumbach, Jacob (2022). Laboratories against Democracy : How National Parties Transformed State Politics. Princeton University Press. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-0-691-21847-2. OCLC 1337137583.
119. "Jacob Grumbach Receives the 2023 Merze Tate - Elinor Ostrom Outstanding Book Award -". Political Science Now. August 2, 2023. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
120. Gutman, David (August 22, 2022). "UW professor outlines how states went from the laboratories of democracy to working against it". The Seattle Times. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
121. Beauchamp, Zack (April 7, 2023). "A study confirms it: Tennessee's democracy really is as bad as the expulsions made you think". Vox. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
122. "Who's More Afraid of Democracy: the Center or the Right? – Niskanen Center". Niskanen Center – Improving Policy, Advancing Moderation. June 20, 2018. Retrieved November 4, 2023.
123. "Opinion: A majority of Americans think US democracy is broken. Here are 12 ideas for repairing it". CNN. October 14, 2022. Retrieved October 15, 2022.
124. Potts, Monica (May 17, 2024). "Democracy is a top concern for many voters. We asked them why". FiveThirtyEight. ABC News.
125. Bump, Philip (June 20, 2024). "Across party lines, Americans see 2024 as a pivotal moment for democracy". The Washington Post.

Footnotes

1. Other names include autocratization, democratic decline, de-democratization, democratic erosion, democratic decay, democratic recession, democratic regression, and democratic deconsolidation.

Bibliography

• Alikhani, Behrouz (2017). "Post-Democracy or Processes of De-Democratization? United States Case Study". Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung. 42 (4 (162)): 189–206. ISSN 0172-6404.
• Brown, Wendy (2006). "American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization". Political Theory. 34 (6): 690–714. doi:10.1177/0090591706293016. S2CID 145467672.
• Gidengil, Elisabeth; Stolle, Dietlind; Bergeron-Boutin, Olivier (2021). "The partisan nature of support for democratic backsliding: A comparative perspective". European Journal of Political Research. 61 (4): 901–929. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12502. S2CID 245159417.
• Gillies, Jamie (2022). "The Authoritarian Elephant Next Door?: A Canadian and Comparative Perspective Amidst American Democratic Backsliding & Uncertainty". American Behavioral Scientist. 67 (5): 598–611. doi:10.1177/00027642221103182. S2CID 248979975.
• Greenberg, Karen J. (2021). Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-21656-0.
• Huq, Aziz Z. (2022). "The Supreme Court and the Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 699 (1): 50–65. doi:10.1177/00027162211061124. S2CID 247499952.
• Jardina, Ashley; Mickey, Robert (2022). "White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 699 (1): 79–89. doi:10.1177/00027162211069730. S2CID 247499954.
• Kaufman, Robert R.; Haggard, Stephan (2019). "Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding?". Perspectives on Politics. 17 (2): 417–432. doi:10.1017/S1537592718003377. S2CID 149457724.
• López, Matias; Luna, Juan Pablo (2021). "Assessing the Risk of Democratic Reversal in the United States: A Reply to Kurt Weyland". PS: Political Science & Politics. 54 (3): 421–426. doi:10.1017/S1049096521000329. ISSN 1049-0965. S2CID 235612952.
• Lührmann, Anna; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2019). "A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?". Democratization. 26 (7): 1095–1113. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029. S2CID 150992660.
• McPherson, James M. (1978). "The Dimensions of Change: The First and Second Reconstructions". Wilson Quarterly. 2 (2): 135–144. JSTOR 40255407.
• Nelson, Michael J.; Witko, Christopher (2022). "The Economic Costs of Democratic Backsliding? Backsliding and State Location Preferences of US Job Seekers". The Journal of Politics. 84 (2): 1233–1238. doi:10.1086/715601. S2CID 236219408.
• Rowland, Robert C. (2021). The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-3196-4.
• Weyland, Kurt (2020). "Populism's Threat to Democracy: Comparative Lessons for the United States". Perspectives on Politics. 18 (2): 389–406. doi:10.1017/S1537592719003955. S2CID 213708401.

Further reading

• Richardson, Heather Cox (2023). Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America.
• Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert (2021). Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-95840-0.
• Mettler, Suzanne; Lieberman, Robert C. (2020). Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy. St. Martin's. ISBN 978-1-250-24442-0.
• Scrimshaw, Frederic (1893) The Dogs and the Fleas By one of the Dogs.

• Democratic backsliding in the United States
• 2010s in American politics
• 2020s in American politics
• Trumpism
• Political history of the United States
• History of voting rights in the United States