As we exit the month of November, we come face to face with four years of a new presidency. Our world feels unstable, our country seems unstable, and for many of us the president-elect offers the possibility of even more instability. How did we end up here? And also, where exactly have we ended up?
We find ourselves in an interesting dilemma. The Democratic party argued that democracy was at stake in this election because of Trump’s past actions, particularly the January six insurrection and Project 2025. But now, post-election, it has become apparent that democracy has elected its own enemy. It has elected the person that was supposed to destroy it.
Why would democracy ever do such a self-destructive thing? I have an answer, but I am hesitant to give it—mostly because I haven’t yet convinced myself of it. So please, bear with me, and forgive me if this is too ridiculous. I am thinking that Americans purposely voted against democracy because democracy is a very unstable kind of government. I’ve been wondering whether in an attempt to find stability, our nation has turned on its own system. Of course, you might argue that we have had a democracy for almost 250 years without a problem, so why the change of heart? This is true: Democracy seems to be truly stable when most of its citizens agree. Further, for much of American history we have agreed a lot and loved democracy a lot. But when a democracy becomes as divided as our own is, people seem to stop wanting plurality of thought; instead, they want to unify with only those who share their vision. In other words, they stop being democratic because their democratic system is blocking their rights and destroying their ideals. Think about it. In a lot of people’s minds it is more important to have at least one of the following– food, private wealth, healthcare, guns, religion, abortions, or universal basic income– than for all people to have a say in who is in charge of controlling it. I am beginning to think both sides have clearly thought about this, and have turned on democracy. Both sides have tried to jail opponents. Both sides have questioned the intelligence of their opponents’ voters. Both sides have questioned the legitimacy of elections. All of these are undemocratic actions.
Because of this rejection of democracy, I think Democrat’s shouldn’t have argued that Donald Trump was a threat to abstract democracy, but rather that Trump was a threat to the liberal vision for America. I think this strategy would have been more effective, because I am not convinced anyone cares about democracy in the abstract any longer. Democracy, at its heart, means submitting yourself to the rule of the majority. Neither side has done this. Democrats have done a slightly better job of this than Republicans over the last eight years, but let’s be honest, both sides have utterly failed to be anything worthy of the title “lovers of democracy.”
Nothing shows this more clearly than the way both sides have treated the courts. Democrats and Republicans have been exploiting the courts, and the reason for this is that the courts are both the most functional and least democratic part of our whole nation. There are few things in our society less democratic than a judge. If you don’t believe me, consider the Supreme Court. Here sit nine Justices who are appointed for life and are slowly proving they can be more powerful than both Congress and the Presidency.
Perhaps we must be honest with ourselves and admit that we too are attracted to non-democratic societies. We want rights, personal liberty, goodness and mere stability; a divided, democratic America does not promise these. If we admit this, we have two paths forward: fight to reignite a true love of democracy in ourselves and those around us, or stumble into the unknown world of a post-democratic America. We may not have a choice. The Republicans and Democrats may have already entered a post-democratic America while we weren’t paying attention.
vox.com, variety.com, time.com, npr.com, cnn.com
Hannah Bonanducci 
Ella Curcuruto 
Annika Pickard