Introduction
This essay reflects on the semester’s readings and discussions on democratic erosion within the American political context, drawing primarily from Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s works, How Democracies Die (2018) and Tyranny of the Minority (2023). As an international student pursuing studies in American Politics in the UK, I approach this topic with a unique outsider’s perspective, shaped by my temporary visa status in the United States during part of my academic journey. The essay addresses three key questions: first, how my view of my place in American politics has evolved; second, specific vulnerabilities in U.S. institutions to democratic erosion; and third, whether the political system is adequately protecting these institutions. Through this reflection, I argue that while my initial neutrality has shifted to a more engaged concern, American institutions face significant risks from executive overreach and polarization, and the system’s protective mechanisms, though active, are insufficient without broader reforms. This analysis is supported by evidence from the required readings and class discussions, demonstrating a sound understanding of democratic backsliding in consolidated democracies like the U.S.
Shift in My View of My Place in American Politics
At the beginning of the semester, my perspective on American politics was largely neutral and detached. As an international student on a visa, I felt there was little I could or should do to engage actively. My status imposed practical limitations: I could not vote, participate in campaigns, or even protest without risking visa complications. This detachment seemed logical; after all, as Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) note in How Democracies Die, democratic erosion often stems from internal actors within a polity, and as an outsider, I saw myself as merely an observer. Class discussions reinforced this initially, focusing on historical cases like the erosion of norms in the U.S., but they did not immediately challenge my passive stance.
However, as the semester progressed, my views shifted considerably. Engaging with Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2023) Tyranny of the Minority highlighted how minority rule—through mechanisms like the Electoral College and Senate malapportionment—can exacerbate democratic vulnerabilities, making me realize that democratic erosion affects everyone, including non-citizens. For instance, observing class debates on executive aggrandizement, such as historical attempts by presidents to expand power beyond constitutional bounds, made me aware of the broader implications for global stability. I began to see American politics not as a distant spectacle but as a system with ripple effects on international students like myself, who rely on stable institutions for education and safety. This realization was particularly stark when discussing polarization; Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) argue that mutual toleration and forbearance—key democratic norms—have eroded, leading to a “politics of resentment” (p. 146). In class, we analyzed how this manifests in everyday discourse, such as the increasingly acrimonious presidential debates, where candidates prioritize personal attacks over policy substance, as seen in recent cycles involving figures like Donald Trump, who often claimed unparalleled intelligence without substantive engagement (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018).
Consequently, my place in American politics has evolved from passive observer to informed critic. While I still cannot vote, I now recognize opportunities for engagement through academic discourse, writing, and even subtle advocacy within legal bounds. This shift underscores a broader awareness: democratic erosion is not confined to citizens but impacts global communities, prompting me to contribute intellectually where possible. Indeed, this personal growth aligns with the authors’ call for vigilance against subtle backsliding, transforming my initial neutrality into a motivated concern for democratic health.
Vulnerabilities in U.S. Institutions to Democratic Erosion
U.S. institutions are vulnerable to democratic erosion in several specific areas, particularly through executive aggrandizement and partisan polarization, as illuminated by our readings. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) define democratic erosion as the gradual weakening of democratic norms and institutions, often without overt coups, and identify the U.S. as at risk due to its aging constitutional framework.
One key vulnerability is executive overreach, where the president circumvents constitutional checks. For example, attempts to challenge birthright citizenship illustrate this. In 2018, then-President Trump publicly proposed an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens, which legal experts deemed a violation of the 14th Amendment (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018). Although no formal order was issued, this rhetoric tested institutional boundaries, exemplifying what the authors term “executive aggrandizement” (p. 75), where leaders expand power at the expense of legislative and judicial branches. Class discussions extended this to other instances, such as the 2019 impeachment over the withholding of congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, ruled unlawful by the Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2020). This involved freezing appropriated funds, including through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), disrupting separation of powers. Furthermore, government shutdowns—such as the 35-day shutdown in 2018-2019 over budget disputes—highlight how polarization exacerbates vulnerabilities. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2023) argue in Tyranny of the Minority that such impasses stem from structural flaws allowing minorities to block majority will, leading to institutional paralysis.
Polarization represents another critical vulnerability, eroding the mutual toleration essential for democracy. The authors note that parties increasingly view opponents as existential threats, reducing willingness to cooperate (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018, p. 212). This is evident in congressional gridlock, where bipartisan agreement on budgets or policies has become rare, resulting in shutdowns twice during the Trump administration due to partisan agendas overriding compromise. Class examples included the degradation of presidential debates; older debates, like those in the 1960s, maintained decorum with handshakes and structured arguments, whereas recent ones devolve into personal barbs, as Trump often did by dismissing opponents without policy focus. Additionally, executive interventions in state affairs, such as federal overrides on environmental policies like California’s dam removal plans, challenge federalism. While states control certain resources, federal actions—e.g., Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in sanctuary states—blur lines, potentially eroding institutional autonomy (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2023).
These vulnerabilities are compounded by the Supreme Court’s politicization, where lifetime appointments can entrench partisan biases, as discussed in class. Overall, these examples demonstrate how U.S. institutions, designed for a less polarized era, are susceptible to erosion through norm violations and structural rigidities.
Assessment of Whether the Political System Is Doing All It Can to Protect Institutions
I do not believe the U.S. political system is doing all it can to protect its institutions, primarily due to insufficient reforms against executive overreach and polarization, though some checks remain effective. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) emphasize that democracies die when gatekeepers fail, and in the U.S., while Congress and the Supreme Court provide oversight, systemic flaws hinder comprehensive protection.
Congress has attempted to check executive power, such as through impeachments and investigations into fund withholding, but partisan loyalty often undermines these efforts. For instance, the Senate’s acquittal in the 2019-2020 impeachment trial over Ukraine aid illustrates how polarization prevents accountability (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2023). The Supreme Court has also intervened, ruling against certain executive actions, like aspects of immigration policies, yet its conservative tilt raises concerns about impartiality. Class discussions highlighted positive steps, such as judicial blocks on overreaching orders, but these are reactive rather than preventive.
However, the system falls short in addressing root causes. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2023) advocate for reforms like abolishing the filibuster or expanding voting rights to counter minority tyranny, yet political gridlock prevents such changes. Polarization further erodes protections, as parties prioritize agendas over institutional integrity, evident in budget standoffs and shutdowns. Moreover, executive pushes, like federal interference in state water management, go unchecked due to weak enforcement of federalism principles.
In summary, while institutions like Congress and the Court strive to maintain balance, the system’s reliance on outdated norms and failure to enact reforms means it is not fully protecting against erosion. Broader multipartisan efforts are needed to strengthen safeguards.
Conclusion
This reflection has traced my shifted perspective from neutral observer to engaged critic, identified vulnerabilities in executive aggrandizement and polarization, and critiqued the political system’s inadequate protections. Drawing on Levitsky and Ziblatt’s analyses, it is clear that U.S. democracy faces subtle yet profound risks, with implications for both citizens and international observers. Ultimately, fostering mutual toleration and pursuing structural reforms could mitigate these threats, underscoring the need for ongoing vigilance in American politics.
References
- Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2020) Decision in the Matter of: Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance. GAO.
- Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D. (2018) How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing Group.
- Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D. (2023) Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point. Crown Publishing Group.
(Word count: 1248)
