The Fragility of American Democracy: A Call for Safeguards
How did American democracy become so vulnerable? Examining the lack of safeguards and the rise of ignorance.
A System Built on Assumptions
Democracy, in its idealized form, is a system designed to empower the people, ensuring that governance reflects the will of the majority. Yet, as Isaac Asimov and H.L. Mencken warned, it is also vulnerable to a fatal flaw: the unchecked rise of ignorance. The belief that all opinions carry equal weight, regardless of knowledge, experience, or competence, has led us to a moment where a leader with no regard for truth, law, or the foundational principles of democracy has not only risen to power but remains a dominant force in American politics.
This is not an accident. It is a direct consequence of a system that, for over two centuries, has prioritized tradition over structural safeguards, assuming that a collective commitment to decency and decorum would be enough to prevent the rise of a demagogue.
We now see, in real-time, the cost of that mistake.
A System Without Guardrails
The American Founding Fathers, despite their vision, failed to anticipate that democracy could be exploited in such a blatant way. The US Constitution, revered as a blueprint for governance, is often treated as infallible. Yet, it is shockingly inadequate at preventing the very thing it was supposed to guard against: the concentration of power in the hands of the unfit.
At no point in American history has there been a serious effort to codify protections against an openly corrupt, criminally indicted, and morally bankrupt individual seizing the presidency. The assumption has always been that certain lines simply wouldn’t be crossed: that the electorate, the courts, and the checks and balances within government would naturally prevent such a disaster.
That assumption has been proven false.
For more than a decade, Donald Trump’s rise could have been halted. Yet every institutional safeguard failed, not because mechanisms weren’t in place, but because those mechanisms were either weak, unenforceable, or dependent on the willingness of self-interested politicians to act in the country's best interest.
Democracy’s Uncomfortable Truth: Majority Rule is Not Infallible
The ancient Greeks, the first to experiment with democracy, recognized its inherent contradictions. One of the most enduring criticisms of democracy is that uninformed masses will always outvote a wise minority, leading to decisions that are ultimately detrimental to society.
A system that assumes voters are always rational actors, capable of making informed choices in their best interest, is not only naïve but historically disproven. The belief that democracy, left entirely to its own devices, will self-correct and ensure only competent leadership is chosen has been repeatedly debunked.
Consider the reality: there is no basic competency test to become president. No requirement for knowledge of history, law, or governance. No disqualifier for individuals facing multiple felony indictments, those accused of sexual assault, or those with blatant conflicts of interest. A nation that demands rigorous vetting for even the most mundane jobs allows its highest office to be occupied by someone who might not pass a background check for a local government position.
And yet, we treat democracy as though it is an unshakable force rather than an experiment that, without careful adjustment, can be manipulated into legitimizing authoritarian rule.
The Illusion of Safeguards
America’s democratic system has long relied on faith in its institutions rather than enforceable protections. In the earliest days of the American republic, George Washington was offered the opportunity to be king and declined, setting an informal precedent of restraint, in the form of a two-term presidency, that shaped the nation’s expectations of its leaders. But restraint is not a safeguard.
The belief that future leaders would voluntarily adhere to unwritten norms, rather than exploit the gaps left open by the Constitution, was an extraordinary gamble. And it has now failed.
Trump is not an anomaly; he is the predictable outcome of a system that assumed integrity would always triumph over ambition. That assumption was foolish.
A Future Beyond Pure Democracy
Democracy, in its current form, may not be the final evolution of governance. While it remains the best system humanity has implemented on a large scale, it is not necessarily the best system possible. The very concept of strengthening democracy often requires limiting its purest elements: prohibiting children from voting, barring felons from participating, and restricting ballot access based on legal and administrative criteria.
If democracy must be diluted to function effectively, then what does that say about its long-term viability?
The solution is not to abandon democratic principles but to recognize that they must be adapted to modern challenges. A system that allows itself to be exploited by the very forces it was meant to keep in check will not survive.
The Path Forward
The survival of democracy depends on our willingness to acknowledge its flaws and act decisively to correct them. Safeguards must be established, not as norms, but as enforceable laws. Candidates for the highest office should be subject to rigorous scrutiny, including disqualification for criminal behavior, conflicts of interest, and fundamental incompetence. The electorate must be better informed, with civic education treated as a national priority rather than an afterthought.
This is not a passive process. It requires engagement, pressure, and an unwavering demand for accountability. If the past decade has shown us anything, it is that democracy does not protect itself. It only survives if people fight for it.
If you found this analysis compelling and want to continue exploring the critical issues shaping our future, consider subscribing for more in-depth discussions. Your engagement is essential in ensuring that these conversations lead to real change.
You treat democracy as a single form of government. It is not, there are several different versions of it. The archaic US system elects a potential dictator every 4 years, but most of the previous incumbents have had a concern for the nation. Trump doesn’t. You now have a full-blown dictator.
One of the basic problems with the American version of democracy is the weakness of the party system. The drafters of the 1789 Constitution naively believed political parties to be anti-democratic and that elected officials should stand as individuals - again reinforcing individuality instead of collective action. In a democracy, however, coalition building is the key to accomplishing anything. Hence the formation of political parties by like minded individuals.
For most of the county’s history the nomination of political candidates was a strict matter of party decision. That system broke down in the 1960s with the advent of open primaries where anyone can run regardless of party affiliation. It’s not clear our candidates, especially at the presidential level, have improved: the first product of this system was George McGovern and it has produced radical candidates and presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush along with non-entities like Michael Dukakis and Robert Dole.
In other countries Party leadership is controlled by the parties themselves. Were that the case here we would never have seen Donald Trump anywhere close the presidency. From an American viewpoint, it seems amazing that two party leaders in Canada just lost their seats in Parliament, including the leader of the Conservative Party. Such a result would be near impossible here, because Americans vote for individuals with party affiliation often coming a poor second.
That party based system in parliamentary democracies tends to focus on ideas and party platforms rather than individuals. It a far healthier system and tends to avoid the kind of dynastic holding of seats that is all too common here.