In theory, above all else, the United States is supposed to function as a democracy. Yet, despite this foundational ideal, the 2024 election showed a stark disconnect between America’s democratic values and the priorities of its voters. While 73% of voters agreed democracy was under threat, only 34% considered it as the most important issue influencing their vote. In contrast, 32% prioritized the economy, and 14% focused on crime. These statistics show that almost 40% of the electorate knew democracy was a major issue, yet did not care enough to make it a priority. For many Americans, the fight for democracy, however crucial, simply doesn’t feel as urgent as their everyday struggles.
While I am fairly centrist politically, having lived my whole life in reliably blue areas, I’ve been exposed to many liberals who can’t quite understand why former and recent president-elect Donald Trump ever gained traction in the first place. Members of my own family see Trump’s greatest flaw as his disregard for the rule of law and conventional governmental processes that they view as crucial to upholding democracy. Yet, this perspective overlooks the grievances and frustrations of the majority that propelled Trump to power, rooted in economic insecurity, cultural alienation, and a deep mistrust of traditional political elites. For many of his supporters, Trump’s willingness to break the rules isn’t a flaw—it’s a positive trait, a symbol of his promise to disrupt a system they believe has failed them.
Trust in political institutions has been in freefall over the past several years, with less than 20% of Americans saying they trust Congress to do what is right “most of the time.” And why should they? Both political parties have focused their messaging primarily on discrediting the opposition and portraying them as un-American, rather than addressing the issues that directly impact the American people.
Just this past election cycle, Republicans argued that a Harris win would plunge the country into socialism and far-left social policies, while Democrats said that a Trump win would bring fascism to the United States. In the closing days of the election, some of Trump’s campaign ads featured “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” By contrast, the constant hyperbolic rhetoric from the left-leaning media around President Trump reached a point where he survived multiple assassination attempts over two months. The divisive nature of today’s political rhetoric has led to consequences that harm both political figures as well as groups of people caught in the crossfire. Given the high level of tension between the two parties, it’s understandable that uniting the country around a set of ideals crafted over 200 years ago—by individuals who governed a nation with a population of roughly 1% of what it is today—would be a difficult task.
The Democratic Party’s 2024 strategy, which focused on portraying Donald Trump as a liar and an existential threat to democracy, ultimately backfired. It failed to connect with voters who were more concerned with issues like inflation, stagnant wages, and rising crime. Despite only 42% of Americans describing Trump as honest, many voters dismissed these concerns as irrelevant to their daily struggles.
On the other hand, Trump’s Republican campaign focused on framing Democrats as out-of-touch elites preoccupied with identity politics and abstract ideals. CNN anchor Abby Phillip ’10 remarked during a conversation at the Institute of Politics’ JFK Jr. Forum that the election reflected voters’ sentiments of: “Enough, this doesn’t matter as much to us.” Trump’s ability to connect with voters’ lived experiences, alongside a Republican strategy capitalizing on economic and cultural anxieties, proved far more effective than the Democrats’ reliance on moral arguments and appeals to democratic ideals.
For many Americans, cries that Trump rejects democratic principles fall on deaf ears. As David Axelrod, a prominent CNN contributor, exclaimed, “If you are talking about democracy over the dinner table, it’s probably because you don’t have to worry about the cost of the food on your dinner table.” Rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and widening inequality have left many Americans feeling that the system serves a select few, cast as the “liberal elite” by the Republican Party. For the Democratic Party, which spent the Trump era trying to position itself as the “normal” political party, this has proved detrimental.
These economic frustrations are compounded by cultural alienation, as rapid social changes leave some voters feeling excluded or even attacked. For these Americans, democracy seems like an ineffective tool to address their problems. This disillusionment is why appeals to protect democratic norms fail to resonate: those norms haven’t delivered for them. Instead, voters feel empowered by leaders who espouse disruption, even if it comes at the expense of democracy itself. Trump’s appeal lies in his ability to harness and direct this frustration, positioning himself as a fighter for those who feel left behind by the political establishment.
When democracy no longer feels relevant, voters become more willing to support leaders with authoritarian tendencies if they believe it will lead to better outcomes. Trump’s voters don’t care that he flouts norms, undermines institutions, and consolidates power—in fact, they reward him for it as long as he promises to deliver on the issues voters care about most. This trajectory is dangerous, not just for the United States, but for democracies worldwide. A system built on checks and balances cannot survive if its participants no longer believe in its legitimacy. Yet, reversing this trend requires more than defending democracy as an abstract ideal. It demands tangible proof that democracy can improve lives, address economic challenges, and bridge cultural divides.
While Trump may not respect democratic ideals as much as previous presidents, his campaign promised to address the concerns that mattered most to voters during this election: economic instability, public safety, and healthcare access. Yet, these issues should transcend partisanship and be addressed within a democratic framework. They are shared challenges that affect all Americans. Ironically enough, despite his cultivated persona as a political outsider, Trump’s messaging is the same sort leaders should use to restore trust in the system: focusing on policies that deliver real results. Trump’s misstep lies in his aversion to fostering a collaborative political culture over a partisan one.
Both parties must step back from hyperbolic attacks and work toward finding common ground. While it is unrealistic and counterproductive to completely abandon ideological differences, they must be framed as debates within a shared commitment to governance instead of existential battles for the country’s identity.
The media also plays an important role. By amplifying stories of bipartisan success, highlighting issues that unite rather than divide, and eliminating partisan biases, media outlets can help shift the national conversation away from outrage and toward solutions. Social media platforms, in particular, must take responsibility for the role they play in polarizing the electorate. While divisive rhetoric on hot-button issues ultimately yields greater viewership and clicks, the political future of the country needs to take precedence over profit margins.
The 2024 election revealed a hard truth: for many Americans, democracy feels like an abstract ideal that does not compare to the challenges they face in their daily life. This adversity is not without cause, but it is not irreversible. By focusing on the issues that matter most and rebuilding trust in institutions, the United States has an opportunity to restore faith in its democratic system. By addressing the root causes of disillusionment, America can reclaim its democratic ideals and ensure they remain a guiding force for generations to come.
Jai Glazer ’27 (jglazer@college.harvard.edu) doesn’t love Trump but thinks the clips from The Apprentice on TikTok are actually pretty entertaining.