Death to Decision: USA’s Failing Democracy

The USA’s 2024 presidential campaigns have exposed the weak base of their democracy. 

With the rising polarisation of American politics, candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have further enhanced this division, forcing the electorate to choose their next President as the “best out of a bad bunch”, an increasingly popular idiom within the current climate. The lack of a truly desirable candidate in the election proves the growing lack of democracy. The September 2024 debate was seen as a great improvement from the June debate which featured Joe Biden. 

The June debate was deemed as “bitter” by CNN and full of “rambling [...] lies and misstatements” by CBS, yet the Harris-Trump spar on September 10th 2024 was not much better. Trump’s insecurities and toxic masculinity overshadowed his key policies and Harris manipulated misleading statements to exaggerate foreign policy successes under Biden’s administration. Although many Americans believe that Harris won the debate, seen in her rising poll popularity across the swing states, the real loser has been exposed: the USA’s democracy.

The current state of American democracy is increasingly characterised by dissatisfaction and polarisation. The growing feeling that Harris and Trump are both inadequate representatives of the electorate's needs reflects a broader sentiment that democracy is failing to deliver meaningful choices. Recent surveys indicate a significant decline in satisfaction with how democracy functions in the United States. For instance, only 31% of citizens expressed content with how American democracy is run in a Pew Research survey, a stark decrease from 2021’s prior 41% , which despite being higher in digits, is still not a majority. Similarly, Gallup reported a record low of 28% satisfaction with how American democracy is functioning, highlighting a trend that shows Americans are increasingly disappointed with their political system. This growing dissatisfaction is not limited to one political party; it spans across the electorate, with only 17% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats expressing satisfaction with democracy's performance, as reported by University of Virginia in 2024

For most of Trump’s civil career, journalistic and academic critiques of his character have emphasised his toxic masculinity – patriarchal authority, sexual entitlement and a domineering temperament. These tendencies have impacted his political career, as seen in his 2016 debate with Hilary Clinton where he personally attacked her and at times followed her around the stage. After that debate, The Guardian described Trump as “prowling” behind Clinton as she spoke and “menacing” her with his “imposing presence and brash insults.” During his September 2024 debate with Harris, under the new parameters of candidates not being allowed to directly question each other, Trump shrivelled as his prior tactics of intimidation could not be fulfilled. 

Instead, he fumbled attempting to assert his dominance when Harris taunted him during the recent debate. She provoked him when asserting that “people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.” After laying the bait, Harris continued by drawing in the audience, claiming that, “The one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams and your, your desires.” She ended by emphasising that the American people “deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will.” The majority of politicians would recognise Harris' ruse to push Trump into exaggerating her point that he cares more about his public image than the voters. But an agitated Trump blustered head first.

ABC moderator David Muir questioned Trump on why he stopped a bipartisan bill based on strengthening the Mexican border, a rhetoric Trump has advocated relentlessly for. Instead, his own insecurities about his reputation trapped him, as rather than adding insight to why he killed the bill on Southern border security, he began to defend the size of his rallies, a point completely irrelevant to the situation. He fell into Harris’ manipulation, tumbling over into how he should  “First [...] respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don’t go to her rallies. [...] People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.” 

Trump’s focus on the superficial aspects of his campaign rather than the policies he promotes highlights the discrepancy in American politics, where the current democratic system is pushing Trump as a championing candidate. Trump shifting from attempting to have an informed debate to monologuing theatrical performances exposes his priority in defending his image over discussing true substance. A Pew Research study concluded that an overwhelming 65% of Americans say thay “always or often feel exhausted when thinking of politics.” This fatigue is fueled by the perception that candidates are more interested in self-promotion than in addressing the public’s needs, as Trump has proved time and time again. As voters increasingly encounter political figures who prioritise personal branding over meaningful policy discussions, their trust in democratic processes diminishes as politicians’ true intentions are diluted by their ego.

Harris claimed that Trump left the Biden administration with "the worst unemployment since the Great Depression," a statement that lacks crucial context and disregards subsequent economic recovery efforts. Additionally, she inaccurately stated that "there is not one member of the United States military who is on active duty in a combat zone," which was quickly contradicted by military reports. This approach of rhetoric over substantial evidence raises significant concerns about her suitability as a candidate. However, one of the most significant criticisms against Harris was her failure to provide concrete details about her proposed initiatives. While she effectively capitalised on Trump's weaknesses, many analysts noted that she did not articulate a clear vision for her own policies. Tammy R. Vigil, a Boston University media professor, pointed out that Harris's approach resembled that of a prosecutor putting Trump on trial rather than a candidate outlining her plans for the future, quoted by Al Jazeera News. Harris undermined her ability to connect with voters seeking substantive discussions by drawing on Trump’s insecurities. Despite relying on personal attacks to sway the vote rather than reliable discussion, she is still accepted by the majority as the debate’s winner. This proves that America’s democracy is no longer based on policy but on insults and taunts - the worst part being that former President Trump fell into Harris’ jibes rather than holding a discriminating stance on his own initiatives. Nevertheless, Harris’ reliance on personal attacks and manipulation of facts undermines the democratic process, which should prioritise honesty, scrutiny, and accountability.

This troubling dynamic has left American voters with the impression that they must choose between two flawed candidates: one who may manipulate facts for political gain and another who struggles to maintain composure under pressure. This situation reflects a broader dissatisfaction with democracy, where citizens feel compelled to vote for the "lesser of two evils" or the “best out of a bad bunch” rather than genuinely supporting candidates who align with their values and needs.

Many Americans view both candidates as unappealing, leading to a sense of obligation rather than enthusiasm for electoral choices. This sentiment is reflected in the initial rising poll numbers for Harris, which suggest that while she may be gaining traction, it is largely due to voters' desire to avoid Trump's return rather than genuine support for her candidacy; an example seen in Republican politicians advocating for Harris, such as Liz Cheney, former chair of the House Republican Conference, endorsing Harris over Trump. Voters feel trapped between undesirable options, reflecting a broader sentiment that democracy is failing to deliver meaningful choices. 

On October 1 2024, Vice Presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz debated in New York. Their debate was seen as “civil” by the BBC, “unlike the two presidential debates earlier this year.” The NPR Network noted that the two men “seemed to agree on a lot.” Despite Vance disputing democratic scrutiny in how he believed “the rules were that [the moderators] weren’t going to fact check,” the watch was relatively refined. This (general) level of civility should be the standard for all political debates, setting a precedent for constructive dialogue rather than the malicious tactics employed by the current Presidential candidates. When debates devolve into defensive theatrics and finger-pointing, it not only diminishes the quality of political discourse, but also contributes to a broader decline in democratic principles. Voter participation, although hindered by representative democracy over direct democracy, relies on their President and their ability to stand for the needs of their people. This belief in elected officials plummets significantly when the norm is ridicule over civility.

The implications of such dissatisfaction are profound. A significant portion of the electorate, nearly 20% as reported by the University of Virginia, have begun to question whether democracy remains the best form of government. Among younger voters, disillusionment is exemplified, with many expressing scepticism about the viability of democratic institutions, even at global scales, as recorded by University of Cambridge. This decline of faith in democracy can lead to apathy or even support for alternative governance models, which poses a threat to the codified American constitution. 

As voters increasingly feel they must choose between unappealing options, the legitimacy and functionality of democratic institutions come into question. This November will reveal the ultimate winner of the 2024 campaigns and the 48th President of the United States of America. Whether Trump returns for a second term or Harris creates history by being the first female President, one fact remains - a large portion of the US will not be happy with their new leader. The two-party system dominating American politics currently fosters an “us vs them” mentality, which can be heavily magnified in the coming Presidential term. This environment thus feeds into the idea that the next President will not be the perfect politician in either party’s eyes, but simply the “best out of a bad bunch”. Such dissatisfaction breeds disengagement which exposes the faults in the US’ democratic system; citizens have begun to detach from the political landscape as their opinions seem futile. The 2024 elections may only impact the next four years, however it has uncovered the harsh reality that American democracy has, slowly but surely, begun deteriorating due to the lack of choice.