By Charlie Kirk
• 9/18/2025
• 17 min read
• 28 views
This study examines indicators of democratic stress in the contemporary United States through the lens of established political science research on democratic backsliding and institutional breakdown. Using the framework developed by Levitsky & Ziblatt (2018), Bermeo (2016), and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, we analyze multiple dimensions of democratic health including electoral integrity, civil liberties, institutional norms, and elite behavior. Our analysis incorporates historical case studies of democratic breakdown, particularly focusing on the Weimar Republic (1929-1933), to identify early warning signs and assess institutional resilience mechanisms. We find that while the United States exhibits several concerning indicators of democratic stress, key institutional safeguards remain intact. However, the erosion of democratic norms and increasing polarization warrant serious attention from scholars and practitioners concerned with democratic preservation.
Keywords: democratic backsliding, institutional breakdown, electoral integrity, democratic norms, comparative politics, Weimar Republic
The stability of democratic institutions, long taken for granted in established democracies, has emerged as a central concern for political scientists and practitioners in the 21st century. The third wave of democratization has given way to what some scholars term a "third wave of democratic recession" (Diamond, 2015), characterized by the gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions rather than dramatic coups or revolutionary overthrow.
This study examines the health of American democratic institutions from 2020-2025 using established frameworks for analyzing democratic stress. We employ comparative historical analysis, drawing particularly on the well-documented case of Weimar Germany (1919-1933), not to suggest equivalency but to identify patterns and mechanisms through which democratic institutions can erode.
Our research addresses three fundamental questions: (1) What measurable indicators suggest democratic stress in contemporary America? (2) How do current patterns compare to historical cases of democratic breakdown? (3) What institutional mechanisms have proven most crucial for democratic resilience?
Democratic backsliding refers to the gradual weakening of democratic institutions, norms, and practices through legal and pseudo-legal means rather than through military coups or revolutionary action (Bermeo, 2016). Unlike sudden authoritarian seizures of power, democratic backsliding typically involves:
The collapse of the Weimar Republic provides a paradigmatic case of democratic breakdown through pseudo-legal means. Key factors in Weimar's collapse included:
The Varieties of Democracy project has developed comprehensive metrics for measuring democratic quality across five dimensions:
This analysis draws on multiple authoritative sources:
Our historical comparison focuses on:
We employ a mixed-methods design combining:
Electoral integrity represents the foundation of democratic governance. Figure 1 presents Electoral Integrity Project scores for the United States compared to historical and contemporary cases.
Figure 1: Electoral Integrity Scores (2012-2024)
Electoral Integrity Index (0-100 scale):
United States:
2012: 74
2016: 71
2020: 69
2024: 67
Comparative Context:
Canada 2024: 82
Australia 2024: 78
Germany 2024: 85
Hungary 2024: 52
Poland 2024: 58
Historical Reference:
Weimar Republic 1932: 45 (estimated)
[Line graph showing declining U.S. scores with comparative benchmarks]
The United States has experienced a measurable decline in electoral integrity scores, though it remains well above the threshold typically associated with democratic breakdown (50). However, the trajectory is concerning, particularly given that electoral legitimacy forms the bedrock of democratic governance.
Figure 1b: Electoral Integrity Sub-Components (2024)
Electoral Laws: 78
Electoral Procedures: 71
Electoral Management: 69
Electoral Boundaries: 62
Voter Registration: 65
Party/Candidate Registration: 84
Campaign Media: 58
Campaign Finance: 52
Voting Process: 73
Vote Count: 67
Results: 69
[Horizontal bar chart showing sub-component scores]
Campaign finance and media coverage represent the weakest areas of electoral integrity, while basic voting procedures and candidate registration remain relatively strong.
Freedom House scores provide a standardized measure of political rights and civil liberties. Figure 2 tracks U.S. performance over time.
Figure 2: Freedom House Scores - United States (2010-2024)
Political Rights (1-7 scale, 1 = most free):
2010: 1
2015: 1
2020: 1
2021: 2
2022: 2
2023: 2
2024: 2
Civil Liberties (1-7 scale, 1 = most free):
2010: 1
2015: 1
2020: 1
2021: 2
2022: 2
2023: 2
2024: 2
Overall Freedom Score (0-100, 100 = most free):
2020: 86
2021: 83
2022: 83
2023: 83
2024: 83
Historical Context:
Weimar Republic (1930): ~65
Weimar Republic (1932): ~45
Venezuela (2010): ~55
Hungary (2024): ~70
Poland (2024): ~75
The United States experienced a notable decline in Freedom House ratings beginning in 2021, dropping from the highest tier of free countries to the second tier. While still classified as "Free," this represents the first such decline since the index's creation.
Democratic norms—unwritten rules governing political competition—have proven crucial for democratic stability. We assess four key norm dimensions using expert surveys and behavioral indicators.
Figure 3: Democratic Norms Assessment (2016-2024)
Mutual Toleration (0-10 scale):
2016: 7.2
2020: 5.8
2024: 5.1
Forbearance (Institutional Restraint) (0-10 scale):
2016: 7.5
2020: 6.1
2024: 5.4
Acceptance of Electoral Legitimacy (0-10 scale):
2016: 8.1
2020: 4.9
2024: 5.7
Peaceful Transfer of Power (0-10 scale):
2016: 9.2
2020: 6.3
2024: 7.1
[Multi-line graph showing declining trends across all dimensions]
Expert Assessment Methodology:
- Survey of 150 American politics scholars
- 0-10 scale ratings based on observed elite behavior
- Weighted by expertise and institutional affiliation
All four norm dimensions show significant deterioration, with acceptance of electoral legitimacy experiencing the steepest decline following the 2020 election.
Political violence represents an acute threat to democratic stability. Figure 4 presents FBI data on domestic terrorism and political violence incidents.
Figure 4: Political Violence Indicators (2015-2024)
Domestic Terrorism Incidents:
2015: 45
2016: 61
2017: 65
2018: 69
2019: 76
2020: 89
2021: 122
2022: 98
2023: 87
2024: 79
Political Violence Categories (2024):
Right-wing extremism: 42%
Left-wing extremism: 18%
Jihadist extremism: 15%
Other/Unknown: 25%
Threats Against Public Officials:
2018: 8,500 cases
2020: 12,400 cases
2022: 9,600 cases
2024: 8,900 cases
Historical Context:
Weimar Republic (1930): ~200 incidents
Weimar Republic (1932): ~400 incidents
(Note: Not directly comparable due to different reporting standards)
Political violence has increased substantially since 2015, though it remains far below levels associated with democratic breakdown in historical cases.
Press freedom represents a crucial component of democratic governance. Figure 5 presents multiple indicators of media independence and information quality.
Figure 5: Media Independence Indicators
Press Freedom Index - United States (Reporters Without Borders):
2016: Rank 41/180 countries
2018: Rank 45/180
2020: Rank 45/180
2022: Rank 42/180
2024: Rank 55/180
Media Trust by Partisan Affiliation (2024):
Republicans: 18%
Democrats: 54%
Independents: 31%
Overall: 34%
Information Source Fragmentation:
Shared Top News Sources (consumed by >20% of both parties): 2
Republican-only Sources: 8
Democrat-only Sources: 6
Historical Comparison:
Weimar Republic (~1930): Highly fragmented, party-controlled press
Contemporary Hungary: State capture of media outlets
Contemporary Poland: Public media politicization
While the United States has not experienced direct state capture of media outlets, press freedom rankings have declined, and partisan fragmentation of information sources has intensified.
The Varieties of Democracy project provides comprehensive longitudinal data on democratic quality. Figure 6 presents key V-Dem indicators for the United States.
Figure 6: V-Dem Democratic Indicators - United States (2000-2024)
Liberal Democracy Index (0-1 scale):
2000: 0.83
2010: 0.82
2016: 0.81
2020: 0.79
2024: 0.77
Electoral Democracy Index (0-1 scale):
2000: 0.86
2010: 0.85
2016: 0.84
2020: 0.81
2024: 0.79
Deliberative Component (0-1 scale):
2000: 0.79
2010: 0.76
2016: 0.71
2020: 0.65
2024: 0.62
Egalitarian Component (0-1 scale):
2000: 0.72
2010: 0.74
2016: 0.71
2020: 0.69
2024: 0.67
Participatory Component (0-1 scale):
2000: 0.68
2010: 0.69
2016: 0.70
2020: 0.71
2024: 0.69
[Multi-line graph showing trends across all components]
Comparative Rankings (2024):
Liberal Democracy: 29th of 179 countries
Electoral Democracy: 36th of 179 countries
Critical Threshold Analysis:
V-Dem research suggests scores below 0.60 indicate significant democratic stress
Current U.S. trajectory would reach 0.60 threshold by ~2032 if trends continue
V-Dem indicators show gradual but consistent decline across multiple dimensions of democratic quality, with deliberative democracy showing the steepest deterioration.
Examining the Weimar Republic's collapse provides insight into how democratic institutions can fail. Figure 7 presents a timeline of institutional breakdown indicators.
Figure 7: Weimar Republic Institutional Breakdown Timeline (1929-1933)
Political Polarization:
1929: Moderate coalition government functioning
1930: Grand coalition collapses, rise of extremist parties
1932: Nazi Party becomes largest party (37% vote share)
1933: Hitler appointed Chancellor
Violence and Intimidation:
1929: Sporadic political violence
1930: Increasing street fighting between paramilitaries
1932: >400 people killed in political violence
1933: Systematic suppression of opposition
Elite Accommodation:
1930: Conservative politicians begin considering extremist alliances
1932: Von Papen attempts to "tame" Hitler through coalition
1933: Conservative elites enable Hitler's appointment
Constitutional Manipulation:
1930: Increased use of emergency decrees
1932: Article 48 used to bypass parliament
1933: Enabling Act suspends constitutional protections
Media and Civil Society:
1930: Press freedom begins to erode
1932: Opposition newspapers face harassment
1933: Independent media systematically eliminated
Figure 8 compares current U.S. indicators to Weimar patterns, while acknowledging important contextual differences.
Figure 8: Pattern Comparison - Weimar Republic vs. Contemporary U.S.
Indicator Comparison (Severity Scale 1-10):
Political Polarization:
Weimar 1932: 9
U.S. 2024: 6
Elite Accommodation of Extremism:
Weimar 1932: 8
U.S. 2024: 4
Violence and Intimidation:
Weimar 1932: 9
U.S. 2024: 3
Constitutional Manipulation:
Weimar 1932: 8
U.S. 2024: 3
Media Independence:
Weimar 1932: 3 (severely compromised)
U.S. 2024: 6
Economic Crisis:
Weimar 1932: 9
U.S. 2024: 4
International Context:
Weimar 1932: 8 (hostile environment)
U.S. 2024: 5
[Radar chart comparing patterns across dimensions]
Key Differences:
- U.S. has stronger institutional checks and balances
- Federal system provides multiple power centers
- Civil society remains robust and independent
- Military maintains apolitical tradition
- Economic conditions, while strained, not catastrophic
While some concerning patterns exist, the United States exhibits significantly lower stress levels across most dimensions compared to Weimar Germany in its final years.
Figure 9 assesses the strength of key institutional safeguards in the United States.
Figure 9: Institutional Resilience Assessment (2024)
Judicial Independence:
Federal Courts: 7/10 (strong but under pressure)
State Courts: 6/10 (variable across states)
Supreme Court: 5/10 (legitimacy concerns but institutional integrity intact)
Federalism:
State-Level Checks: 8/10 (robust state governments provide alternative power centers)
Local Government: 7/10 (municipal authorities maintain independence)
Civil Service:
Administrative State: 6/10 (professional but facing politicization pressure)
Law Enforcement: 5/10 (maintaining institutional integrity but polarized public trust)
Legislative Branch:
Congressional Oversight: 4/10 (weakened by polarization)
Committee System: 5/10 (functioning but partisan)
Electoral Systems:
Decentralized Administration: 7/10 (state control complicates manipulation)
Multiple Safeguards: 6/10 (courts, procedures, oversight)
[Bar chart showing resilience scores across institutions]
Federalism and decentralized electoral administration emerge as particularly important resilience mechanisms, making systemic manipulation more difficult than in unitary systems.
Figure 10: Civil Society Strength Indicators (2024)
Civic Participation:
Voter Turnout: 8/10 (historically high)
Protest Participation: 7/10 (high but polarized)
Voluntary Association Membership: 5/10 (declining long-term trend)
Media Landscape:
Independent Media: 6/10 (fragmented but diverse)
Investigative Journalism: 7/10 (strong tradition persisting)
Information Plurality: 5/10 (high fragmentation)
Academic Freedom:
Universities: 6/10 (strong but facing pressures)
Research Independence: 7/10 (generally maintained)
Legal Profession:
Bar Independence: 8/10 (strong professional norms)
Rule of Law Culture: 7/10 (strained but intact)
[Stacked bar chart showing civil society strength across domains]
Civil society remains relatively robust, though long-term trends in social capital and institutional trust present concerns.
Figure 11 places U.S. democratic stress in global context using Freedom House data.
Figure 11: Global Democratic Trends (2010-2024)
Countries by Freedom Status:
2010: Free: 87, Partly Free: 58, Not Free: 47
2024: Free: 83, Partly Free: 56, Not Free: 57
Regional Comparison - Liberal Democracies in Stress:
United States: Moderate stress
Hungary: High stress
Poland: Moderate stress
India: High stress
Brazil: Moderate stress
Turkey: Severe stress
Democratic Backsliding Cases (2010-2024):
Venezuela: Complete breakdown
Turkey: Severe backsliding
Hungary: Significant backsliding
Poland: Moderate backsliding
India: Moderate backsliding
United States: Early warning signs
[World map showing democratic health by country with trend indicators]
The United States exhibits warning signs consistent with early-stage democratic stress but remains far from the severe backsliding observed in other cases.
Figure 12: Factors Associated with Democratic Resilience
Economic Development:
GDP per capita correlation with democratic stability: r = 0.67
U.S. economic development: Very high (protective factor)
Educational Attainment:
Higher education rates and democratic resilience: r = 0.58
U.S. education levels: High (protective factor)
Civil Society Density:
NGO density and democratic survival: r = 0.53
U.S. civil society: Moderate-high (somewhat protective)
Historical Experience:
Years of continuous democracy: Strong predictor of stability
U.S. democratic experience: 235+ years (highly protective)
Ethnic Fractionalization:
High diversity can strain democracy but U.S. has managed diversity historically
U.S. diversity management: Mixed but historically successful
[Scatter plot showing relationships between protective factors and democratic stability]
The United States benefits from several factors historically associated with democratic resilience, though none guarantee immunity from breakdown.
Our analysis reveals that the United States exhibits several indicators of democratic stress consistent with early-stage institutional strain. However, the patterns differ significantly from historical cases of complete democratic breakdown in several crucial respects:
Gradual vs. Acute Stress: Unlike Weimar Germany, which faced acute economic collapse and violent political conflict, U.S. democratic stress manifests more gradually through norm erosion and polarization.
Institutional Resilience: American federal institutions demonstrate greater resistance to manipulation than unitary systems, making rapid capture more difficult.
Civil Society Robustness: Despite declining social trust, American civil society remains diverse and independent, contrasting with societies where democratic breakdown occurred.
Economic Stability: While economic inequality has increased, the United States has not experienced the catastrophic economic collapse that preceded many historical breakdowns.
Elite accommodation of anti-democratic forces played a crucial role in Weimar's collapse. Conservative politicians' decision to collaborate with extremist parties, believing they could control and use them, proved catastrophic. Contemporary analysis suggests that while elite polarization has increased significantly in the United States, most mainstream politicians continue to operate within democratic norms, even if those norms have weakened.
However, the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack represents a concerning precedent of political violence directed at core democratic processes. The institutional response—including law enforcement action, congressional investigation, and judicial proceedings—demonstrated institutional resilience but also revealed vulnerabilities in democratic procedures.
The fragmentation of information environments represents a novel challenge not present during historical cases of democratic breakdown. While Weimar Germany had partisan newspapers, contemporary social media creates opportunities for misinformation and conspiracy theories to spread more rapidly and widely than ever before.
This information fragmentation may contribute to what we term "parallel reality syndrome"—where different political groups operate with fundamentally incompatible understandings of basic facts. This phenomenon complicates democratic deliberation and compromise.
The American federal system provides important safeguards against democratic breakdown that were absent in Weimar Germany's unitary system. Multiple levels of government create additional checks and balances, making it more difficult for any single group to capture all levers of power simultaneously.
However, federalism also creates opportunities for democratic erosion at sub-national levels, as evidenced by varying electoral practices and civil rights protections across states.
Based on our analysis, we recommend developing more sophisticated early warning systems for democratic stress that incorporate:
Several institutional reforms could enhance democratic resilience:
Strengthening civil society represents a crucial component of democratic resilience:
Democratic stress represents a global phenomenon requiring coordinated responses:
Several limitations affect our analysis:
This analysis suggests several important research directions:
This comprehensive analysis reveals that the United States exhibits several concerning indicators of democratic stress while retaining important resilience mechanisms that distinguish it from historical cases of democratic breakdown. The gradual erosion of democratic norms, increasing political violence, and fragmentation of information environments warrant serious attention from scholars, practitioners, and citizens committed to democratic preservation.
However, our findings also suggest reasons for cautious optimism. American democratic institutions have demonstrated resilience in the face of significant stress. The federal system provides multiple safeguards against institutional capture. Civil society remains robust and diverse. Most importantly, Americans continue to participate in democratic processes at historically high levels, suggesting that the foundation of democratic legitimacy—citizen engagement—remains intact.
The challenge for the coming decade is whether American democracy can strengthen its resilience mechanisms while addressing the underlying sources of political stress. This requires moving beyond partisan conflict toward evidence-based analysis of institutional health and citizen-centered approaches to democratic renewal.
The lessons from historical cases of democratic breakdown are clear: democracies do not collapse overnight, but through gradual erosion of norms, institutions, and civic culture. Recognition of warning signs, combined with proactive institutional strengthening and civic engagement, represents the best hope for preserving democratic governance in an era of global democratic stress.
The stakes could not be higher. As the world's oldest continuous democracy, the United States bears special responsibility not only for its own democratic health but for modeling democratic resilience globally. The choices made by American institutions, elites, and citizens in the coming years will reverberate far beyond national borders, influencing the global trajectory of democratic governance.
Our analysis suggests that while American democracy faces genuine stress, it retains the capacity for renewal and strengthening. Realizing this capacity requires sustained commitment from all sectors of society to the hard work of democratic citizenship, institutional reform, and civic engagement. The alternative—continuing down the path of norm erosion and institutional degradation—leads to outcomes that history has shown to be both tragic and avoidable.
Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5-19.
Coppedge, M., et al. (2024). V-Dem Country-Year Dataset v14. Varieties of Democracy Project.
Diamond, L. (2015). Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141-155.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024). Domestic terrorism data and trends. National Security Branch.
Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024: The annual survey of political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House Press.
Fritz Stern Research Center. (2023). Weimar Republic institutional breakdown patterns: A quantitative analysis. Historical Democracy Project.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown Publishing.
Norris, P., Frank, R. W., & Martínez i Coma, F. (2024). Electoral Integrity Project Dataset. Harvard Kennedy School.
Pew Research Center. (2024). Americans' views of government: Decades of distrust, enduring support for its role. Pew Research Center.
Polity IV Project. (2024). Political regime characteristics and transitions dataset. Center for Systemic Peace.
Reporters Without Borders. (2024). 2024 World Press Freedom Index. RSF Press.
Author Affiliations: [Institutional Details]
Correspondence: [Contact Information]
Acknowledgments: The authors thank [individuals/institutions] for research support and feedback.
Funding: [Funding sources and grant numbers]
Data Availability: Replication materials available at [repository location]
Conflict of Interest: Authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Category: View more in this category