What Has Happened, What Might Happen, and What Is Inevitable

One of the toughest challenges in scoring current political developments using our index is distinguishing between what has happened, what might happen, and what seems inevitable. While it might seem like those are very different thing, in practice, the divisions are not so clear.

Take the Supreme Court, for example. Many legal observers interpret the Court's recent actions as the Court using civil procedure in extraordinary ways to permit unlawful actions by the Trump administration,¹ even as the Court says that the core principles of constitutional law still apply. With a supermajority of justices philosophically aligned with Trump, and most appointed by him, these legal observers argue the Court has already abandoned its constitutional role as a check on executive power.² For example, the president's refusal to attempt to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia³ after a unanimous Supreme Court ordered him to⁴ means the judiciary has already failed in its essential role as a check and balance on executive power. On the other hand, that statement may be premature, given that SCOTUS continues to hear cases, occasionally rules against the administration, and formally affirms the doctrine of judicial review. Putting this in the language of our rubric for the Erosion of Democratic Institutions & Rule of Law, is it the case that the Supreme Court might be "co-opted, sidelined, or forced into rubber-stamping," or is it the case that the Supreme Court has been "co-opted, sidelined, or forced into rubber-stamping?"

In our scoring, we have opted for a cautious approach: we do not yet classify the judiciary—or Congress for that matter—as fully compromised. Nevertheless, we recognize that those who argue both branches have already lost their independent power are making serious, evidence-based arguments. On this question, distinguishing between what has happened and what might happen remains deeply contested.

A related difficulty arises when trying to distinguish between what might happen and what is now inevitable. Consider the 2028 presidential election. Trump has been unambiguous in asserting that the Vice President has the authority to choose between competing slates of state electors,⁵ effectively determining which votes count in the Electoral College. He has also repeatedly claimed without evidence that the results of the 2020 election were corrupt and should not have been accepted.⁶ Does this rhetoric—and Vice President Vance's agreement⁷—mean the United States has already lost the ability to hold a free and fair presidential election? Institutionally, it appears so. On the other hand, 2028 is still a long way off and saying anything about the 2028 election at this point is little more than a guess.

We all know there is no "crystal ball" that can tell us what will happen next. But we should also keep in mind that it is almost as difficult to tell what is actually happening right now. According to the facts we have at hand, there is no sure way to settle the arguments that we are (1) experiencing the normal swing back and forth between liberalism and conservatism, (2) experiencing a severely declining democracy, or even that (3) our democracy is already lost. It is our hope that the Threat to Democracy Index can at least provide some help in deciding which of those is the most likely.

What Has Happened, What Might Happen, and What Is Inevitable

Recent Posts

Kommentare