Almost a decade ago, I would have wagered my entire wealth on the defeat of candidate Donald Trump in the primaries of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. My premises were clear: presidential elections should be contests among politicians, of which the U.S. has an abundance, making it unlikely for an outsider to succeed; Americans are well-educated, mature citizens unlikely to elect a non-politician; and Trump’s provocative personality would deter the majority from voting for him. I was proven wrong, but this lesson led me to anticipate his victory in the 2024 elections after reevaluating my premises.
My understanding of American intellect has made me overlook a significant portion of society that prioritizes personality over substance, favoring a strong, assertive persona instead of a competent candidate. Elections blend many factors influencing citizens’ decision-making, with power being a major element in American life. Trump’s political incompetence was overshadowed by his ability to manipulate power, convincing over fifty percent of the population to support him—a quality clearly lacking in his 2024 challenger. For Republicans, the victory was cause for celebration — even if it happened by an “insurgent power manipulation.”
While politics revolves around power, democracy was conceived to constrain it and to enable its lawful and moral exercise. The primary challenge for the U.S. is determining how citizens and their leaders can wield power constructively and ethically within a democratic framework. Current polarization in the U.S. isn’t merely a divide between Republicans and Democrats; it encompasses a myriad of issues and policies on both sides, such as abortion, gender identity, and immigration. The underlying struggle remains the interaction between democracy and power that shapes their mindsets.
American society, perhaps like many others, exists in two parallel realities. One ideal reflects a belief in a nation that genuinely upholds liberal democratic values, supported by a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. In contrast, a significant segment of society downscales this notion, accepting that the United States is fundamentally a nation of power—one that should be guided by the realities of its superpower status, often involving elements of violence in its policies, including leadership selection that Trump threatened during the election process.
It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership failed to present a “powerful” presidential candidate in 2024 or effectively engage its base in the democratic process of candidate nomination. This deficiency has reinforced Trump as the strongman that many believe the U.S. needs. Recent polls show that most voters think Trump is pushing the limits of his constitutional authority, yet the nation must accept that his return to power came through a democratic process.
Ultimately, I realized that the American intellect that has shaped my understanding of the U.S. for decades isn’t purely fact-driven; it tends to twist facts depending on the media outlet or institution, which often highlights issues in ways that align with what they define as their “corporate mission” at the expense of true democracy. This mechanism is supported by a multitude of influential writers and podcasters who shape societal thoughts and behaviors. This troubling phenomenon has been countered by social media, which offers alternative, often unaccountable, views that may be entertaining but lack substantiation.
Regrettably, freedom of expression is widely accepted even when if entails provocation or incendiary that significantly contributes to escalating violence in the United States. The average gun ownership rate, estimated at 120 firearms for every 100 people—the highest in the world—amplifies personal power and can easily incite violent actions during conflicts. A small fraction of enraged citizens can commit crimes fueled by personal firearms, exemplified by incidents like the assassination of Charles Kirk. The prevalence of guns among citizens bolsters the phenomenon of a power-driven presidency and society.
Trump is, in fact, a byproduct of American citizens’ overvaluation of power at the expense of democracy. Although he promised to avoid military conflict, politics is notorious for broken promises. Striking Iran and targeting suspected drug smugglers in international waters exemplifies illegal violence that nonetheless strengthens his power status among supporters. Meanwhile, the recent massive protests, part of the No Kings movement against Trump’s policies, represent a form of “soft democracy,” activity which may not resonate with the “power segment” of society. What the United States needs is a clear set of norms, policies, and public order to advance its democracy. This doesn’t imply transforming the nation into an autocracy but rather clarifying many grey areas, such as freedom of speech and incitement. The US military spending, which accounts for roughly 3.4% of GDP, is not intended to defend the nation against a specific enemy; rather, it aims to maintain superpower status in contrast to the unrealistic small budget used by previous administrations to promote democracy, reflecting the nation’s interests in both areas. In my view, the U.S. does not faithfully adhere to democratic principles; instead, power is the true driving force that reflects its nature.