Problems associated with voting access have only deteriorated further between 2015 and today, as well as all the problems associated with the Trump administration's descent into authoritarianism.
President Trump has systematically demolished many of the democratic safeguards that were in place
Trump administration is refusing to follow the norms of democracy and the Senate generally lets the administration do that.
The DOJ today has become significantly politicized, targeting political opponents and intervening on behalf of political allies. There are major differences in what constitutes the factual basis for policy action between political parties.
This was actually very close to the previous policy regarding international students and online credits, though enforcing it during a pandemic is unusual.
Today: increased partisanship, Republican gerrymandering on steroids, a self-serving and wannabe authoritarian president.  Fortunately, all of this is largely offset by a still-robust institutions, including the courts.  The rule of law remains strong, and elections are free and fair.
It's not more important because it is an absurd claim that isn't going anywhere.
Clinton was thwarted, and ordinary people, outside of the coastal zones of elite influence, effectively dashed the presumptions of the liberal clerisy.
One riot...one ranger. That's the better way.
The original case against him collapsed.
Silly bluster from the bully pulpit is an American tradition.
Assertive nationalism is healthy, once in a while.
Everyone has forgotten about it...except you.
Voter suppression efforts and misinformation campaigns remain widespread.
This is the action of a man with no scruples.
This is the Trump administration placing economic considerations above public health concerns because it serves his electoral interests.
This is the president using the pandemic to forward his political agenda.
The president, again, placing his electoral interests above public health.
This is partisan nonsense from an individual who lacks decency.
This is an ideological difference. Republicans are pro-business and see regulations as harming the economy.
This is the Trump administration trying to force the hand of university leaders to open their campuses during a pandemic.
Impact of electoral rules on (foreign) policy.
1.  The executive branch today consistently attacks the legitimacy of an independent judiciary for decisions it dislikes. 2.  President Trump has used federal law enforcement to suppress domestic protest. 3.  Executive branch officials and their political friends are not consistently held accountable for illegal actions. 4.  President Trump seeks to criminalize his political opponents. 5.  The Republican party has undermined electoral competition to a degree that makes it looks increasingly like an anti-system party with little commitment to constitutional democratic processes.
... suggests that the President's political friends are exempt for duty to obey the law.
This indicates that the President will retaliate against career officials and professionals who seek to hold him accountable for actions that may be illegal.
Because Flynn had both pleaded guilty and been convicted, this action signifies the full-blown politicization of the Justice Department.   It is at least as threatening to lawful government as the commutation of Roger Stone's sentence.
It's hardly unusual for individual Americans to favor their own identity group.   And there have been many cases of influential politicians advocating various forms of racial hierarchy and separation.   But it is profoundly unusual in the country's post-1865 history for a President as the country's single highest leader to reinforce identity-driven politics for the majority racial group.
Needless use of force against peaceful protest violates constitutional provisions that guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Very unusual for the country's chief executive officer to encourage militant protest against subnational officials whom he dislikes.  This action came close to encouraging violence against the President's political enemies.
Important because it's part of this President's concerted campaign to undermine trust in recognized scientific authorities.   Such recognition is not a formal or legally required feature of democracy, but a critical norm or convention for reason-based decision making.
No.   It seems clear.   Thanks for doing it.
Some deterioration in judicial independence and willingness to check the executive branch
Risky for all concerned and politically motivated
Stone is disgraced, guilty, but also a relatively harmless oddball.  The reason I rated it semi-important is that he could have been involved in a quid pro quo not to implicate Trump, but that wouldn't have gone anywhere anyway.
Not in principle abnormal but obviously opportunistic given Trump's agenda.
He prattles on about everything, so why not this?
Important regulatory activity by the executive, for good or ill
In 2015 we did not see executive officials undermining democratic institutions like we see today.
This type of thing we would normally see in an economic crisis.
Robust congressional oversight in 2015, executive rejection of oversight today. Judicial independence threatened today. Today, voter suppression (approved by fed courts) and govt manipulation of information.
This is important to degree that the Navy command was acting to please Trump.
Except for what this reveals about Trump, this is trivial.
Trump spews threats that he has no authority to enact.
Pres.. Trump assiduously undermines institutions and legality.
It is within normal executive authority but bad policy.
Violates fair play expectations and “important” because it signals a ramping up of anti-immigration policy.
Decline because of more pervasive gerrymandering and increasingly uncontrolled executive authority
In 2015, citizens were not equal under the law and the law was not equally enforced. Corporate lobbying and money unduly influenced politics, gerrymandering was rampant, political corruption existed, However, the President understood and respected the Constitution. The Justice Department and the Attorney General were devoted to serving the citizens of the US and not the political ambitions of the President, enabling him to put himself and his enablers above the law.  The President did not unconstitutionally order federal military troops to invade and create chaos in US cities.  The President did not use his office for personal economic gain.  The checks and balances of the Constitution seemed to be working at least in supporting the illusion that Congress and the Courts could check executive power.  The passage of the Affordable Care Act was a step towards making US citizens more equal.  The movement towards making the country more democratic had at least a bit of forward movement.    Today, the US continues to be even more in the hands of concentrated corporate and individual wealth.  The Congress has been unable to impeach a President who has violated one lsw and democratic institutional norm after another, using the media to promote division and hatred.  The President has whittled away at the constitutional  checks  on executive power by "capturing" the Justice Department with his personal  enabler, William Barr, by firing any of his aides that offer oppostion or criticism, by firing most Inspector Generals of executive departments, put in place to identify and rectify wrongdoing.   It may be that by Nov 3, the US will find itself with a ranking of zero  on democracy if the President loses the election and refuses to leave office, mobilizing militarized troops to  arbitarily arrest citizens and move the country into an authoritarian dictatorship.  My ranking for democracy today is not zero because there are new signs of democracy in the citizen protests against r
I never have heard of any other President doing such a thing.
How normal is it for Presidents to engage in impeachable acts?  How normal is it for anyone to "blow the whistle"  on such acts.  I would say that it is more normal for Presidents to engage in impeachable acts than it is for whistle blowers to report them.
This is an abnormal campaigning tactic in an abnormal time.
Nothing is normal about the covid 19 virus.
Again, this is normal for Trump but abnormal for everyone else.
I do not like being asked to classify emergency acts as normal or abnormal.  The corona virus is not normal.  The response of the government to an emergency such as the corona virus is a normal response of the government to  emergencies such as hurricanes or floods,     Was the act one that was normal or abnormal for Trump in response to an emergency ?  Perhaps it was abnormal for Trump to sign the bill since he hasn't done much about other natural disasters such as Puerto Rica.
I really found that the "what's normal" part of this survey was not a good question. It could be interpreted in too many ways.  It is good that you had a space for comments.
In 2015, the president (Obama) was not engaging in afactual statements on an almost daily basis. He wasn't attacking other institutions.  Today, President Trump is attacking his own government, issuing falsehoods, attacking journalists individually and the institution of the media.  He is alleging massive election fraud, weakening our faith in democracy itself.
General crackdowns on free speech / expression -- the current situation with paramilitary breaking up protests. More regressive (slightly) on immigration. Slightly increased advantage for Republicans wrto representation and electoral college. Trump preemptively questioning legitimacy of 2020 election.
Voter participation was encouraged and expanded in 2015, governmental branches respected each other's legitimacy.  Neither is present now.
The Justice Department is supposed to operate without direct influence from the President.
People's lives are at stake.  No other President has advocated completely ignoring public health experts like this.
He would have likely done this without COVID, but with the crisis, he takes less heat for this since it discourages travel to the US.
The military has its own practices, but preserving human life ought to be an exception to them.
It is somehow meant to be a campaign technique.  Unfortunately, we've seen the same or worse...
If education was largely federally funded, it would matter.  That is not the case however.
It's arbitrary policy, but could be seen as related to COVID only if its effect was not immediate.  They withdrew this policy because it would have created more chaos than it "solved" with COVID.
Less democratic systems were already in place 5 years ago. Current chaos is the result. Trend is downward.
"Mostly Important" is an ambiguous characterization that could be interpreted as being more important than "important." (i.e. "Very important.") That does not appear to be the intent from the context in the choices, but can be confusing.   The survey seems to be steering the participant to the conclusion that the country is less democratic under Trump and that democracy is under grave threat. I believe that conclusion sadly to be true, but I am not sure how neutral the survey is.
Obama administration enhanced democracy. Trump administration degraded democracy.
Person, man, woman, camera, TV. Nothing compares with a stable genius.
Issues with gerrymandering, voting rights, and lack of legislative oversight limited US democracy in 2015. Those are all still present, with the addition of unaccountable federal security forces snatching people off the streets without due process, a shrinking of space for public protest, legislative paralysis, and a partisan divide over the validity basic, verifiable empirical facts.
Security studies and Chinese foreign policy
Downgrade largely on grounds of presidential obstruction of justice (aided by allied Dept of Justice) and violation of emoluments clause
This is a fundamental rule of law problem IF we define the "deployment" to include those officers' own illegal behavior, as I've done here.
The general threat to federalism, and the specific threat to electoral integrity, combine for this rating.
President *does* have the legal authority to fire such executive branch officers. But the norm is not to do so -- and "norms" in the very name normalize certain behavior!
Again, the "bully pulpit" is normal - it's the self-destructive (politically) and more broadly destructive (to people who listened to his advice and now have COVID) part that makes it important.
Presidents have long hated the 'media,' in whatever form. Following through on this threat would make it rise in importance.
Proving one's unfitness is not unique in presidential behavior but usually not voluntary
Again, a bully pulpit put to pathetic use.
Normal in its "administrative state"-ness -- important in its self-destructiveness. Stupid policy, though, doesn't make something 'abnormal.'
Executive abuse of power has increased, gerrymandering is worse.
The Trump administration is eroding institutional checks and balances of all types, and voter suppression measures are strengthening on the part of states
Politically motivated persecution; calling opponents & press outlets traitorous; systematic vote suppression in several states
The Trump Administration's systematic disdain for liberal democratic principles.
Over this period, significant democratic norms were eroded including state attacks on free speech and the press. Honestly, I've run out of ways to describe the democratic norms that have been compromised during the Trump administration, and it's exhausting even to contemplate.
The flaws in our Democratic system are structural.  Therefore, there are significant constraints on what can be done to make the situation better and, by the same token, worse.
It depends, I suppose, on what the deployment is for.
Did you know that the Clinton Administration fired Linda Tripp on its last day in office?  This kind of retaliation is not unheard of.
The president of the United States is actually encouraging violence against its citizens.  I can't think of a president who has stooped that low.
What is to be gained?  Trump is wrong on the science.  But even that would be understandable if he weren't so wrong on the tactics.
More important as an indication of how little Trump knows about American government.
Goya will now learn why it is better for certain types of business to stay out of politics.
The times are abnormal, but Congress' response was more or less in line with their responses in the past to crises.
They're probably not going to get away with it.
The checks and balances set up via the constitution continues to work reasonably well (in terms of checking authority on different branches). Corruption during these times is quite low, despite a few 'bad apples' in government. The survey doesn't ask about Courts which would be an important factor to include in future surveys judging democracy-levels.
Many countries have limited travel and immigration during the pandemic. The issue is whether of not the temporary suspension is made long-term.
The military seems to be very inflexible about chain of command.
The bureaucracy is the purview of the president; while people may disagree with policy preferences, this is largely a role of the executive. Congress has the authority to check the president on this
Political opponents and media are now being treated as enemies of the state by the president and a nontrivial segment of the citizenry. Federal agents are arresting people without cause. The definition of who's considered American is shrinking.
Russian & East European politics, nationalism, authoritarianism
2015: Would have been higher, but the 2013 SCOTUS decision to rescind elements of the Voting Rights Act makes me put it lower. Still, most elements of democracy were in place: freedom of press, government didn't use authority to conduct false attacks on political opponents.  Today: Along with the Voting Rights Act limitations discussed above, all of the other concerns are now present: Targeting of political enemies using government authority, threats to press independence, demonization of political opponents and claims that they are enemies of the people or state.
Under the current administration, there has been significant backsliding on some fundamental principles of democracy. While I believe that the U.S. has mostly become more democratic over time, currently the country is trending less democratic due to factors such as the executive branch being use for personal financial gain, violent crackdowns on protests by federal agencies, etc.
We've declined on standards under the Trump Administration. The erosion of democratic norms has accelerated under his presidency.
Attacks on civil servants is extreme and undermines neutral competency and whistleblower protections.
Violation of US constitution and international law. Dictator like behavior
Blatant xenophobia. Also destructive of institutions of higher ed institutions for political purposes
Usurpation of imagery for personal aggrandizement and overtly political purposes that divides rather than unifies is unprecedented.
There's no real difference between 5 years ago and today, at least not yet. There are threats and worries, legitimate ones, but key aspects of democracy still being followed.
President undermining legitimacy of elections. Extremely worrying.
Trump is systematically attacking post-Watergate limits on executive power.
What leaders do matters. Open support of racism like this gives license to followers to act this way.
Again, rhetoric matters, and this is the president encouraging violence.
Murky story, unclear why he was really demoted. Reviews are happening.
There's a reason "treason" is defined in the Constitution. The ability to label (and potentially try and convict) one's political opponents as treasonous is antithetical to an effective democracy.
The legislative process basically worked and was able to pass an extremely important bill that made a difference in millions of people's lives (despite aspects of it I didn't like).
Possible long-term consequences, but not hugely out of bounds from what one would normally expect from a Republican administration
18 year-olds have the right to vote.  Most of the important civil rights and voting rights legislation was in place. The government checked itself through a bicameral legislature and judiciary.
This instrument is too focused on the President.  There should be more questions about Congress and the courts.
My expertise is not in American politics, so I cannot make assessments about historical periods with confidence.
Biggest changes were about suffrage expansion, but also clearly abolition of slavery and extensions of legal rights.
Although President Trump has violated many norms of executive behavior and of ordinary decency, I think most of the damage to US democracy had been done before his election, in the form of the influence of money over elections and policy, and in the form of foreign influence on our elections and policy, partly via social media but also via illegal donation, strategic investment, and lobbying.
Trump using pardon power to protect himself and his cronies from the consequences of their illegal and unconstitutional conduct. Commuting the sentence instead of pardoning was also designed to prevent us from ever hearing Stone testify--so it's self-protection by Trump, as well. Deep corruption.
Trump is setting up a narrative that will allow him to contest the election. He is also exposing people to COVID by making them wait in line to vote. That may backfire, though, as his elderly fans may be unwilling to vote in person.
This is a dangerous co-opting of the independent status of the DOJ
Excessive use of force in crowd-control isn't new, but using it for such an obvious photo-op for the President is new. It may have turned a few people against him, so semi-important for the election.
Language unbecoming of a President, and encouraging of violence.
May turn off a few voters. Displays is complete self-centeredness.
Not a serious threat but, again, an appeal to an already-solidified base
Obama remains popular, and most who'd believe Trump's accusations probably hated Obama anyway.
Republicans have been terrible on climate change since well before Trump. Auto industry world-wide will compete on efficiency whether the US mandates it or not. Deregulation of pollution will be reversed, and in many cases firms won't take advantage of it because they anticipate that and don't want to invest in technologies that will be outdated very soon.
US lost points over the last years because of violations of emoluments clause, poll taxes in Florida, gerrymandering in North Carolina and elsewhere, state legislatures stripping power from governors when party switched (eg North Carolina, Wisconsin, Kentucky), use of federal agents against protesters, degradation of the VRA, police violence against people of color, and more. Some democratic institutions remain intact.
Not so important because he lacks institutional power to do so (at this time). Just another empty threat.
In the past four years, we have seen serious erosion of press freedom, rising corruption that has been unchecked, increased efforts to make it more difficult to vote, an expansion of executive power, constitutional crises where the executive has rejected legitimate requests by the legislative branch, and even suggestions that a peaceful transition of power may not happen in 2016. I am not confident that the United States is still fully democratic.
The use of CBP to engage in non-immigration policing is incredibly problematic. It is troubling that the executive branch is deploying effectively a paramilitary force against the will of local and state government.
This is extremely worrying and likely evidence of cronyism and corruption.
I believe the President is exempt from the Hatch Act. But he still should not be endorsing products from the Oval Office.
Money fixes outcomes Lack of alternatives in two-party system Gerrymandering MSM -- Lack of independent media with wide distribution
Disgraceful as well as counter productive -- politically inspired
Partisanship defines such actions as "abnormal" not what is actually done.
Russia Gate partisanship -- also a disgrace, with Flynn, as unsavory as he may be, a target of convenience
When is a tweet a tweet and not an aside?
Curious Trump-based emphasis. Anyone else worth comment?
Widespread repression of demonstrations by executive and unidentified military and police units arresting people
Degradation of institutions and norm by Trump and his supporters in Congress and the states
I tagged this as "mostly" important because, at least so far, DJT's comments on this issue seem more like bluster than serious intent
Of course, what he SAID was abnormal and important
policies of both Democratic and Republican parties, especially party in office
again-- corruption of all aspects of government in order to help re-election chances. Part of overall effort to make sure the democratic process of checks and balances, and ability to hold office holders accountable, is stifled.
key example of the corruption of POTUS and AG -- to contravene legal system to the singular interests of the individual in the White House.
Important because such bigotry is not only tolerated but encouraged by the President of the United States!
lack of interest in the welfare of others; no interest in actually governing only campaigning
Indiactor of the total psychological unfitness of an individual to be POTUS
total ignorance and violation of norms of democratic governance and campaigning
importance based on general policy of rolling back environmental protections for the monetary benefit of the few/large corporations. Bought government!
Low electoral participation; poor quality of information provided by much of the media; politicization of the media; partisan campaign to pack the courts; deployment of unidentified federal agents to cities to suppress dissent; partisan efforts to suppress electoral turnout.
Politicization of the military is a bad idea.
The erosion of executive branch accountability, encouraged by an environment where opponents are vilified as traitorous.
This is an outrage, but the president's pardon power is broad and other presidents have used it for questionable purposes (although seldom so brazenly).
That making good on this threat still seems highly unlikely given legal and legislative challenges is encouraging about democracy.
Only the circumstances of the pandemic make this event newsworthy.
In 2015, the United States had a decent respect for rule of law and a government that was interested in advancing civil rights. Things were not perfect, but that fact was recognized and there was hope, if not momentum, behind correcting these lapses in justice and democracy.  Today, the United States is experiencing democratic backslide and our democracy is threatened in ways it has not faced in decades. The United States is as politically (and economically) unequal as it has been since the end of the Civil Rights Movement.
In 2015, Congress would check executive power, people could assemble and protest without a threat of physical harm by the government, the president did not use the office of the executive for personal monetary gain, the president did not criticize the press for negative coverage, experts and administrative professionals ran bureaucratic organizations. In 2020 however, none of this seems to be true.
I mean, there are armed officers occupying 6 blocks in Portland right now that don't seem to be protecting much of anything. In fact, they probably pose a greater threat to security than whatever supposed threat they were sent to neutralize.
Clearly some are beholden to the law and some aren't.
Usually you don't gas your people to take a picture of you holding a Bible.
Abnormal for sure, but not as bad given circumstances and other countries doing the same thing.
Blowing the whistle and watching out for those under your command seems pretty responsible to me.
Seems like a horrible idea, but not in the sense that it's a threat to democracy.
I feel like this would be normal under almost any other president, but it seems like Trump did it for the sake of racism and sticking it to people he doesn't like. So, in that sense, abnormal.
Since 2015, voter suppression (following he 2013 Shelby County vs Holder decision) has increased throughout the country in a number of ways. Likewise, government-based attacks on the press and other types of free expression have increased. Simultaneously, the government has increased its use of violence and other repressive methods to increasingly violate people's rights to assembly and association.
Because the US federal government tried to ensure voting; did not attack the press as "fake news" and respected the judiciary and Justice Dept.    We are an 80 now, but could become "60" or "70" if next election is disputed and further norms are broken.  Voter suppression is very strong possibility in this pandemic crisis
Again, another false policy claim.  It's important b/c it demonizes voting by mail which is needed in a pandemic
This is part of pattern of punishing those who don't support the administration. Some kind of retaliation is not unusual, so this one act is mostly unimportant. But larger pattern is important.
This was the clearest use of "secret" style police to clear a protest in recent history.  But the feds using police to break up strikes or other protests did occur in decades ago.  Is this a symbolic moment or more than that?  We don't know.
Presidents often limit US participation in UN and other organizations, esp. over family planning.  The motives here are cynical, not principled, so it is not normal in that sense.
Never has a modern president defied common-sense public health orders before.  When Wilson did it, there was not national public health infrastructure to contradict.  Public health was more fluid.  Very big impact in that segment of population has turned against key public health measures
just a tweet. He probably can't do this.  Trump's policy by tweet is abnormal
It's indicative of extreme polarization.  By itself, it's unimportant, given the flood of falsehoods that flow out from White House  But for presidents to criticize former presidents that way is highly unusual
Abnormal in that this is an emergency response to a crisis.  It's normal in that Congress has the power to do it.  It's critical to economic well-being.
President can try to undo regulations. Reagan did this in 1980s; GOP does this today.  It's "normal" politics is rule making procedures are properly followed.  It's hugely important for controlling CO2.
presidency, human rights, public service motivation
The problem in citing specific Trump acts is that the one act itself is foten not important, but the larger pattern is.  You all need to distinguish between a small act, a reckless policy Tweet, and the pattern of behavior, which cumulatively is very important
In the Trump era there has been a rise in partisanship, unjustified attacks on mainstream media, a decline in trust for expertise in government and many other fields and a literal assault on truth.  It has not been a good five years.  Now, I am fully aware that these opinions may, in part, be a product of the rise of partisanship and a polarization that involves both Trump's outrages and intense complaints from his critics.  It is hard to step back and away from these phenomena and make a full assessment of the factors you have included in your survey, but I do believe that history will judge our time one of the worst periods for our national democratic health.
We are still in the early stages of this crisis and it may pass (a reduction in the violent edges of protest), without excessive federal action and legal penalties and without too much lasting damage.  And maybe not.
The president appears to be engaged in a conscious effort to undermine faith in an electoral system that (at least today) looks like it will produce a loss for the incumbent.  This goes far beyond the normal political spin and excuse making heard from losing candidates and parties.  We are in new and dangerous territory.
Let's not normalize racism.  Let's not forget Charlottesville, the worst presidential statement of the Trump era (with the possible exception of Helsinki).
At least the president got close to a church.
There is so much abnormal behavior in the current presidency that these kinds of threats are, in some ways, perfectly normal for Donald Trump and written off by many observers.  There is danger in both of those understandable conclusions.
Some additional border control is necessary in a pandemic (thus the European ban on US travel), but like almost all Trump steps related to immigration this was excessive and defended in mean spirited rhetoric.
I understand bragging about LSAT scores, but the test they give to provide a diagnostic tool for determining dementia?
The scale of the bailout measures and the broad support they received are unusual and important.  These actions go against the grain of the way I have generally characterized the political landscape today.
Good luck with making sense from my answers and the others you receive.    Teachers of American government currently struggle with the fact that nothing their students have seen in the one presidency, and one national election cycle, they have witnessed in their late teenage/early adult lives is normal.  But it is all they know.  It is, in a sense, normal to them.
Because TODAY there is widespread and justified apprehension that the identity of the U.S. president who holds the presidency on 21 Jan 2021 may not be the individual who gets most popular support in the fall 2020 election for president.  Such apprehensions were not as widespread in 2015, though the possible "mis-firing" of the Electoral College was seen as a possibility in the Trump v. Clinton competition and indeed that is what happened.  Those 2015 concerns about the anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College still exist in 2020, along with the apprehension that Donald Trump will in one way or another resist/"overturn" the outcome of the November election.
public policy, state and local govt, presidential nominating process
Yes.  It is moderately interesting, but the "normal/abnormal" and especially "importance" questions don't make clear whether they are asked in the context of U.S. DEMOCRACY or U.S. GOVERNMENT/GOVERNING.  And the tweet questions could all be answered as highly abnormal BECAUSE tweeting by a president in recent years.   My point is that those questions might generate more useful answers if they provided some  context.
I am not willing to judge the historical democraticness of the US. I remember, as an undergrad who was raised in another (democratic) country, that my professors in US government classes would crow about how democratic the US was. I never really shared that perspective. Voter turnout was poor even then. The need to register to vote seemed a ridiculous barrier for someone who grew up in a place where voters were automatically registered. The FPTP system seemed problematic as well. And any challenges to the SMD/FPTP system were dismissed as :"unAmerican." How delusional! No wonder we ended up in our current mess.
Again, evidence of how thoroughly corrupt this president is.
Again, this clown pretending to be president does not understand the first thing about democratic governance and acts like a banana republic dictator.
This shows that the system treats individuals in decidedly unequal ways. This is not acceptable in a democracy that presumes that all human beings are equal before the law.
Again, this show a dangerous slide into dictatorship.
This "president" is a would-be dictator. Unfit for office and does not understand the fundamentals of democracy.
The captain took responsibility for his crew. He is an example of a decent person making the right decision.
Again, a slide into dictatorship. The man is a traitor to the American system.
The package was really not targeted well and ended up benefiting those who did not need it, while leaving working people to fend for themselves. It aggravated inequality. That's bad.
This will hasten the decline of the US and its educational system. The US educational system has long been deeply problematic and relied on "importing" talent from the rest of the world to remain competitive. This decision will make international students decide to go elsewhere, to the detriment of the US.
Weird survey. But thanks for giving me an opportunity to vent about my displeasure and deep worry about this awful administration, filed with incompetent and corrupt individuals.
There are a few key events that signal a decline in the quality of American democracy since 2015. These include the demonization of the media and challenges to press freedom, violence against peaceful protesters, and the pardoning of Roger Stone.
US federal and many state governments are actively working to impede citizen access to voting and have undone the institutions that supported free & fair elections.
the legal right to pardon friends is part of the president's authority. It is obviously counter to the rule of law but is for some reason treated as legitimate in the US.
incoherent bluster is on-brand for this president.
everyone knows the president is an inflammatory doofus.
obvious corruption of public office for personal political gain
preventing immigration is a goal of this White House
Constitutional checks and balances seem more fragile.  Congress particularly isn't protecting its institutional powers of the purse and isn't holding the executive branch accountable for potential violations of the law or Constitution.  The courts have limited Congressional power to get information from the executive branch.  The independence of the Justice Department and its investigations seems threatened.  Information from government agencies concerning the coronavirus and climate change seem subject to political influence.  Election security seems tenuous, and access to the ballot is also facing some threats.
If state officials were requesting this, it would be more normal.  If the agents were more clearly limited in the scope of their activities, it might be less concerning.  But their ability to arrest or detain people without probable cause and without identifying which agency they are from is a serious constitutional problem.
Promoting division is problematic for a president.  Lack of awareness of history is a problem for a president.
The historical context of that phrase is troubling.  Even apart from that, it suggests a disproportionate response to looting.
Partisan behavior in the context of public health threats is problematic.  Encouraging opening within the guidelines of the CDC or health experts would be normal.
It doesn't change or influence his actions or people's opinions of him.
Presidents do often threaten funding to pressure others into doing what they want.
While no action will come of it, such accusations do increase divisions and heated rhetoric, which makes governing across parties more challenging.
American Institutions, Congress, President, media
Changes are due to the abuse of power by Donald Trump
I think this question should have been framed differently. The issue surrounding the event was not that it was a speech at Mnt Rushmore, but that it was conducted during a pandemic. In that sense- the event, to me, was mostly abnormal and important
Looking forward to the results. I've been following and find your analysis insightful and educational for the public.
Shelby County v. Holder made it lower in 2015 than in 2005.  It's lower today due to that PLUS lack of common basis in fact, gov't intimidation in Portland & elsewhere, President tweeting that mail in voting is fraudulent, FL attempts to undermine ex-felon franchise,
This may be the most important thing undermining our democracy that's occurred in the past month, with far too little attention paid to it.
Being relieved of his command was the strictest possible sanction, but he knew it was on the table when he sent his memo.  The penalty was mostly normal, the DoD's handling of the firing was highly abnormal.
Legislatures, state politics, executive-legislative relationships
The current president does not respect or uphold democratic institutions, norms, or customs. Since taking office, he has flouted constitutional limits on his powers; has used his office for personal and partisan gain; has attacked the independence of the judiciary and the value of a free press; and has lied repeatedly and extravagantly about matters big and small. To make matters worse, he has engaged in these and many other undemocratic practices with the approval and/or indifference of members of his own party in Congress and in the states. Recent assaults on peaceful protestors mark a very dark turn in already tenebrous times.
This, along with the attack on protesters in Lafayette Square, represents one of the most dangerous and alarming assaults on democracy in recent decades. The core First Amendment right of every American is threatened when peaceful protesters are kidnaped by anonymous government goons.
Sociopathic and malicious threats that literally put lives at risk. There is no democracy if the franchise cannot be safely and effectively exercised by ALL citizens.
More corruption from one of the most corrupt administrations in US history.
This is reckless to the highest degree, but it does not represent an assault o democracy in the way many other policies and statements by this president have. However, the refusal to engage in calm and rational deliberation over social distancing, mask wearing, etc. does erode democracy over time.
This would be a major, potentially catastrophic, scandal in any other administration, but the bar has been lowered so much and the public has become so dulled to Trump's duplicity, corruption, malfeasance, and overall incompetence that this dangerous assault on democracy has barely registered.
More bullying from a small man who only knows how to use force in response to disagreement.
Pathetic and unspecific accusation that probably reflects Trump's penchant for projection. That said, treason is the only crime specifically defined in the US Constitution, which defines it in very narrow terms and imposes strict evidentiary requirements. Even though Trump is guilty of numerous legal and moral crimes against the American people, he is probably not guilty of treason as it is defined in the US Constitution.
Terrible and malevolent policy, but it is not threatening to democracy in the way many other actions have been. Of course, these policies do not reflect the popular will, so there's that.
The performance was classic mean-spirited, small-minded Trump, but the affair itself does not threaten democracy in any serious way.
American political thought, emergency powers, rule of law
The current administration has behaved inimically to democracy in many ways, and the Citizens United ruling exacerbated the already serious problem of the influence of money on American politics and public policy.
Undermines the accountability of public officials
It would be more important if Trump had not already demonstrated that he's an ignorant blowhard.
In 2015, the public focused more on policy than personality and Congress exercised more checks on the President.
Since 2001, protections of states' authority under the fourth article and tenth amendment of the Constitution have been weakened.
US criticism of the UN and its agencies has been frequent since 1990 yet is unwise.
Trump's tweets to "liberate" states from public health measures were myopic, opportunistic, and dangerous.
It would be important if Trump followed through with action denying tax-exempt status.
This amount represents a significant increase in deficit spending.
The United States has mostly universal suffrage (except for a substantial group of disenfranchised felons), mostly free expression and media (with some corporate influence and localized repression), experiences peaceful transitions of power, has substantial constraints on executive authority (though polarization is interfering with the extent to which Congress can act on them), and is mostly free from corruption (with exceptions that are usually, but not always, punished). However, the trend from the high point of the late 1990s / early 2000s is downward because of increasing corporate influence in government, increasing use of violent government repression, extrajudicial punishment for non-citizens, an electoral system that substantially overweights some voters over others and dampens responsiveness, and apparent instances of corruption without consequence at the highest levels of government.
IGs are part of the system of oversight created by Congress in the wake of prior government scandals. If they can be removed for doing their jobs, that oversight disappears and corruption/abuse of power is enabled.
This suggests that the administration of justice has become directly subject to political loyalty, with DOJ becoming an instrument of the executive's political purposes. That threatens the separation of powers as well as the individual rights of citizens to equal justice under law.
Civilian control of the military is important, but it's also important that personal loyalty to politicians not be a factor in military decision-making to keep them out of politics.
Same as the Tulsa rally, albeit with a bit more encouragement of lawlessness.
The government is contradicting its own public health advice for political purposes, very visibly and with explicit reference to this contradiction being acceptable.
The personal loyalty of corporations to executives shouldn't be a factor in how we treat them. Nor should the government be explicitly marketing a company's products as payback for political support. If the Hatch Act applied to the President, it would also probably be illegal. It might be illegal anyway, if this is interpreted as a campaign contribution in return for a government favor.
Unfortunately, military careers at that level are political--though, not usually in this particular way. But is it abnormal for the admiralty to shank someone's career who's embarrassed them? I'm afraid not.
It's a huge, ad-hoc, very expensive program designed to respond to a crisis. It's not a threat to democracy, though.
It's only abnormal because he gave the speech during a pandemic and because of the content of the speech itself.
Hey, did we get him to pay for the wall, or what?
The current administration is working as quickly as possible, and explicitly, to pack the courts with conservatives, to position the current president to challenge the results of the 2020 elections, to enrich itself and its allies/cronies from the public purse, to oppress and suppress protest, to occupy large urban areas for no rational cause and against the protests of governors and mayors, and to release convicted felons from prison and relieve them of paying their retribution to society.  For a start.  Things weren't perfect in 2015, but that administration supported voter turnout and free elections, did not occupy cities with federal troops to suppress protest, did not enrich itself at the expense of the public, and didn't have a range of allies/cronies who were using the government coffers to enrich themselves.
the impact of Donald Trump, William Barr, an ideologically skewed Supreme Court, and the end of the Voting rights Act.
This is the next step after the attack in Lafayette Park. It is like the Reichstag fire in Weimar Germany; it is also very similar to the likely-staged domestic terorist event in Moscow in September, 1999 that primed Putin's public support and thereby made him a credible candidate for the Russian presidency.
He ALWAYS caters to people who have information on his nefarious actions.
Leaving aside the fact that he lied twice and, for that matter, played footsie with the Russians, there is the pattern.  Trump and his sidekick,  Barr, forgives everyone who has something on him--Flynn, Manafort, Roger Stone and now Maxwell (!).
Trump uses the power of his office to elevate his buddies, protect those who have "the goods" on him (whether they are in the U.S. or elsewhere) and punish people who have fulfilled their duty to hold the U.S. government accountable. Trump is pretty consistent in punishing every person who tells the truth.
This is the familiar dress rehearsal preceding the wider use of violence and the expanding violation of civil liberties and political rights that signals a transition from democracy to authoritarianism.
What we need is a nuanced policy.  I do not believe in ever stopping immigration, and I would think a lot of rural communities and smaller towns in the U.S. would think the same thing because of the key role of "foreign" medical personnel in our pandemic. But more generally: the need for political asylum does not stop in a pandemic.
It speaks volumes about how his personal needs always come first, whether the issue on the table is his vanity, his money or his power.
Bullies always believe that, if they tear down others, they will look better. On a less social/psychological level: democracy does not just require competition, it also requires respect for your opponents (and predecessors).
As my comments might indicate, Russian and Central/Eastern European politics
I would like to see more on Trump's environmental actions.
Obama better than Trump. States less partisanship.  Less gerrymandering in 2015.
Sign of increasing militatization of police for media effects
Serious damage to UN and to world health in time of pandemic
Strange for a President to worry about this, but no great effect.
Treason extreme charge, but Trump has made so many extreme charges that it has little immediate effect.  Longterm more serious.
The US is a world leader. It does not withdraw from leadership
Presidents should not use their office to advance commercial products
basic processes and values have been eroded under the Trump administration ; 9/11 changed how we viewed security vs individual rights.
"Democratic" is never defined in this survey.  Hence the question is meaningless.
Don't understand the question.  It's uncommon for a president to be mentioning results on a cognitive test.  But it's abnormal for a president's cognitive ability to be questioned by opponents and the media.  If I were asked about the latter, the answer would clearly be "abnormal."  But the question was about the former.  Is it "abnormal" because it does not usually occur?  Or is it "normal" because it is an expected response?    The entire normal/abnormal framing of these questions is junk political science and strongly suggests an unseriousness to this project.
Modern political thought/ American political thought/ Democratic theory
The level of ambiguity in this survey -- centered on the extremely vague terms of "democracy" and "normal" -- makes it utterly useless.
In 2015, there was greater adherence to separation of powers and judicial independence.  That is much less true today and there is significant concern that the Trump administration will interfere with the election and refuse to abide by an electoral defeat.
This is scary and needs to stop. It sets the stage for Trump to deny the outcome of the election and to threaten the peaceful transition of power.
Total lack of respect for IGs is disturbing.
Not sure he watched the video with the sound on, but optics matter.
It is wrong and the motivation was not the pandemic.
Science denying and narcissism is a bad combination.
More alarming/abnormal are the executive orders the president actually issued.  But to some extent, this was out of control way before Trump (i.e. with GWB and maybe even Clinton).
In 2015, elections were sufficiently free and open and fair that a Black Democrat had twice been elected, the first time to succeed a Republican President.  That President wouldn't think of using the government for private gain, or bending law to benefit his friends, or committing crimes and using government agencies to cover up and attack those who exposed him.  Today, social media has ruined trust in information; the President commits crimes to get reelected, personally gains financially from govt. policy and actions, voting is suppressed, the Pres repeatedly claims voting is rigged and he may not accept election results if he loses.
Dispatching federal agents to deal with crimes and protests is not that unusual; in this case, the fact that local officials did NOT REQUEST those agents make it borderline abnormal.
In "normal" times this would be an impeachable offense, and was explicitly cited as such by the Founding Fathers.  But this Senate has decided it is OK for the President to commit crimes and encourage others to commit crimes and then pardon them, as long as the crimes support their/Trump's re-election.
Dictatorships bend the law to protect the guilty who are friends of the leader. That should not happen in a democracy; it is happening in this case.
This is one of the "tells" that Trump is appealing to racism in his base.  But he is not the first American politician to do so.
Withdrawing from the world health organization during a global pandemic is irrational at best, treasonous to the welfare of the American people at worst (if the virus is the enemy, withdrawing the US from WHO provides the virus with aid and comfort).    Outrageous.
Like claims of "Fake News," this is the President saying, in total disregard of 1st Amendment, that any media that challenges his view of the truth should pay a price.
Another, but not the worst, action showing the President will seek to punish anyone who raises facts or takes positions that are inconvenient to him.
A fool or senile person trying to prove to himself and others that he is really smart would act this way.  Terrifying that the President of the US is acting this way.
Attacks on egg-heads and intellectuals have a long history in American Politics.  Not that unusual.
Congress and state legislatures and political parties
your criteria in first few slides are all less robust now than in 2015
not important in institutional way; very important symbolically and maybe as precedent?
same answer -- is this just revving up the base, or genuine threat to free speech and protest?
he can't do it in a literal sense - so "just" talk.  But signalling use of power to curtail free speech is scary
depends on whether this is one more bit of rhetoric with no threat that anyone notices
treason is such a strong word, and one president charging another is in the realm of rejecting legitimacy of rotation in office
clearly important for recipients and country's economy -- Also, in most of Am. history, Congress getting its act togther to shovel money out the door to constituents isn't an unusual act in a democracy
presidents always reverse predecessors' executive orders -- big problem for climate change, but one of a long list of those
curtailing global exchange of knowledge,  teaching nonAmericans that US doesn't want them, reducing contact (as in contact hypothesis...)
reving up his base- normal  politicizing "patriotism" in a big way - less normal
We have seen a troubling erosion during the Trump Administration in some of the key tenets of democratic governance; e.g., vigorous protection for press freedoms; a healthy system of checks and balances within the federal government; vigorous protection of the right to vote.
One step toward martial law -- and a step that would be unthinkable in a normally functioning American democracy.
This action undercut the basic concept of the rule of law.  What happened here is the use of a presidential power to obstruct justice.
An example of this deeply troubled and anti-democratic president purging the government of those committed to holding him accountable.
The dropping of charges against Flynn was a stunning abuse of power by the Attorney General on behalf of a deeply flawed president.
This is an example of the abuse of power by those who seek to silence those with information that is inconvenient for Trump.  It's also an example of the politicization of the armed forces -- which is dangerous.
This is an example (one of many) of bizarre behavior by this President of the United States.  It's bizarre -- but in and of itself, it's not threatening to democratic governance.  Lots of other things that he does -- e.g., inviting foreign adversaries to intervene in our elections; attacking the press; sending federal officers to Portland; ignoring congressional subpoenas -- are much more troubling to me.  I believe that this president is a clear and present threat to our democracy.  His weird obsession with a dementia screening, however, is not a big part of that threat.
This is deeply disturbing, indecent and 'un-American' -- and an anti-democratic attempt to criminalize opposition.  Mature democracies don't threaten political opponents with jail.
I see the CARES Act as an example of the federal government responding to a crisis in a major way.
I strongly disagree with these actions -- although they fall within the outer boundaries of 'normal' governance.  Elections have consequences.
This was a gross politicization of a symbol of American democracy.  Gross, weird and self-aggrandizing -- but not in and of itself a major threat.
Since Donald Trump took office in Jan. 2017, the U.S. has witnessed observable decline in several key indicators of democratic health, including law enforcement agencies that are free from political interference; free and fair elections; and cross-partisan acceptance of common facts.
Unimportant re national democratic health, but important re global climate health
Situation with covid makes it a bit unusual
Massive abuse of federal and state power by all 3 branches of the government - Citizens United, gerrymandering, dilution of Voting Rights Act, manipulation of election mechanisms, destruction of Republican Party, abuse of presidential powers, abuse of Senate confirmation process - to name but a few......
It is not only Russia/China/North Korea/etc. trying to influence our electoral process - it is the president himself
Not the first time the US has withdrawn from a UN agency.  But the timing is important when in the midst of a global pandemic
Control of media is an early action toward authoritarian or dictatorial government
Chain of command is central to the operation of the military
Deregulation is an option in an administration.  But typically actions of prior administrations receive some respect.  This administration is determined to create a federally weakened political system (except for unbridled presidential power)
His suggestion that they add his face is disgraceful
Since this survey does not explain how it is defining "democracy" and "democratic," this is a hard question to answer precisely.  A careful reading of the US Constitution makes it clear that the country was intended to be a republic with democratic elements, and that respect for law and protection of rights, including minority rights, were to be at least as important as "democracy."  Having said that, since executive power continues to expand with almost every president, and since the courts make decisions that radically change the status quo, with few means to "check" those decisions, the country seems to fall rather short of the democratic ideal.  Freedom of conscience, including the right to express unpopular views without legal sanction, is at the heart of all "inalienable rights" and is rapidly eroding at the whims of judges and numerous politicians.  Since democracy is meaningless, in my view, without freedom of conscience--just process without substance--I consider the US to be only partially democratic.
Lots of presidents have pardoned or commuted the sentence of others for political reasons, so this is a somewhat normal behavior.  However, actions like this undermine the important us value of equality before the law.
Closing down private businesses that are not violating the law would be a gross miscarriage of executive authority.
Academia can be out of control at times--"indoctrinating" vs evidenced-based teaching that stays focused on the relevant area of study--and the urge to reign that tendency in is understandable, but using an executive order to impact tax status is not helpful.
Executive Power, especially in Central and Eastern Europe
This survey seems to be based on the assumption that democracy is the most important element of governance, and puts less emphasis on equally important elements such as protection of (minority) rights and liberties, and equality before the law.      It also seems to assume that governments and government policies can fix everything including what people think, say, and do.  Government cannot fix human nature, it can only attempt to deal with the symptoms.  Racism, tendency toward grasping for personal advantage regardless of the cost to others, and other "evils" would seem to be the real problem with society, and government intervention can only do so much to counter such tendencies.  The real solutions to societal problems, accordingly, would seems to be at the level where values are formed (e.g. the family).
First, I think 79 is pretty high, I would not rate any place at any time at 100.  Because of some of the post-9/11 actions, I think the US was lower than pre-2001 in terms of civil liberties and tolerance of dissent.  The U.S. is still pretty democratic, but the current administration is chipping away at that.  I didn't move it much lower because the institutions are still intact and functioning, it's just more of a struggle than it should be.
This threatens to undermine our system of justice and peoples' confidence and trust in it.
Undermines the justice system and citizens' trust and confidence in it.
This is a pretty extreme version of a personal vendetta.  Taken in isolation, it's just one guy, but it does matter for what it represents and for how it might influence others.
This is just lunacy from a public health standpoint and it appears designed to further divide the country and to drive us closer to civil war/becoming a failed state.
This isn't 'normal' but it isn't a normal situation.  The problem here isn't that he temporarily stopped immigration, the problem is that he didn't do much else to deal with the pandemic. If that had been part of a comprehensive plan, that was subsequently eased, I would have seen it as reasonable.
What can one say about this one?  Perhaps the bigger shock is that such things don't turn his supporters against him.
Many presidents have criticized academics and the press and there have been several instances in which actions have been taken against such institutions.  I see this as bad, but it's a tweet, not yet real action.
That is way outside the bounds of acceptable rhetoric and can put the country on a very dangerous path.
Admins have different preferences, as do their voters.  Changes like that are part of the process.  It matters, but this one act, taken in isolation, is not a major change.
Happens all the time, usually just for show.
The evolution of political rights, development of institutional safeguards, and the role of money  in elections. In the more recent eras, the relative balance of power  between the two  parties and the exercise of checks and balances.
Impedes mechanisms of oversight/checks  and balances.
Attempts to limit or encourage self-censorship among potential whistleblowers. Impedes legislative/judicial oversight.
Capricious violation of fundamental rights.
The is  scapegoating, blame  deflecting behavior rather than policy driven.
This is symbolic  politics at  its  best normalizing  radicalism (anti-system behavior) as  partisanship.
Travel entry yes/immigration no. It is a  means   to make policy outside of the process and against the majority.
What seems abnormal is presidential intervention over military procedure.
This profound  lack of understanding the meaning of the test is significant.
The President has no respect for the role of laws and judicial process  in  governance and stability.  This is the politicization and personalization of law.
Attack on higher education and professional training.
Since 2015, we have seen: The erosion of checks on executive power. Praise for dictators...(even those putting bounties on our troops). Lack of even a pretense of following procedure (no trial in impeachment proceedings). Retaliation against impeachment witnesses. Self dealing by the president and members of congress. Pardoning of presidential co-conspirators. Executive undermining of science and agency prohibitions on research on certain topics. Executive promotion of racial intolerance and discord. Media derision. Unmarked or identified federal riot officers grabbing protesters off the street without probable cause. Tear gassing of lawful, peaceful protesters. President laying the groundwork for claiming illegitimacy of election results (without actual evidence). The list goes on. After listing these, I'm wondering if 75 is too generous.
It's the content that is concerning,  not the fact of it.
The trump administration, and the people’s willingness to go along with the abuses, is eroding democracy.
Parties and elections, race and politics
There has been considerable backsliding on voting rights.
I believe that the checks on executive power have collapsed, and that the state has been taken over by a cabal loyal to one man/family. I see the state as hopelessly corrupt. I believe rule of law has been lost. I do not see watchdog institutions or checks on power functioning. I am concerned about the state of the media and the rise of hate groups.
Important only because of the covid crisis and lack of masks/distancing at this event
The executive branch has become publicly less sensitive to the limitations of law or public opinion in the last few years.
It's common for states to allow or request federal assistance during times of civil unrest.  But to send untrained federal law enforcement who were not easily identifiable (in terms of what agencies they came from) in contradiction to pleas from state officials *not* to send federal officers violates laws and norms of our federal system. One of the things that the authors of the Articles of Confederation and the current Constitution were most concerned about was a national government that would usurp the power of the states.
Threatening to punish states for making voting more accessible demonstrates the anti-democratic leanings of this president.
This is a matter of norms rather than law, but it represents a sharp break from what we've come to expect of the president.  We expect the president --at least on a pro forma level--to advocate for equality an unity.  It's too early to say if this precedent will lead to more of this, or if the next president (wither that's in 2020 or in 2024) will work to repair this damage to decency and unity.
This seems to be little more than the hyperbole that (unfortunately) has become common.  It wasn't an order or a policy directive.  Furthermore, the Mueller report was somewhat comforting in that it seems that even when President Trump attempts to subvert law and norms, individuals and institutions have resisted his requests.  It seems that in the ways that really count, bureaucratic and military institutions have tended to do their best to follow law and norms.
This would mark a substantial, important departure from common practice and, if acted upon (or even if the threats themselves caused economic harm to the social media providers, or caused social media to self censure) would violate constitutional restraints on government's ability to regulate speech.
It was not a good idea or an honorable decision to make (to punish the Captain), but was within the prerogative of the president.
Anyone willing to run for or serve in elected office almost certainly has a robust ego.  But the triteness of what's being bragged about (I've taken one of these tests, if you're even partly sentient, they're super easy) is just, well, weird -- WTF-level weird.  But I don't think it will have lasting repercussions (other than the embarrassing memory that we elected him).
Although the amounts of funding were unusual, the funding was allocated in the context of an unprecedented (in recent generations) public health and economic need.
Although the APA gives agencies and the administration significant discretion to change policy, the administration doesn't seem to be fully following the procedures outlined in that law.
As with  bragging about not suffering dementia, this is just odd.
U.S. Constitutional law and public policy.
The country was more democratic under the Obama administration
In 2015 parts of the US engaged in systematic efforts to disenfranchise parts of the population including felons who had served their sentence, and the Court had reversed pre clearance for numerous states. By 2020 additional efforts to disenfranchise voters have been put into effect and efforts are underway to reduce vote by mail and early voting.  The environment for democracy is less healthy today than 5 years ago.
This is not out of context for Trump, which in and of itself is abnormal, but the specific event is not as abnormal within the context of his behavior.
Political retribution is part of the playbook for this administration, which is not normal for American democracy.
Appearing at MR is not abnormal, although during a pandemic it is.
The US has never been a fully consolidated democracy, but democracy has been stronger here than in many other countries. However, since the 2016 election and with the current administration we have significantly backslided in terms of freedom of the press, freedom of speech (broadly defined), voting rights, separation of powers (inclusive of the ability of the legislative to check the executive branch), corruption, and other signs of increasing authoritarianism and fascism...just to name a few examples.
While sending federal troops is not completely unprecedented, the conditions under which the unknown and unidentifiable troops were sent is unprecedented. The violence in Portland had been de-escalating. The presence of troops made it worse. It truly appears that the president is using this an an excuse to send in troops to Democratic cities in order claim "he" is necessary to restore "law and order"- his campaign strategy.
This behavior suggests (along with other similarly troublesome behaviors) that the Justice Department is not acting as an independent agency and is making decisions based on what would benefit the president. I don't believe there is precedent in the DoJ reversing a decision after an individual pleads guilty in court.
This is a blatant example of the president retaliating against Col. Vindman for him testifying. Such promotions are typically internal affairs and presidents do not get involved. This is overreach and a disturbing example of the president using his powers to punish those who speak out against wrong doings.
This was most abhorrent. I don't believe there is any historical precedent quite like this. The protesters were peaceful. Yes, there were skirmishes, but there was absolutely no need to spray the protesters just so that the president could have a photo op. Absolutely unacceptable. The President also used the Church as a prop.
Presidents should uphold the First Amendments rights of the American people to protest their government. That is the first "foul." The second is the historic reference and the implications that "looters" will be shot. It reads that the President of the United States is willing to shoot protesters.
While the impacts were not as severe as some of the presidents other decisions, this further politicized the pandemic and has made it increasingly difficult to properly address. This is in addition to the fact that it has literally cost American lives as the pandemic rages on and hundreds of people continue to die each day.
If this was deemed a temporary decision, given the pandemic, it might not be too worrisome. Many countries have implemented similar preventative policies. However, given the backdrop of the Trump administration's clearly expressed desire to end all immigration, this is more disturbing.
Typically, presidents adhere to a code of ethics that prevents them from promoting specific products. This was worse because it was seen as a campaign issue for which the President was using his Oval Office. But on the grand scheme of things, this isn't too troublesome.
Inside chain-of-command issues are not earth-shattering, but this was not the first instance of potential political/presidential influence on military decision making that is commonly sheltered from politics.
This seems relatively business-as-usual. Congress proposes and approves legislation, specifically for additional spending, during a national crisis and the president signs their approval.
Rollback of voting rights. Expansion of white nationalist threats to political participation. Strong authoritarian tendencies of the current administration, which have been mitigated by incompetence but which reveal a dangerous breakdown of norms that protect democratic practice.
Giving the speech is fully normal. The content of the speech was abnormal.
Trump, income inequality and money in politics, systematic voter suppression tactics
Important because most people understand that the reason is NOT public health but anti-immigrant rhetoric as publicpolicy
most people discount the accusation as hot air
semi- important because auto manufacturers have ignored some of it and it can be reversed in a new administration.
peasants, Southeast Asia, agrarian politics
2015 rating was largely determined by the intransigence of the Republican party's intransigence in refusing to pursue compromise with the Obama administration, as well as concerted effort to undermine the administration's legitimacy, especially its tacit support of Birtherism, because it was seen to weaken the president.  Nonetheless, one could still see the U.S. as a fundamentally sound liberal democracy.   We have since seen the collapse of the national Republican party as a democratic organization, the evisceration of democratic norms, the institutional failure of the checks and balances devised embedded in the Constitution, and a substantial erosion in the rule of law.  The Senate's refusal to call witnesses in the Impeachment trial clearly signaled the party's loyalty to and fear of a corrupt, vindictive executive.  The executive's abuses of power, and the willingness of key institutions (the Senate, the DOJ) to accede to them, have both become more blatant and more worrisome (especially the response to BLM) in the meantime.  It is now plausible to question whether November's election will be free and fair, and whether the president would willingly leave office should he lose.  American democracy is hanging by a thread.
There was a clearly communicated quid-pro-quo:  leniency in return for silence about the President's 2016 campaign relations with Wikileaks and Russia.  Stone was convicted for obstructing Congress, lying to investigators and witness tampering, thus impeding a lawful inquiry of the President.  A president who can freely indemnify associates from the law has no fear of the law him- or her- self.
1) This interferes with states' rights under the Constitution to determine their elections; 2) It targets and punishes states due to the party of their elected leaders;  3) It fundamentally interferes with the principle of free and fair elections.
Trump is seeking to mobilize supporters through racial division.  Although race has a long history in American politics, Trump makes the implicit explicit and so hardens divisions and polarization.
Vindman is being punished for taking his oath seriously.  Given the demonstrably high personal costs for testifying truthfully, this action undermines the willingness of public servants to speak out against abuses of power.
The commentary implies and rationalizes the use of unconstrained violence by the state.   It is important to remember that the protests were sparked by excessive police force, so that the tweet will be seen by protestors as a provocation and escalation.
It's clear that this administration seeks to build support through explicit crony capitalism.  Supporters of the administration can expect to profit economically from close ties to the president -- making the economy and extension of the political arena.  One of the key achievements of liberal democracy is to depoliticize the economy -- leading to both more efficient economic outcomes and the expansion of personal liberty.
Trump both broadcasts his own insecurities through boasts, as well as projects them onto his adversaries as weaknesses.
Use of tax law to threaten to punish political opponents is fundamentally antithetical to democracy.  Most people's primary interaction with the state is through taxation.  I list it as only semi-important because it is a tweet.  While this signals the president's perceptions and intentions to allies and adversaries, it is not yet law or have the weight of law.  Nonetheless, it may have a chilling effect if it leads tax authorities to look harder at the president's adversaries, and leads educators to self-censor.
All administrations set regulatory priorities.  The Trump administration just tends not to do so within the letter of law.
The role of violence in building ordered, law-governed societies.
Checks and balances are out of line today.
Not on face an unacceptable response to a global pandemic; one that many other countries also did. But in the context of Trumpism, takes on greater meaning as a policy he wanted a pretext for.
Totally beyond the pale for a democratic system.
In 2015, government was proactive to provide social benefits (health coverage, welfare, education) to citizens, there was less overt racial bias (although a good deal latent) Fewer multi-billion actors in control, and the US was respected (and at times imitated) throughout the globe, by allies, and respected by adversaries--and could be counted on to honor its word, sadly not today.
DUring a global pandemic, not seen in 100 years; is the time for major political actor nations (and their resources) to pull together for the larger good, not for petty short sighted, not in the larger interest, retribution by disgruntled President for his own personal  retaliation at clearly having mishandled nearly every aspect of the crisis in our own country.
Those who are 'stable geniuses' don't need to promote their abilities, but let their actions and compassion demonstrate their capacities.  This 'cognitive test' (I have taken one too) is to determine if a person has evidence of early cognitive dementia (short term memory impairments) not their 'intelligence' for which even IQ tests are only a very crude measure, often invalid.  IQ does not reflect or predict a person's contributions, to others--or abilities, much more is involved, motivation, character, hard work, formal education (although not always).
Toleration of anti-democratic behavior by the executive, including political extortion and personal enrichment
The troop were unasked for and used in part to promote a political campaign.
Not abusing power, but entirely obnoxious
Not unheard of, at least for governors, but not acceptable since the 1960s
We peaked 2009-2016 with representation, healthcare as a human right, and an ethical but realistic foreign policy with intelligent leadership at the top.
The action reveals Trump's authoritarian instincts.
Like Nixon before him, Trump is more concerned with punishing the leakers than addressing the information leaked.
Maybe he didn't notice it. He misses a lot.
Why is anyone surprised that a multibillion-dollar corporation supports a supposedly pro-business political agenda?
Again, Trump's authoritarian impulses are obvious.
Funny, this is a page from the Obama liberal Democratic playbook, showing the bankruptcy of fiscal conservatism as well as Trump's hypocritical crony capitalism.
Trump gets a better response form rocks than humans.
Like a wayward child, do we praise him when he occasionally does what he is supposed to do?
U.S. Foreign Policy since the end of the Cold War.
In 2015 gay and lesbian citizens, and African American citizens were the most empowered and protected by a Justice Dept that actually monitored and enforced civil rights legislation, and the Supreme Court had fewer conservative Justices with authoritarian tendencies.
A single elected individual (president) supported by a small ideologically motivated cabal using federal government resources (tax revenue from citizens) to mobilize those resources to commit acts of violence and terror against tax paying citizens for the political/partisan purpose of rescuing the president from low approval ratings.
Federal government seeking to control the content and operation of institutions of higher education--control knowledge production-- for ideological reasons rather than based upon arguments substantiated by evidence.
election violence in transitional democracies and hybrid regimes
General disintegration of political system post Citizens United and post social media...
It is unfortunately in keeping with his conduct while the POTUS
Vindictive action for the Colonel testifying before Congress
This was a peaceful protest and these individuals were treated in an abhorrent manner.
He does not lead but incentivizes those who are of the same mind
We have fallen dramatically in terms of world respect.
This was an odd threatening tactic on his part.
Odd way to "back up" a political supporter...
Dramatic disregard for the proper functioning of the office of POTUS
New Jersey state government and business and government
I messed up... should have been reversed. Shoot. Voting rights are being stripped away. Foreign interference in our elections. I'm not convinced there will be a peaceful transfer of power. Trump is behaving like an authoritarian and is left unchecked.
Cannot obtain a 100 because corporations have hijacked the electoral process.  I rated it 10 points lower today compared to 2015 due to President Trump's repeated attacks on our democratic institutions and his fascist behavior.
Today the negative impact of Trump's actions on the American constitutional-democratic system are felt more acutely than they were in 2015. On the other hand, the radical and violent backlash against him has created a political environment where certain groups of individuals -- those who loot private property and destroy public monuments -- can act with virtual impunity; the norms of criminal and administrative law are simply not enforced against them (as they are against the rest of us). It is obvious therefore than no all of us have equal rights.
Presidents deployed federal officials/troops in order to combat segregation in the South, and in that sense what Trump does is NOT unprecedented. However, he has failed to provide sufficient justification for his actions, and his rhetoric is framed not in constitutional but in populist terms. The issue is important because it might trigger new waves of violence.
Presidents protect their own men/women; that's the way it has always been -- nothing particularly important here.
Any politician is prone to encourage her supporters to engage in performative acts that would boost his/her agenda. Democrats are encouraging THEIR supporters to assault police officers, destroy public monuments and violate private property. The issue is somewhat important because politicians's pleas for disregarding the law contribute to the intensification of political polarization in the country.
Presidents enjoy discretion over immigration policy; the issue is important, however, because if affects the plans and functioning of the thousands of businesses who have sponsored foreign-born workers in order to facilitate their legal immigration.
Trump's behavior created a health hazard -- and that, importantly, might negatively affect the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.
Publicly promoting particular products violates White House etiquette and is an important departure from American political mores.
I see no important issue here. Presidents brag; humble men do not become presidents of the United States
Issuing and/or modifying regulations is a prerogative that certainly fall within the purview of presidential power; whether the specific changes enacted by a particular president are desirable or not is a matter of public discussion.
The radicalization of both Trump's supporters and the Democratic party contribute to the undermining of the constitutional principles and established (moderate) constitutional mores in the US. Reasoned arguments have all but vanished from the American public sphere -- and democracy is the only political system where citizens' exercise of reason is a precondition for good governance.
Partisan polarization and the Trump presidency.
Just plain stupid.  In the midst of a pandemic, our support of WHO becomes more important.
Resulting injuries and mortalities; draws attention away from vital policy issues and failures; replaces political deliberation with violence.
Senseless.  Except for Brazil and some African nations, it's the U.S. that's the most dangerous place for COVID.
Again political bad taste with a whiff of corruption.
Helps to prevent the economy from taking an even steeper nosedive.
Delays effective response to global warming.
urban politics and American political development
government, especially federal, appears more corrupt and inept than even a few years ago
Standard abuse of office done by both parties. Normal but terrible.
Rated as abnormal because COVID is abnormal. My response has nothing to do with Trump per se. Regardless of the party of the president or what s/he advises groups to do re: protesting, this is an unusual situation.
Politicians of both sides of the aisle are constantly trying to suppress speech they don't like. Worries about twitter, facebook, etc. -- again, from both sides -- are just the most recent iteration of this so. Pretty normal.
Considering the various institutions, cultural norms, and practices that contribute to democracy, there has not been a significant change in the overall picture of democracy. Some things have gotten worse (political discourse), others look worse but may not be (say, the quality of institutions), and others may have gotten better (some groups are expressing voice that previously did not). It is too easy to say that the 'feel' is worse now and therefore democracy is worse off. What democracy must do, it still does and does relatively well (relative to what was the case before).
The felonies were lying to Congress in reference to an investigation which was very heavily impacted by partisan tendencies. The commutation--a political prerogative of the president-is to be regretted but it has not changed much.
Withholding the money is acceptable if there is a genuine concern about how the elections would be conducted. It is not at all, if it is driven by partisan interest. The problem is that the shift in how elections would be held would probably have unequal distributional effects and would have partisan effects in the first place. Moreover, changing the conduct of an election shortly before an election is subject to legitimate political reaction. The pandemic certainly contributes to making a good case for an exception to the general rule, but this is something that probably should be determined by the courts, not by an elected president nor elected members of a state legislature.
One can quibble about 'chemical irritants.' Part of the issue is how do protestors protest and how does government respond.
Political speech gets a wide berth. Speech must be received and people who respond need to do so within institutional norms and/or politics of contestation. The role of the speech of a political leader is often overstated.
This shows bad judgment. Presidents do not always follow the guidelines of agencies and this president in particular. Of course, most presidents have not experienced the reactions from agencies that this president has experienced.
It is foolish but the intent is not to channel profit to a friend. Rather it is to challenge political forces on the other side who are criticizing a brand. The idea and intensity with which corporations and individuals have been attacked (publicly) and with which corporations with some values have challenged others has really contributed to a moment in which norms have changed profoundly and it is hard to imagine that this would not have consequences that partisanize spaces/discourse that might not be otherwise.
Please disregard my comments on the USS TR. I do not know enough to speak competently.
In a crisis, big spending bills often happen. There is nothing unusual about that. I am not sure what 'is this unimportant means.' Is a bipartisan bill being signed unimportant? Or is such a huge spending bill that may pump liquidity into the economy important for 'democracy as such'? I think it was important to pass the legislation and good that the various parties were able to sign onto an agreement. It should have happened quicker and should have been a smaller package with the promise of a larger package which could recalibrate after the first one went into effect.
There seems to be a regular back and forth on this issue (with different degrees of variance) between Republican and Democratic administrations.
I do not think it really matters where the speech is given and there is nothing inappropriate with doing it in a symbolically valuable place, particularly if it is not seen as a 'partisan' speech.
Your survey focuses exclusively on actions by a president (with many flaws). It fails to consider the context in which such actions are taken. In order to avoid the perception that I am a Trump supporter, rather than someone who wishes for relatively non-partisan social science, I will limit my comments here. You asked about spraying 'chemical irritants' at protestors and whether this was normal or not. It is normal under certain circumstances and less so under others. There is also a question of whether it is appropriate (and measured) and whether it has impact on how democratic a political system is. Much of the answer to that is connected to the president and the law enforcement agency but it also is impacted by how protestors behave and what sort of tactics they use. I fear that your questions will not give you good results. They will, as always, tell you a story about how you framed your questions and I think they will give you a sense of what the field thinks about Donald Trump as president. They do not seem calibrated to give much insight into democracy. Virtually the entire media and academy have demonstrated the very ample freedom of speech that most people believe is necessary in a democracy. Before Trump took office, major newspapers published stories and cited academics who predicted that Trump would not complete his first term. The NY Times published a very lengthy account of Trump's private taxes. Mainstream Democratic politicians spoke of the possibility of changing the size of the Supreme Court to protect democracy in late 2016. The NYTimes and Washington Post turned the Russia investigation into the focal part of its news coverage for a very long time. This administration, in great contrast to the one that precedes it, leaks constantly. The press keeps track of the number of lies it attributes to the President.  Overall, the press seems very free.  Calling the press 'the enemy of the people' is not something a presidential candidate ot president sho
We have slid backwards since 2017; the current administration is using federal forces in a policing function, shows unmistakable signs of self-dealing and corruption, is seeking to suppress voting by minorities, and is hostile to the press and expertise.
This sends a message to all associates of President Trump that they will be pardoned if they stick with him.
Another attempt to undermine a form of voting that has been practiced for years.
This is President Trump's greatest crime: failure to protect the American people and to encourage them to take appropriate public health measures. It has cost thousands of lives, most of which was preventable.
Indicative of the destruction of political norms in our country.
The George W. Bush administration tried the same.
International students are an important resource for the USA's educational institutions and scientific and technological edge.
The USMCA is a marginal change to the NAFTA accord. This is fairly standard stuff.
The United States has seen the steady diminution of democratic norms and values in our he trump administration
Well he has done far worse but inappropriate for the president
Frankly it’s beyond abhorrent and disgusting
These are difficult times. I was shocked to see an act of concern for the American citizenry
Not so far of line with presidential actions although regretable
rising voter suppression after 2013, especially; media-supported mis-information; abuse of executive power w/o checks and balances; welcomed foreign intervention in elections
Executive authority has expanded under Trump without being checked sufficiently by other branches of government. Also, Blacks are disenfranchised more today than in the past, and police brutality has increased.
Undermines value of equality of all citizens
Democratic backsliding.  Lack of checks and balances on executive power. Voter suppression.  President believing he is above the law and pressuring government agencies.  Stacking agencies with loyalists.
The pandemic does provide a very difficult situation when letting in people from other countries, but the president's moves were completely political and devoid of empathy.
Reflects the anti-science view of the Republican party and Trump loyalists
The president seems to be a narcissist and uninterested in governing.
The degree of polarization, malapportionment of representation at the local, state and federal level, campaign financing, especially disclosure and the failure of the courts to properly mediate between the branches all remain unchanged and problematic dating from the 2010 midterm election
Elections, election administration and public policy
We have seen increased  voter disenfranchisement, suppress free speech and protest, use of violence to ut down free assembly, and use of government resources to benefit the president with no meaningful check on his behavior by congress.
political retribution against perceived opponents.
he is dismantling domestic and international institutions.  this impedes governments ability to address collective action problems.
In 2015, I was confident that the president and the Department of Justice would mostly try to uphold the law, that Congress would exercise its oversight powers and that, where it was possible to show clear efforts to systematically exclude or dampen voters the federal government would take action to protect voters. I trusted the basic institutions that collect and maintain data on which American policy is based. I believed those institutions were working mostly in a non-partisan way to keep Americans safe. I trusted that a majority elected and institutional leaders, and particularly DOJ, were agreed that they should work against white supremacy.
This is an authoritarian attack on Constitutional and human rights.
Again, this is massively destructive of rule-of-law in our institutions and as a norm in our culture more generally.
this sort of action erodes the DOJ as an institution, undercutting the non-partisan experts who pursue the faithful execution of the laws, undercuts the widespread belief that the US is a nation of laws not men, and shockingly expands presidential belligerence in the face of oversight.
A racist dog whistle, a terrifying encouragement of violence, a complete and utter misrepresentation of what was going on
People are dying in a historic pandemic. We are the richest nation in the world with, arguably, the best in scientific resources. WTF? Why would ANY leader want people to risk their own and others' lives like this?
WTF? It's a bizarre favorites game and also supremely tacky.
Aside from being a total lie and a racist dog whistle to white supremacists, this utterly violates the culture of a graceful transition of power between our executives, a culture essential to the persistence of democracy.
Further erosion of political leaders using common set of facts; efforts by president to use office for personal benefit; efforts by president and executive to punish opponents through his office; Lafayette Square; unwillingness of president to acknowledge life and death problem harming the US population.
Shows president does not view all Americans as equal and of equal worth.
This showed government policy and the lives of Americans on the ship were pushed down to placate the president's desire to downplay extent of virus.
It is strange behavior, but not vital to democratic performance.
Traditional job of government done well.
The United States government was never designed to be fully democratic. It was designed to offset its democratic elements with oligarchal elements, and the latter have almost always been much stronger than the former.  For at least the past four decades, the significant gains that have been made in terms of equal treatment for all adult citizens, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on, have been offset by the decreasing economic power of the American working class. The backsliding of the past five years has been primarily in the realms of equal treatment for all citizens, politicians self-dealing and wielding patronage powers (for example, the way the Paycheck Protection Program is being implemented), and the use of political institutions to punish enemies (for example, the use of ICE to harass and brutalize immigrants and the use of BORTAC against protesters in Portland).
White supremacy has been the norm in the United States since before it's inception. What's changed is that OPEN white supremacy was driven underground by the movements for civil rights and Black power. It has now reemerged in the open.   This is important, because we've seen what open white supremacy can do, particularly when it's enraged at having been stripped, for a time, of power to which it feels itself entitled as a matter of birthright. For example, consider the rollback of Reconstruction during the final decades of the nineteenth century.
It's mostly abnormal, in that you don't usually see a president post a call to arms against American citizens, except when making it clear that one is doing so as a matter of criminal justice policy.   It's semi-important because it's a tweet and not an executive order.
Higher education is one of America's primary exports.
Mount Rushmore is a symbol of settler-colonial domination over native peoples, but it's also an entirely normal reflection of the American national mythology.   The fact that the speech was an unhinged call to arms against an imagined army of enemies makes it semi-important.
American political development and political economy
As with this survey, too much emphasis on the political-legal; economic and social inequality are pervasive and make democracy difficult if not impossible. Money in politics is highly problematic and ignored. No meaningful sanctions for "Wall Street." COINTELPRO is still around, though not by name. Information is available but not all that easy to access; distraction is common--big tech companies feed it.
Lots of history here. Troops to Little Rock? COINTELPRO.
Varies from regime to regime. Most don't want to be seen being vindictive. Trump, Bush, Nixon & some others want it to be seen as a warning.
Reagan made a high profile speech in Philadelphia Mississippi. Others have played a "southern strategy." Trump plays to his base and doesn't care what others think.
Many presidents behave like fascists when it comes to actions directed against small countries: Nicaragua, Chile, Haiti, Iraq, Vietnam, but generally refrain from such activities domestically. Nonetheless, the murder of non-white dissidents (Black Panthers, American Indian Movement) is unexceptional. This action was against non-dissidents, for a photo op. Resembles El Duce--or as some have commented, El Douche.
US has always had a strong isolationist streak, but this is less ordinary politics than a personal fit.
Many powerful people are very sensitive. Unlike politicians who learn to put up with criticism and abuse, Trump as a rich boy was always sheltered. The Chinese CP Politburo response to Tiananmen, to Uighurs, not to mention to their social media, suggests a similar sensitivity/paranoia.
Again, nativism has deep roots in the US, though economic exploitation of foreign workers often takes precedence. .
Some manage by doing things to draw attention to themselves. T-rump doesn't know when he looks like a fool to most people.
All T-rump actions tend to be fed by his narcissism. Media rarely substantively critical.
Social movement politics, especially conservation of biodiversity
Needs to better capture economic and social factors important to democratic governance--more attention to media, media ownership, political culture, and gross economic inequality. An ordinary citizen can't afford a senator let alone significant  shares in a president. Official violence has always played a major role in the US, but's largely ignored or downplayed--it doesn't fit with our self-image.
The Trump administration's criticism of the media.   The means by which the Republican and Democratic parties engaged in the politicization of the Merrick Garland and Brett Kavanaugh appointments.    The claim by Donald Trump that he will not accept the results of the 2020 election (should he lose).
erosion of independence of judiciary and freedom of media; overreach of Executive and erosion of transparency/accountability; uncontrolled corporate power and historic levels of economic inequality that undermine the substance of political equality; xenophobic and racist discourse and policies emanating from and normalized by the President.
The fact that he gave a speech on the Fourth of July is normal; the content of the speech was hostile to democratic values; the context, in the midst of national debates about systemic racism and dismantling racist monuments, made it a provocative and divisive act.
I understand that not everyone got the same questions, but the survey seemed heavily focused on political institutions.  I see the erosion of democracy as also occurring through skyrocketing inequality in society and concerted efforts to undermine the political culture of support for democratic values.
I would have selected "not sure" if it were an option for the US historical democratic rating.
The attacks on journalism, federal criminal justice system, and other areas of the bureaucracy by the executive branch, as well as the abdication by the legislature to hold the executive branch accountable and carry out a fair process for selecting Supreme Court justices.
He exercised pardon power in a case that directly relates to himself.
Pretty obvious abuse of power.  A normal administration would have wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety and vindictiveness.
Important in the sense that the President has no clue about what our Constitution says nor how it operates.
Undermines political culture necessary for peaceful transition of power and overall political stability.
An example of both nakedly political motive and utter incompetence.
Latin American Politics, Crime and Democratization
Thanks for your efforts.  This is important work.
Today we see increased state violence to silence protestors, with unmarked security, individuals picked up without miranda or being charged and processed. The president's vilification of the opposing party, and willingness to use violence in 'blue' cities and not send help to 'blue' states is having a chilling effect on public discourse while providing justification for repression against political opponents. The centralization of pandemic information in the White House while sidelining the CDC and scientists that don't serve a particular political agenda further undermines democracy. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, due process, equal protection are all under fire.
It is not abnormal for someone to be removed from a military post for going outside the chain of command. It is abnormal for someone in the military, particularly a captain, to feel that it was necessary.
More important for the vilification of the other, than for the (real and measurable) impact on US education.
The norms, legal and agreed upon precedents of governance, and rampant corruption are currently under attack. In 2015, there were strides and attempts to address voting suppression, economic inequality, and health care. In earlier times, entire segments of the population were prohibited from voting and civic participation.  Slavery and Jim Crow laws characterized the the 18th, 19th, and large parts of the 20th centuries.
He is engaged in executive overreach for supposed political and electoral advantage.
Atkinson is dismissed for doing his job on the basis of political revenge.
Using unlawful and dangerous tactics for political theater.
Different regions are experiencing the COVID crisis differently.
Harsh and unlawful actions for the sake of political theater.
A clear violation of symbolic fairness of the American president.
The action took place in a highly charged political atmosphere.
Par for the course for an insecure and unbalanced individual.
A clear symbolic gesture to appeal to his base and white nationalists.
If the Trump's comments are disregarded, a normal event for an American president.
Keep taking the BLW survey.  It is important documentation for the general public, political science, and especially for students.
Diminishment of agreed upon facts; use of government officers to intimidate protestors; threats of not abiding by election results; threats to intimidate voters.
Irregular use of the pardon power to help political friends and to encourage others to engage in similar crimes.
dangerous bullhorn (as opposed to dog whistle)
Our system today is buckling under multiple anti-democratic forces: voter suppression, gerrymandering, federal agents dispatched to Democratic-led cities for political gains, our president is a demogogue and does not display core political beliefs but rather political calculations on most issues, making rational deliberation very difficult to impossible. However, there is a firewall of citizens' protests and organizing across political scales that has risen to counter manipulation, fraud and force and I believe that this counterforce has the power to help make our 2020 Presidential election legitimate. In 2015, there were many manipulations and foreign interference going on, but the forces trying to signal alarms and warnings were not met with either institutional nor citizen's counterforces. We were complacent, and so the situations are both similar and opposite, leaving me to consider them essentially equivalent in measuring democratic features.
Federal forces are normally reserved for national emergencies. It is Unconstitutional and is causing insecurity and interfering with First Amendment rights.
The voter suppression tactic has been constant since our Founding so it's not completely abnormal, but given our knowledge of science and medicine, its immoral to suppress voting by mail and is anti-democratic.
This stunt was aimed to create propaganda, and misguided administration officials issued regrets for participation. The action infringed Constitutional rights to protest and was meant to project power against the people, rather than to console or speak to a nation protesting against abuse of power.
This is abnormal for the United States to withdraw from the WHO in the midst of a global health crisis. It is important because it could impede our ability to collectively guide the global response and gain from its quicker normalization across countries and markets.
This should be considered a national security issue. Fewer people with masks and especially agitators without masks make public spaces insecure and are leading to more deaths.
This is a distraction tactic and is less important than the general tendency of the administration to profit from the Presidency.
It is important because of the threat from climate change, which exacerbates inequalities between wealthy and poorer regions and households in the US. However, this is normal politics for a polarized issue.
This action would punish immigrants and Higher Education for political gain and is one of the President's policy-by-Tweet moments meant to signal to his base. It's normal to reward or punish allies in a campaign through announcements, visits, etc. but there is not a rational basis for this idea.
The United States is not totally majoritarian in that individual rights are protected even against hostile majorities and super-majorities are required for government to take some actions.  Much of what people may consider limits to free expression are not actions by government but criticism and social pressure from outside government.
Compares favorably with earlier presidents sending troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas and Mississippi.  Local and state officials were either unable or unwilling to curb the violence.
The federal government should not tell states how to run their elections, though it often does.
The charges were flimsy,  politically motivated, and the result of intimidation.  The Department moved to right a wrong.
Careless, not malicious.  Ought not do it but not unprecedented.
The crowd had notice.  Presidents block traffic all the time.
It is right for the United States to call out institutions that are ineffective, incompetent, or corrupt.
Fully within his authority and as reasonable as most responses to the pandemic.
Long term economics consequences may be as bad as the emergency the act is intended to meet.
The speech was a good one.  Criticism of the speech was inaccurate and misleading.
Although partisan was very high in 2015 and remains high in 2020, the Obama administration, and in general, state governments, were more effective in terms of compromising, communicating ideas without questioning loyalty to the nation and rights were also being protected to a degree never seen before in U.S. history. A lot has changed in the past five years. Partisanship has increased to the point that arguably the most corrupt president the country has ever seen was never in serious danger of being convicted of impeachment because his party controlled the Senate. Reporters are being routinely harassed, injured, and disparaged by the national and state governments. The rights of the people are being threatened both subtly and overtly and government is not doing much to stop private violence against political acts. White nationalism has resurfaced and become emboldened as a legitimate political viewpoint (and is actively promoted by some in the Trump administration and by some national and state officials). Elections are increasingly threatened from the lack of back-up measures to electronic votes, the continued accusations of fraud that are not founded on evidence, and the lack of push back or accountability on the President when he questions the legitimacy of an election that hasn't even occurred yet. Democracy is not just what happens in practice, but the norms and traditions that are implicit and shared. These have been shredded in the past few years in a way that is increasingly unlikely to be easily fixed.
Using federal force to quell riots has a long history in the United States. What makes this effort different, however, is that local officials did not welcome or want the federal officers and the law enforcement sent in is not military, but based in intelligence or other federal agencies, very unlike the 1968 or even 1992 counter-riot efforts.
Although presidents can and do fire officials in federal agencies that take actions counter to the administration's goals, this (and other similar acts of retribution) are done solely for political, not policy, reasons and threaten the only independent source of internal investigatory power in the executive branch.
It's mostly unimportant because the President has no effective or legal way to do this. It's only important in the sense that the President is directly threatening action that is counter to the First Amendment and the shared belief in free speech.
It's disgusting and illegal, but in the grand scheme of problematic actions of this administration it will have minor impact on politics.
This is inane, but the President promotes his results, so the media should rightfully criticize his performance. Under normal circumstances, however, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
Although major important bills enacted by Congress have been rare in the past 10-15 years, the process was somewhat normal and congress acted in a way that many people expect and hope for. The quick action and the size of the relief make it vitally important.
These standards are long overdue and most major companies were already planning to meet them, so this destabilizes that industry (which might have to follow the original standards or more rigorous ones under a Biden administration anyway) and undoes important future efforts in sustainability.
Political Behavior and Political History
To me, the biggest shortcoming of American democracy involves the lack of appropriate districting as well as the first-past-the-post electoral system underlying it.  This hasn't changed over the last five years.
President is a role model -- his racism is important to social mores
WHO brings science to bear on world health problems; it's abnormal for a US govt to neglect science
A line of policy that's been working for decades probably represents the public interest. It should not be reversed.
The US had problems with low voter turnout, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, money in politics, growing disrespect for the govt in 2015, but they were manageable at the time, it has gotten significantly worse since then.  These problems (and others) enabled the problems we have today.
Do not know enough about the chain of command to comment on this.
I don’t think that there is substantial changes over the past five years.
The framing of the survey seems designed to elicit results favorable to a conclusion that Democracy is in danger regardless of the truth
2015 should have been a tad lower (maybe 74 or so).  The increasing division between the 'facts' seen on the two sides of the aisle raised concerns about the deepening partisanship and the unwillingness often to see the other side as no less patriotic because of different views.  Compared with today, though,the executive branch (while exerting power vs. the legislature) seemed far more willing to recognize checks and balances and was far less likely to politicize the role of the Justice Department.
As part of a trend of firing inspectors-general--who are supposed to be largely independent watchdogs--this is very problematic.  As with the promotion of Vindman, this demonstrates Trump's desire to politicize all aspects of government and make sure only those who are loyal to him remain.  That is a significant threat to democracy as it increases the risk (whether by Trump or a future leader) of significant corruption and poor decisions.
It's abnormal because most leaders would not support such statements (not least of all as the FBI has long warned about the dangers of white supremacy groups) and because most leaders are seeking a broader coalition of supporters.   By itself, it's likely mostly unimportant, but it reflects a broader effort to divide the country and to demonstrate nearly unconditional support for anyone who is explicitly for Trump.  That division, and the stoking of anger among white Americans, is very important.
Promotions in the armed forces are not to be politicized.  The treatment of Vindman, as well as others who testified, demonstrates a willingness to undermine the non-political nature of the military (not to mention personal vindictiveness) and suggests the President's need to be surrounded only by those who support him without question.  That is a threat to democracy and good leadership.
The harking back to political leaders who cracked down violently on civil rights movements is, to say the least, problematic.  By itself, not overly important, but part of a far broader pattern.
This is an organization the US helped create and lead.  Withdrawal from it is antithetical to the US role in the world since WWII.  It is likely to further hasten the US loss of hegemony as the image of the US declines.
It's more important in terms of symbolism than direct effect: having a President countermand the guidelines of his own health agency during a pandemic demonstrated his lack of willingness to follow scientific thought and his lack of concern for his own supporters.
Some unified government response to a crisis is normal.  While its effects are unquestionably important in the short-term, I'm not sure--given the relatively short-term bill--how important it'll be overall.  Nor do I suspect it demonstrates much change in the partisanship of the country (though the divisions emerging between GOP legislators and the White House on discussions of the current package may)
The utilization of the pandemic to further deeper anti-immigrant goals is obvious here.  It's important for a number of reasons, including the US standing in the world which has long been benefited by welcoming foreign students (and providing them an understanding--for better and worse--of the US and its people).  And, of course, the economic hit to many universities.  The backing off of the policy would have been an indicator of learning or at least reaction to significant opposition, but recent  ICE statements about newly enrolled foreign students indicates the administration is continuing its push.
The only abnormal aspect of it was the timing (midst of a pandemic) and the absence of Trudeau given the purpose of the conference.  It is likely more a reflection of Lopez-Obrador's political position in Mexico than it is anything in the US.  The USMCA is not a dramatic change from NAFTA.
I am not knowledgeable enough to rate the US political system before 2015
Dramatic downward shifts in democratic norms at an institutional level coupled with increased political participation among groups that have long been thought to be low-participation groups.
The current administration has negatively affected our democratic status in every dimension.
Another president wins office without a majority and then guts norms and sheds accountability.
camapign politics and applied public policy
The Senate, presidency, and as a result the Supreme Court, are held by losers of the popular vote. The lack of legislative check on the executive during unified government has become more apparent. It has also become more obvious that basic oversight, even legislative oversight, can be short-circuited by the executive branch. It is more common for people to question the political legitimacy of their opponents. The ratings are a bit arbitrary though. Maybe one (but not both) of those ratings could be changed to 75.
I am more confident that it is "semi-important" that that it is "mostly abnormal." It is normal (but bad) for authorities to use violence against peaceful protesters. The purpose makes it strange in this case. I don't think it's that important in that this event doesn't really change the fundamentals of our political institutions or culture. If it were to become normal that would be very important.
Full disclosure: I didn't watch this or read about it. It doesn't seem important and I have a kid.
This is tricky. Driving us to extinction for ideological/electoral reasons never feels normal, but it happens every day for decades.
In the Trump years, social media, cable news, and other highly polarizing outlets have become so extreme that reasoned public discourse is next to impossible. Trump's disregard for the rule of law, his corrupt self-dealing, his use of force against critics all diminish democracy. The only reason the score is not lower for 2020 is that Trump has not been particularly successful with his authoritarianism -- local governments, states, news media, street protests, and the courts are holding the line.  I rated 2015 as only 85 because during the Obama years, the Senate's intransigence, enabled by the disproportionate power of low-population states, impeded the elected administration's work, often in norm-breaking ways (such as the failure to confirm Merrick Garland). The Senate, electoral college, and horrendous gerrymandering all undermine my assessments of the quality of democracy in the US and the effects of those disproportionate institutions have become more extreme in the last couple decades.
Misuse of military force against citizens is characteristic of authoritarians. Misuse of military force just to drum up divisions within the electorate and to gain points with "law and order" voters is cynical and a failure to lead in the interests of the entire nation.
The attitudes the president expresses on human rights, use of deadly force, protest, and  race are very important. Democratic leaders should not threaten deadly force against citizens.  But as a single line in one of his myriad tweets this was, by itself, only semi-important.
It's important that it shows his stupidity, possible senility (he thought the test was hard), and vanity, which are impediments to leadership, but since we already had multiple examples of those character flaws, this additional incident is mostly unimportant.
Mostly important because the standards were set through a relatively transparent and democratic process and the administration is overturning them by edict.
Big money has increased power. Political climate is very negative. Country divided.
Never seen federal law enforcement used in this matter. Political undertones.
Reaction by Trump to any critical comments
Unexpected bipartisan and quick response
interior troops used against protesters; executive purging security elites; no impartial rule of law for leaders' cronies
- Trump has violated the Constitutional limits on his power: emoluments clause, using his office to threaten political opponents, etc. - Barr violating the bounds of the federal government with federal judge firings, hired federal forces - Lack of investigation and accountability into foreign election hacks/influence
Blatant abuse of power on the part of the DOJ.
He's dog whistling racism to his supporters a lot, so this is one of many examples of that. Not sure this one is particularly egregious given his comments/statements.
Abuse of power; violence against citizens. This was a disgusting act.
He's calling for violence against members of the citizenry.
Mobilizing citizens to engage in actions that endanger the citizenry is shocking.
He's setting a terrible example during a pandemic.
It's a bit pathetic, but it doesn't violate the Constitution.
The bill could have done a better job getting money to those who will spend it immediately, but at least there was a federal response.
It was a campaign speech, and he used the visual backdrop well. Overriding Native American protestors on Native American land seems normal for Trump, but it's apalling.
It's hard to capture how much damage Trump and his anti-democratic enablers have done to our constitutional democracy on a survey. Thank you for doing this work.
I made a mistake, and would reverse them, as there has been a. slight improvement in the last few years based on various kinds of mobilization, despite the presence of antidemocratic forces and severe polarization.
It's not the first time that a President has used their power to reduce or commute sentences for political and personal ends.  That said, this case seems to be a significant instance of abusing his authority.
I would need to know more about the specifics of the case than I do to make a firm judgment.  Obviously, Trump can't abide criticism and wants to diminish any actual or potential critics.  He's not the first President with a thin skin.  The question is whether this crosses a line between pettiness and aiming to weaken significant institutional constraints.  On balance, his behavior is close to the latter, but I can't say for sure about this instance.
It's a provocative quote, and signals his willingness to use force.  I imagine similar quotes can be found in the records of a number of presidential administrations, with different targets.
This is a legal and in that sense appropriate measure.  It breaks with a variety of norms about international engagement and shows that he is much better at political theatre than at bringing about even the changes he wants.  It's destructive, inept, and constitutional.
This is normal interest-group politics in an election year.  The only surprise in this story is that the effort to protest Goya seems to have gone nowhere, which might be due to the ignorance of the people making the protest, as Goya products are everywhere and bought by people of all kinds, including Trump supporters.  If that group still contains close to 40% of the population, not many of them have to buy a couple of cans of Goya stuff to compensate for a brief boycott by part of the Latino/a market.
This is weird rather than gripping.  I don't know the test he took, but it clearly did not contain any measures of the capacity for reflection or self-correction.  Since one professional psychologist from his family already has a full-time vocation of analyzing him, and I have never met him in person, I'll resist a full analysis.  My guess, though, is that he is smart enough to know that he is stumbling yet incapable of fixing it without breaking his commitment to avoiding apologies and taking responsibility for errors.  So insisting that he is really smart might seem like a way of coping between his self-perceived abilities and his declining standing, absent the capacity to ask what's going wrong and address it seriously.
It's normal that the Congress and President would reach agreement on measures to respond to a genuinely extreme situation.  The result seems somewhat unusual only because it shows how bad things have to get to force competing political forces to act in a less polarized way than they are used to acting.
This was clearly an inappropriate measure that managed to unite a broad range of forces against the administration, given the wide presence of internartional students in American universities across the country, from Cambridge to Miami to College Station.
His speech at Mt. Rushmore was one of his less sectarian and divisive efforts.  Yes, he's trying to make a political point against parts of the left that want to get rid of Jefferson as an iconic figure.  That's not exactly = to proposing to abridge the First Amendment.
This is a pretty routine activity for a President.  It's interesting insofar as Trump has spent so much effort on criticizing Mexico.  It's probably not something he would do outside an election year - not that he is appealing so much to Mexican-Americans, though he doesn't mind doing so.  He wants to show a broader public that he is not as purely and simply an anti-Mexican polemicist as he has sometimes appeared to be.  Plus he's willing to do business with someone far to his left.
I think this is a useful survey, and presumably it was designed a few weeks ago or mainly longer in most respects.  Right now - late July - it seems very inadequate.  It seems apt to skew entirely toward criticism of Trump - given the selection of cases, the issue is whether his misdeeds and bad judgments represent a bad character, impatience with democratic politics, authoritarian impulses, or aspirations toward a durable infringement of democracy.  This is a fully legitimate inquiry.  Given high levels of polarization, and ample evidence of statements and sometimes actions from the opposition that might be interrogated, the survey looks (unintentionally) like an academically legitimate anti-Trump initiative.  I can think of various reasons why the authors of the study might hesitate to include questions that would ask about the democratic contribution of various anti-Trump political forces.  Most obviously, Trump's president, and thus bears more responsibility for our troubles.  I very much enjoyed filling out this survey, and will look forward to the next iteration. I hope the next survey is cast more broadly.
parties, interest groups and elections and lobbying
From 2015 to 2020, there has been such an expansion of unchecked and unchallenged executive power that the existence of democracy has been severely compromised.  In addition, the manipulation of facts and the media by the executive abets this expansion of power, further eroding important checks in the US system.  For a democracy, these actions are unacceptable.
There is no accountability.  This bodes ill for the upcoming election when any and all illegal activities may be sanctioned by Trump just to get elected; those who perform such illegal actions can rest assured that they'll just be pardoned after the election.  This seems to be rule one from the authoritarian play book, and represents instances of clientelism and kleptocracy.
I say this  is mostly important, because -- whether they openly admit it or not, or even realise it -- I believe that most Americans understand Trump to be a white supremacist.  So, it makes sense that he would amplify their causes and messages.  The other question -- which may be more important -- is whether is normal or abnormal to have an obvious white supremacist as president.  In the US in 2020, this is (or very much should be) MOST ABNORMAL.
Again, a gross abuse of executive power.  Had there been some significant issue of national security with Lt Col Vindman's testimony, a court should have determined his suitability as a witness.  But Vindman is now out of the way, so the executive got what it wanted: hardly democratic.
Clear abuse of executive power, against the constitutional rights of citizens.  Where are the libertarians??  Isn't this the crap they FEAR MOST??  (Not when there is a white supremacist in office, it seems..)  EVERYONE should be concerned about this, as it is one action that represents the very antithesis of democracy.
Particularly in a time of a worldwide pandemic, it makes absolutely no sense to disengage from world organizations that can help individual states tackle the disease causing the pandemic and the impacts of the pandemic.  That I might even need to explain this is completely ludicrous to me.
I understand limiting immigration from certain "hot spot" countries during a pandemic, but a blanket suspension of all immigration is not helpful and does not address the concerns generated by the pandemic.  Ironically, the mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic in the US means that fewer immigrants likely wish to come to the country, but that is another matter...
Jeopardizing lives just to hold a political rally -- whilst actively denying scientific advice and disregarding the scientific process -- is an act of homicide.
This is a blatant conflict of interest, propagated during a raging pandemic in the country.  WTF??
Again, pure abuse of executive power -- even as just a threat.  What constitutes "indoctrination," anyway?  Ridiculous, and shameful, from a supposed democratic country's leader.
I mean - whatever.  But if there were true charges to answer, why hasn't this been pursued legally, instead of just talked about?  Such egregious claims *without* legal follow-through confuses the electorate and opens the door to further unsubstantiated charges.
Intergroup conflict/conflict resolution in advanced democracies
The survey focused exclusively on executive behavior, but there are concerns at more local levels of governance (and between federal and local jurisdictions) that have impacts on the quality of democracy as well; I wish some consideration had been given to those nodes of democracy, too.
Donald Trump's effective takeover of the Republican Party has seriously eroded the basic principles of American democracy.
Political parties, elections, public opinion
The Trump administration and Trump himself, and the Republicans in Congress do not prioritize democratic institutions and values.  Trump is ignorant of what democracy means.  The Republicans in Congress show not backbone to use checks and balances to stand up to him.
We had an 82 due to institutions and norms that were mostly respected. Racism and sexism keep, and have kept, the US from a higher score. However, we have regressed to the extent we have a government which actively enables obstruction, actively enables a corrupt executive to advance personal interests, and which actively attempts to suppress and make war on the press. Most importantly, people who are tried for corruption and even treasonous acts are allowed to walk free due to the political interference of the justice department. The separation of powers and the system of checks and balances has been effectively undermined by agents actively working for partisan gain, and for an executive who actively attempts to undermine rule of law, and the democratic process. This is a dangerous moment.
Sending federal aid is not important or abnormal. What is important and extremely abnormal is sending in federal aid against the wishes of state and local authorities, and doing so under the auspices of the border control and homeland security to engage and arrest, without due-process, civilians/citizens of the united states.
The chief executive of a democracy threatening to punish states in an act which amounts to voter suppression is horrifying.
Retaliation against civil servants and members of government who are trying to uphold the law and ensure that members of government are held accountable is extremely dangerous and a sign of tyrannical, not democratic-republican, government.
Retaliation against officers in the US Army for speaking to congress about violations of the law by the executive branch is extremely alarming.
This might be less important, but in the midst of a global pandemic it is utterly nonsensical and dangerous for America's international standing and the health of its citizens at home.
The choice to support fringe science and encourage "anti-maskers" has undoubtedly lead to thousands of more deaths in this country than we have seen in any other developed nation. The choice to do so, against the scientific consensus of his own people, and without opposition from other elected officials in his own party, despite the ways this will hurt the entire nation, shows a serious failure of political leadership on multiple levels.
It is an absurd claim meant mostly for partisan optics which diminishes the office and is not the behavior of a representative who believes in rule of law and a unified political system.
The moment and context of a global pandemic was exceptional; it should not be exceptional to have bipartisan support, but it is becoming that way.
What made this speech semi-important was the president's 1) attempts to use the occasion to promote a kind of behavior (anti-mask) which is actively detrimental to public health and 2) the use of a national celebration to promote a specifically partisan attack aimed at his own re-election.
this should not be abnormal at all, but for this president, working positively with Mexico is a notable event.
The constant attempts by the Trump administration to illegally expand presidential authority and prosecute political opponents have significantly undermined democracy. Currently, using unidentified federal troops to round up protesters and cart them off in unmarked cars--well, that's just Latin American dictatorship.
WAY beyond the line. Suspending ALL federal funding in order to prevent people from voting safely under pandemic conditions demonstrates a lack of respect for the vote that is truly astonishing.
Stupid and narcissistic, but not uncommon.
Oh God. Unfortunately, there are people stupid enough to drink bleach or see this as an incitement to violence.
Defending the right to lie without contradiction is not a healthy sign in a democracy. Suspending social media accounts abridges free speech.
Using this power to suspend immigration temporarily from COVID-19 hotspots is reasonable. Using it to try to bar ALL immigration or to deport international students, ALLEGING Covid, is NOT reasonable or normal.
Political interference in the chain of command is a really bad trend for democracy.
It SHOULD be mostly normal, but it is a little surprising that everyone cooperated, even on an issue of such importance.
I might disagree with the plan, but presidents do try to defend their policy goals.
If there were no COVID, this would be normal. But under the circumstances, it seems like a deliberate provocation.
in retrospect, I probably rated the US in 2020 too highly.  I think we are on a slide to authoritarianism, but the levy has not yet broken.  I think 2015 was a high point for democratic governance in my life-time.
First, the government is failing to ensure free speech; local urban government officials in some places have allowed loud mobs to chill law-abiding citizens' right to free speech and failed to protect private property.  Public (and some private) university officials are failing to promote the value of free speech and are instead supporting "politically correct" movements which seek to silence those who disagree with the movements' ideas.  Second, hyper partisanship has created the factions Madison warned against in the Federalist papers, undermining the efficacy and legitimacy of government. Third, the lies and self-serving policies of President Trump diminish trust in government, while the rise of the socialist left erodes the private property rights that are a fundamental component of American democracy.
That the President has to send additional federal authorities to protect federal property is abnormal and reflects the failure of local authorities to execute their sworn responsibilities.  It is important as it reveals the dysfunction of urban government.
The charges were based on a biased investigation bred by civilian government employees' discontent with the results of the presidential election.  While Flynn likely did breach the law, there seems to have been an improperly motivated investigation.  The dismissal of charges, while clearly politically motivated as well, can nonetheless be sustained based on the improper investigation and thus do not necessarily set a significant precedent.
I don't think this was the singular reason for the tweet.  I think it reveals the stupidity and incompetence of Trump more than it was a conscious deliberate promotion of racial war.
The UN infrastructure has been rotten for some time; the US has previously sought to obtain more accountability in UN institutions (e.g. human rights council) but had limited success, so this is not simply a Trumpian tantrum.  It is somewhat important as it cedes ground to China and diminishes US influence in recognizable international institutions.
This again reflects the incompetence and pettiness of Trump, but as he has very limited legal ability to follow through on this, it is unimportant.  Unfortunately, it is further evidence of the lack of respect for free speech that infects modern society - as seen in both Trump supporters and the "progressive" left wing - which is a much more important problem.
The entire COVID-19 situation is grossly abnormal.  Suspension of immigration is horrific, but perhaps necessary.  It is not important as a precedent.  Its substantive importance will depend on its duration.
This undermines the legitimacy of government overall and contributes to the diminished respect and civility within government.
The question comparing democracy across time periods is unclear.  Are respondents to judge all eras listed by contemporary standards or by the then prevailing standards of democracy?  Without some recognition of the distinction, I think the data collected from this question will be of little use.  Some may apply contemporary standards as say the US in 1800 was clearly not democratic due to slavery and lack of women's rights.  Others may apply their perceptions of standards in 1800 and find that the US was in fact democratic under those standards and as compared to European states.
International cooperation; international political economy
In 2020, US citizens do not read the same news and so hear different versions of news reports. There are conspiracy theories around that people believe even when they are shown to be untrue. Citizens do not trust their political institutions or elected officials as much as before. Political institutions are being undermined, there is no coordination of many policies, the Legistature has not been able to constrain the Executive with our separate but equal policies. Political officials in the 2 main parties can no longer compromise among themselves and even the parties themselves are divided.
While the President has the right to pardon people, he/she should be careful who they pardon. The perception is that the President pardons his friends and punishes his enemies, without regard for the laws.
It looks as if the President is trying to silence anyone who disagrees with him or hinders his Presidency, and so it might send the message that, if you want to keep your job, you do not say anything against the President (or other administration officials) even if you see wrongdoing.
This shows a lack of empathy, consideration of others and even ignorance of issues of importance to many citizens. It might also be a way to foster more divisions among Americans.
A horrific act showing off the President's power to punish people who do not do his bidding. A way to shut off dissent. Vindman was a decorated officer who merited promotion. If the President can prevent his promotion, without valid reason, it is a show of authoritarian power that is very dangerous in a democracy. It is a first step in undermining professionalism in established routines and political institutions and promoting authoritarianism.
A totally unnecessary and dangerous action, all for a photo opt, shameless!! An encouragement for further divisions. A show of force against peaceful protestors.
People are getting mixed messages on what they should do during this pandemic, and so are not following guidelines and the situation is worsening. If people in one state do not social distance, and they travel to another state where people are more careful, the people in both states may bve adversely affected no matter how careful the 2nd state has bee.
A show of force, an attempt to shut down the media unless it is not critical to him. An authoritarian action.
The relevant question might be why this person felt the need to go outside the chain of command? Did he not trust that the higher authorities would process his complaints/issues adequately? If this is the case, then there is a problem, that of loss of confidence in the chain of command, or in established institutional ways of doing things.
If this policy had been allowed to continue, many foreign students would have been forced to return to their home countries unnecessarily with great detriment to their educations and even their well being, US Universities would have suffered economically even more than they are already, which would in the long run have hurt American students and the existence of some universities. The US would have been a big loser in attracting foreign students, money, creativity and sources of doctors, researchers, etc., all of  which benefit the US in many ways and especially economically.
Although a press conference with the President of Mexico is not abnormal, the timing and reasons for this one were suspect. This press conference endangered the lives of many people present because of the ongoing pandemic and health conditions in the US, and also was a show of power.
Democratrization, Political Development, Africa, former Eastern Europe, the EU
It is good to express these ideas. I wonder if you are just going to get the answers that you expect from these questions though? The how valid will this survey be?
Trump crime family lacks concern for all and for constitution, truth, public service.
Trump epitomizes unfitness. This quiz is the rare ambience where I can say so
So this all brings out the worst in people and that buffoon places his imprimatur on same
captain considered what was necessary and good for all concerned and accepted responsibility
amoral, irresponsible, kleptocratic, narcissistic, sociopath who illegitimately seized office and lacked the humor to demand a recount, lying monster
Good and evil are opposed as surely as Nazism and civilization were
Trump clan and network of deceptive, self-serving thugs in no way sets a good model of humanity, he himself is a foul-mouthed cheat, and we, the people, have to endure the travesties and miscarriages of fundamental fairness and common justice
It provided space for righteous indignation
Things that have undermined US democracy: -attacks on media -(federal) government using military against protestors -foreign influence in elections -executive use of foreign policy to attack political opponents (Ukraine) -executive branch claiming unlimited power -Congress (Senate) unwilling to place checks on executive branch -Widespread increase in attempts to disenfranchise voters, especially people of color
There's no real precedent for handling a pandemic like this.  So even though the policy has very little do do with the pandemic it's hard to say it's completely abnormal.
This is mainly a "culture war" thing.  It's potentially harmful to universities.  But it's not as bad as the wholesale undermining of democracy by Trump.
It's semi-abnormal to do an overtly political speech on the 4th. It's extraordinarily abnormal to do it during a pandemic, and to give a highly-divisive speech.
Our current leadership at the national level.
False information regularly circulated by the President and other governmental officials Attacks on journalists and journalism Outright racism, ethnocentrism, misogyny, xenophobia by top governmental officials Attempted voter suppression and intimidation Attacks on the loyalty of opponents by top government officials Politicization of law enforcement and the judiciary Encouragement of right wing extremism by to government officials Dramatically increased role of large political contributions Dramatic increase in economic inequality
International Human Rights, International Organizations
Obama was a democratic pluralist; Trump is an authoritarian, and the Republicans in Congress do his bidding.
The U.S. has slipped because of actions by President Trump and his administration. There is less agreement over facts and less respect for institutional arrangements and constraints.
There's no justification for such a threat. The mail-in ballots further democracy by making it convenient during the pandemic to vote.
Atkinson was doing the job he was required to do. Firing him sends a message to others that the president doesn't tolerate officials who perform their jobs properly if doing so shines a negative light on the president.
Promotion shouldn't be based on his testimony that was required by law.
It's a violation of citizens' rights to peacefully demonstrate, all for a photo op.
It can be interpreted as encouraging police violence.
He was protecting his crew, acting as an effective military leader.
Maybe it's just talk, but following through with the threat would be serious.
Part of the usual back and forth between administrations, but important because of its impact on global warming.
Although the administration may have this authority, exercising it manipulates colleges into acting against their and their students' best interests and, in the process, toys with foreign students like pawns in a game.
Since 2015: greater voter restrictions at the state level; executive overreach; bullying of journalists; armed attacks on protesters.  All these factors, and others impact democracy.
at this stage, it is hard to see all his flood of tweets as important -- context reduces importance.
There is a case to be made for closing borders, as we could see in New Zealand, for example.  It is HOW he decides which countries, etc. that is abnormal.
We have had a deterioration of democracy in the recent period of time, especially with the election in 2016.
Fundamental problems of American system of government, including income inequality, racial discrimination, effective disenfranchisement of large portions of population, corruption of elected officials, etc. predate Trump's election.
I'm surprised there's little attempt to query more about attitudes towards American democracy before 2016, or about the US political system more generally. I agree with the (seemingly pre-ordained) conclusion of this survey that American democracy is in very bad shape under Trump. But I don't think we should treat pre-2016 as a baseline for the normal functioning of democracy.
Increased corruption and voter suppression
Political institutions and established norms are significantly struggling to hold up the tenants of U.S, Democracy that have been practiced, with much more success in the more recent past.
Establishing a police state is something seen in autocracies, not functioning democracies.
Retaliation of government officials for doing their job is nothing that should happen in a functioning democracy.
The Justice Department should not be used to give special treatment to the president's allies.
Political retaliation is something we see in autocracies, not well functioning democracies.
The President inciting violence should be viewed as critical and completely abnormal and disturbing for our democratic principles.
Ignoring medical recommendations for political gain and putting personal interests above the safety of the public should not occur in a functioning democracy.
How a bill becomes a law in our democracy.
Elections have consequences and so do the politics that arise from those elections.
While a policy choice and a consequence of an election, the policy had no substantive point other than to promote anti immigrant directives.
Race and ethnic politics; political and legislative behavior
The power of campaign finance and racism/sexism have been problems for a while, so even before the deterioration under Trump, the system suffered from structural failings. The transgressions in the Trump administration, however, have caused new problems to emerge with voter suppression, support for violence, and an incredible repression of immigrant rights.
It created the appearance that relations were normal.  I think there is no country in the world that is more important to the US than Mexico, and decent relations are critical.  It's not clear, however, that this relationship is actually healthy or authentic.
Flagrant abuses of power by Republicans in every branch of government and at every level of government.
Protesting is fine. Armed protests and calls for harming political opponents are not.
Trump's lies, attacks on the bureaucracy, courts and journalists caused my rating to drop sharply. Firing of inspectors general, attacks on Judge Curiel, calling journalists "enemies of the American people," attacks on the so-called "deep state," the list goes on.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been weakened since 2015; There have been increased efforts to gerrymander for partisan reasons; there have been increased efforts to suppress voting participation, particularly of racial minorities and young people.  In addition, there has been an increased use government institutions to investigate and attack opponents; and an inability or unwillingness of the legislative branch to properly check the power of the executive branch.  Moreover, there has been an effort of the executive and the legislative branches to interfere in the independence of the Judiciary, by an unfair manipulation of the Supreme Court and lower level court appointment procedures.  Finally, the public information system has become increasingly politicized and weaponized, in ways that make it difficult for the public to obtain reliable information about candidates and their government.
The president undermines congressional independence by setting aside Mr. Stone's convictions for obstructing a congressional investigation.  It was clearly motivated by his own interests.
Having a president openly support white supremacy is a sign of deteriorating national leadership, both because the president is supportive of white supremacy, and because he feels that he can do so without fear of the political repercussions.
The president is engaging in a political attack on an honored Lt. Col of the Army, only because of his own personal political interests.  It was vindictive and beneath the office.
By supporting violence against protesters, even ones that are engaged in illegal property damage, the president is advocating for strong arm tactics to suppress grassroots rebellion rather than professional police enforcement.  This is a tactic of authoritarian regimes.
While it is disturbing that the President is seeking to profit from the office, by endorsing a product from a company his daughter is invested in, this won't alter the nation's political system.  It's evidence of petty corruption at the highest level of government, but it is still petty.
It is weird - why would a President of the US need to say anything to the public about his cognitive abilities?  If there is an issue, he might address it directly - "I know that there are some concerns about my cognitive health, and therefore I'm taking this test to reassure the American people"..   It's important, because it seems to suggest that the president is not confident in his cognitive abilities.
This was a gigantic package of assistance for the country, in response to an unprecedented pandemic.  It marks a major inflection point in national policy.
While I believe this is a horrible policy decision, it is still within the power of the president to do things like this.
This is an indication of the president's isolationist and anti-immigration attitudes, and it diminishes the US in the eyes of the world.  It also poses serious financial problems for American universities and colleges, and is an unethical attack on innocent students seeking to further their education.
This was a speech given at a national monument on the 4th of July - generally would be a normal thing.  BUT... this was in the middle of a pandemic with over 130,000 US deaths, and cases rapidly mounting.  It showed a lack of concern for public health during a dangerous time, which is an abdication of a core aspect of presidential leadership.
interesting set of questions at the end.  I think if you had had comparison questions about moments of great political conflict in previous administrations it might have helped illustrate the qualitative difference between the Trump presidency and the Bush presidency or Clinton presidency.
Limits on executive branch threats to democracy, and on foreign interference in US elections, are weakening as the Justice Department has fallen under the control of leaders (Donald Trump, William Barr) who reject the principle of congressional oversight over the executive, and who are indifferent to protecting US elections from foreign interference.  The right to vote has been weakened by Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters who they expect will support the opposing party (done in the guise of preventing fraud); these efforts to disenfranchise legitimate voters were eased by the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision, which gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  The influence of big money in politics, wielded largely in secret, which began with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, has continued to expand.  The US information system has deteriorated sharply with the appearance of a right wing media (e.g. Fox News, Breitbart) that rejects normal rules of journalistic integrity and grounds its business model on spreading lies, sowing hate, and dividing Americans from one another.  The falsehoods and hatred purveyed by this right wing media are amplified by a new social media, embodied in Facebook and the like, that profit by magnifying these messages,  As a result the US public is increasingly uninformed, misinformed, and dysfunctionally divided.
The Trump administration is acclimatizing the US public to accept unconstitutional and illegal federal police action within the US.  I fear it's the first of a series of steps toward subverting our constitutional order.   The Trump administration is also baiting others (the demonstrators, whoever they are) into violence that it will then exploit as an election issue, I expect successfully. Big stuff.
Inspectors general are a vital pillar of US government accountability and transparency.  The Trump administration has launched a broad based attack on this institution.  Unchecked, this assault will badly harm US democracy and move the US toward corruption and tyranny,
The Trump administration has systematically punished all whistle-blowers that cross its radar, largely shredding the principle of whistleblower immunity.  It's a serious blow to transparency and good governance.  But to put this in context: whistleblower immunity has never been all that strong.  Trump has destroyed a very important but somewhat frail institution.
The Trump administration's motives for these actions remain obscure to me.  These actions were very important.  I expect they will cost several hundred thousand American lives.  That's equivalent to a number of Vietnam wars (Vietnam = 58,000 deaths) .  Maybe a World War II (410,000 deaths).  Maybe even a Civil War (750,000 deaths).  Ouch.
Another step toward the USA becoming Hungary under Orban.  Only one step, but many single steps can take one far.
We will see how far this goes.  It's a step toward tyranny, but it won't be easy for the Trump admin to carry to fruition.
United action to provide real relief from the coronavirus economic collapse was very important.  The US government functioned pretty well in this instance.
A powerful, predatory industry (petroleum) pursues profit at the expense of the common good.  A bad story but sadly not new in the USA.  It's another blow against efforts to stem climate change.  But other blows/failures have been bigger.
Some Americans are cruel.  Think Andrew Jackson.  Think Jefferson Davis. Think the Jim Crow system, enforced by violent coercion (lynching).  Think the authors of the 1954 US coup in Guatemala, which unleashed much murder and barbarism, and the death squads that the US tacitly supported in El Salvador.  "Love Thy Neighbor" has long been a dead letter in some corners of America.  Bashing international students is sadistic but registers low on the cruelometer compared to these actions.
National security policy, US foreign policy,
Significant increases in abuse of presidential powers, eroding of some informal constraints on the executive
More context is needed for the question on state-level democracy, at least for DC: Does the question refer to the DC government in and of itself (democratic) or to DC as part of the US (undemocratic: no congressional representation, federally imposed limits on local power)? I did not know how to answer this.
Lawless behavior in the executive branch. Contempt by the President of congressional prerogatives and of the rule of law. Absence of transparency. Continued efforts to suppress voting rights and to use the pardon and clemency powers to reward the president's political allies. Contempt toward the independence of civil servants and other career officials of the state. Attempts to reward friends of the president and his party's interests and punish his opponents. Congress, at least the Senate has gone walkabout, so we are left with an executive who claims "absolute powers" and/or rule by jurocracy. One of our parties has essentially empowered the growing destruction of our institutions and our rights and has empowered a lawless executive.
Again, we need clarity for what the facts on the ground are. But the usual way federal intervention proceeds here is by responding to a request of the local officials. There is no doubt that the intervention here was a function of Trump's electoral imperatives and overrode the Mayor's preferences and from what I can tell just about every official in Oregon. That said, I do not know the extent to which the federal courthouse was imperiled but I suspect that the Portland Police could have defended it.
This is part of this president's and his party's effort to suppress the vote and to claim if and when he loses that the election was rigged. It's an old show mostly in the underdeveloped world, but it should be taken seriously. It may enable the President's more rabid followers to do in Washington what they sought to do in Lansing, Columbus, Harrisburg and other state capitals. We may have a regime succession issue that reflects our sadly growing status as an oversized banana republic (mis)governed by Banana Republicans.
It's not just one case. It's a pattern. The best sign of strongman government is the elimination of all independent checks on dictatorial authority.
This is part of the dual standards of justice currently operative in the Trump administration. Flynn may not have committed a great crime; it was, after all, a case of lying to the FBI and may have been a candidate for clemency, not a pardon. But it is now part of a pattern that is characteristic of authoritarian regimes: one standard of justice for friends and loyalists and another for my adversaries.
There have been plenty of dog whistles from candidates of the past, and especially since the Republicans decided to go "hunting where the ducks were". But Trump is the first overtly racist and white supremacist since George Wallace ran for the office. A trigger-finger mode of communication in the hands of a trigger-minded impulsive President is a deadly, maybe suicidal, combination. Maybe this guy can't help himself. Even more than 70 members of his party in the House supported renaming military installations from confederate generals to other names in the defense bill. You can't beat a dead horse to death more than once, but Trump seems to believe, amongst his other fantasies, that you can.
I don't know all of the details of the event and the extent to which the crowd pushed back which might justify to some degree the response that we saw. However, the indicators now seem to be that the crowd was peaceful and were essentially attacked by the federal police simply to give the president a photo op. This is what dictators do. The Chair of the JCS who apparently was forced to accompany the President regretted that he did so and claimed to be unaware of what he being called upon to do. His was an institutional voice wary of being soiled.
This is part of a pattern that is now disgusting and straight out of the awful Charlottesville episode in 2017. Like any other dictator, Trump wants to suppress the independence of opposing government officials and to promote insurgencies against them. Aside from such patently obvious dark political motives, he is encouraging lawless vigilantes armed to the teeth to intimidate governors who refuse to submit to his will. Moreover, from the standpoint of public health expertise, his "liberate" the states campaign was and is incredibly dangerous.
Nearly every president and presidential candidate in my lifetime of either party would have concluded that holding an indoor rally with a rapidly spreading aerosol virus would not be a wise idea even if there was social distancing and mask-wearing. But this President and candidate needs to have his ego continuously stroked while he blathers on in a logic-defying stream of consciousness before his brain dead admirers. I cannot think of any candidate in my lifetime who would not have heeded the advice of the health experts even if it meant that they could not get their supply of dopamine from the friendly crowds.
Flag officers are commonly relieved of duty, meaning they will not be promoted and thus forced to resign, when there is malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance of duty. No one on the outside knows precisely what the carrier's captain failed to do. But one thing that is obvious is that by calling attention to the conditions on his carrier, he was off script with the White House that was trying to put forth a much rosier picture. Until this matter is actually investigated, however, we will not know what the actual reasons for the firing were.
Presidents often hold joint press conferences if not quite in the semi-delirious and extravagantly illiterate style in which Trump holds them.
The US Senate does not follow the one-person-one vote rule. Washington DC and US territories have no representation in Congress.   Things have gotten worse today because of President Trump's lack of respect for the US Constitution and the rule of law. The Republicans in Congress have not made sufficient efforts to check his abuse of power.
Gerrymandering and dark money has been hallmarks of modern non-democratic practices. Trump is making the situation much worse. Further back in time, disenfranchising large parts of society such as women and minorities.
A shift toward authoritarian executive, further partisan polarization which renders the legislature unable to check the executive, expansion of executive power beyond the Constitution, attacks of loyalty by one party on the other, and no shared facts between political opponents.
The infringement on political rights undertaken since the beginning of the Trump administration, as well as the use of force against protestors, the hiding of personal financial information, the resistance to investigation, and overall oppositional nature of the executive have greatly compromised American democracy.
President Trump has clearly reduced some of the necessary conditions for democracy.  It is harder to understand proposed policies advocated by parties; judicial independence is more compromised; partisanship has increased; norms of governance/governing have retreated.
The Flynn actions (dropping charges once he pled guilty) are worse, but this is pretty important and pretty abnormal.  This is President Trump doing a favor for someone who was part of his campaign.  It's clearly corruption.
Again, President Trump is using the powers of his office to protect himself and his close circle.  Inspector Generals, while executive branch officials, are normally not subject to political interference.  Yes, they are nominated by the President, but then mostly left alone to ensure the government is behaving the way it is supposed to.  This clearly showcases how President Trump appreciates loyalty over ethics, and is clearly harmful for democracy and governance.
Once someone has agreed to plead guilty, it is exceedingly rare to then let them go.  And the context of this is clearly about the executive branch interfering in what is supposed to be blind justice.  This is about as anti-democratic as you can get.
It's clearly abnormal; no other President would have acted this way (and would have paid a high price for acting this way).  It's not really important, in the larger scheme of things the President has done.
It isn't clear he can do this, right?  The Senate (as part of it's powers of treaties) might have a say in this?  In any event, the USA is a huge part of global governance and the WHO is a big deal in global governance.  For the USA to back out of a big IGO, that's abnormal in important (especially given COVID19).
It's clearly abnormal, and only a little important.  The President doesn't have any authority to shut down any private company on his own.  The fact that President Trump doesn't know this is a part of what makes this a little important.
I think this is pretty normal.  Military officers are supposed to go outside their chain of commands only rarely.  He may have been right to do it, but to preserve the hierarchy of how the Navy operates, it was necessary for the Navy to publicly show that he violated his chain of command.  This is about maintaining military discipline.  It did showcase how weird civil-military affairs are in the Trump era, but you didn't ask about that stuff.
It's normal for Presidents to sign important (well, all) legislation.  It's an important law; it spent $2 trillion.
You are burying the lede here.  The issue isn't the speech, the issue was that the speech was essentially a campaign speech.  Any President can use what they want as an appropriate backdrop when they want to talk to the country, but they should try to craft a message that seeks to talk to all Americans.  President Trump just did a campaign rally using Mount Rushmore.  It isn't the location, it's the content that's abnormal.
Happens all the time; every time a foreign leader comes, they hold a public press conference.  Rarely are newsworthy items (related to the relations of those two countries) discussed.  (These news events often involve reports asking questions unrelated to the relations of those two countries, so that might create news, but that's not related to the event.)
Since 2015, a number of states have taken advantage of the Shelby County v. Holder decision to place a number of limits on access to the ballot, largely for urban and minority voters. This has seriously damaged citizens' ability to participate in the democratic process.
Decline of Congress as check on abuse of presidential power; gerrymandering of electoral districts; prevalence of harassment and restriction of right to vote among minorities; use of "storm troopers" to unlawfully detain protesters located far from federal buildings; fear- and hate-mongering by Republican president and Members of Congress; denigration of the free press; popularization of false information about Covid-19 remedies - endangering the public health; firing of inspector generals who investigate wrongdoing by president or his appointees, and much more.
Disregard for rule of law; political favoritism; extreme overreach of presidential authority; misuse of role/duties of Attorney General.
If he couldn't hear the phrase, he has a hearing problem; supporting racist attitudes and gives permission for racist groups to act on their attitudes; "white power" is the call of the KKK; he's essentially supporting the KKK.
Invites para-military violence against protesters; mis-represents the authority of the federal government
Decision was made for fear of Trump's reaction rather than for cause or according to protocol.
He fails to show understanding of difference between standard test for dementia versus IQ. Shows his personality disorder - narcism.
violation of freedom of religion for religious educational institutions and freedom of speech for non-demominational education institutions.  We have a process for challenging tax status that the president should not violate through his rhetoric.  If there is a case that should be raised, it should follow the legal procedure.
Interfering with legislated and regulated standards; we have a process for changing such standards and the president should follow that; he does not have a generalized power to freeze regulations - he must have a statutory basis.
Politicizing national resources/national parks; endangering public health and safety;
When the president makes fake news, it's misuse of a normal diplomatic process.
Considerable democratic backsliding since 2015 in terms of (1) absence of constraints on executive, (2) politicization of justice system, (3) delegitimation of elections.
Controversial pardons/commutations of politically connected people aren't unusual but commuting the sentence of a person whose crimes directly benefited the president and aided foreign intervention in our elections is not a garden variety act and its cuts directly at the rule of law.
Clear evidence of politicization of DOJ to protect president's interests.
Presidents are usually more subtle in their racist messaging.
Presidents withdrawing from IOs isn't that uncommon. The timing of this one is a bit unusual and likely counter-productive.
President's raging against unfavorable media isn't uncommon, but Trump's threats go beyond normal.
It's a normal response to an abnormal situation.  Not sure how to code that.
Government adopts public policy response to national emergency is normal (or should be).
Timing of speech in midst of pandemic makes an otherwise normal act less so and contributed to bad public health messaging
US has deteriorated in at least the following: protection of free speech, officials using office for private gain, politicized justice, voter suppression, and equal treatment.   Also not included on your criteria, but the language of hate and discrimination have become widespread among Republicans.
Biggest non-democratic elements not really stressed are the Senate and the EC.  Which is why I rank Texas (and would any other state) as more democratic than the US.
The legal checks for political abuse of power has evaporated under one-party rule. Many parts of the federal government have been weaponized against political opponents, imagined or real.
He all too often merely provokes and does not follow through.
In 2015: although SCOTUS had gutted the VRA, the Federal government was not actively supporting voter suppression...although the Obama administration is not blameless as far as restrictions on the press are concerned, that administration was not openly calling the media the enemy of the people. The judiciary was not yet packed with right-wing judges. Checks and balances, while sometimes strained, were still working.  2020: see above.
While the US is no stranger to cronyism, this goes several steps past normal.
Fits the pattern of politicization of (and interference with) the military.
Again, part of the politicization of the military, but this time trampling on 1A rights (and making a mockery of the Episcopal church) in the process.
POTUS suborning violence against protesters - knowing that his base includes 2A fanatics & white supremacists (groups with considerable overlap) who are actively looking for permission to hurt anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
Americans (and many administration) are generally hostile to international orgs, international treaties/covenants, and international law. While ill-conceived, this is not super-abnormal (remember, Reagan threw a tantrum & pulled the US out of the ICJ because it was clear we were going to lose the Nicaragua case).
Using the office of the President to openly threaten and intimidate? At least Nixon was subtle in that regard.
The Trump administration has politicized the military to a degree not before seen in my lifetime...the Crozier incident is 'mostly important' not on its own but as part of a much larger and highly disturbing pattern.
He's a buffoon - but it isn't his bragging about it that's the problem; it's that it's clear he is cognitively impaired & his party will do nothing (via Congressional oversight) about it.
Unsurprising, given the R attempts to kill as much regulation as humanly possible.
The judiciary has been politicized, which has reduced the accountability of public officials and has allowed attacks on voting rights and fair apportionment to stand. Also, the extreme level of polarization, combined with the ease of routine filibustering, has allowed a political minority to frustrate the will of the majority on many issues. Polarization has also made the distortions of the Electoral College impossible to ignore.
Massive corruption, violations of rule of law, and attempts to disenfranchise voters under Trump.
The US became more democratic as all adults won the right to vote.
The right to vote should not be placed in conflict with the right to protect yourself from a potentially lethal virus.
Personal retaliation against individuals acting in what they see as the nation's interest.
This is an instance of the president explicitly expressing support for white supremacy.
This is a case of retaliation for exercising freedom of speech--made worse by the fact that is was conducted against a member of the Armed Forces.
Militarized police operations used against citizens are bad enough--but used to clear the space for a photo op when there is no apparent threat from protesters is an egregious violation of norms and will lead to increased unrest.
This is a case of retaliation against a private company but it's super complicated in terms of how the President uses Twitter, what Twitter's status is and what constitutes free speech in this instance.
People are dying from Covid in part due to the President's refusal to take it seriously and refusal to encourage people to practice safe preventative measures.
If executed, this would constitute an egregious violation of free speech. The president is also actively fomenting conflict.
So hard to be confronted with all the horrible things in one sitting.
Although the US in 2015 still failed to uphold certain democratic criteria, especially as related to the equal protection/application of the law to all citizens, gerrymandering, and equal opportunities to vote, most other criteria were intact. Since 2015, the US government has attempted to restrict free speech and freedom of the press using intimidation and force, has invited foreign interference into our elections, has made bolder attempts to systematically disenfranchise non-white Americans, has blatantly used political power to benefit friends of the powerful (monetarily or otherwise), and the list goes on. However, 50 is still an ok rating. The US still maintains a number of democratic criteria, and as of yet there are still government officials working to protect the democratic criteria that Trump and others have attempted to erode.
The president promoting white nationalism puts him in a class with some of the worst world leaders in history.
More fitting for the leader of an authoritarian military state than a democratically elected president.
The elected leader of a country urging citizens to rise up against other elected leaders is more authoritarian than democratic.
When the leader of the country shows that he doesn't care about major public health concerns, his example has dangerous ripple effects.
Although using political office to promote material gain is highly questionable, this isn't the most important violation of office that Trump has carried out.
Although this is concerning from a transparency perspective, the military has strange views of authority and command structures and does things like this semi-regularly.
This is not only unprecedented, but it is dangerous to democracy because it erodes confidence in the integrity of the democratic process and conflates lack of loyalty to a certain vision of America with treason.
This is an attempt both to control academic institutions (not good for democracy), and to close off our borders (not good for democracy).
The speech at a historical site in and of itself isn't a big deal. Giving the speech in an unsafe way in the middle of the pandemic and using it to tell half of the country that they aren't really Americans is very unusual.
Political parties and far right extremism
Foreign interference in election actively encouraged by president and not only goes unpunished but one major political party doesnt even seem to care Not just legalized de facto corruption, but clearly illegal corruption goes unmonitored and unpunished The effects of the Voting Rights Act being gutted are more apparent than they were immediately after the judgment a couple years earlier Clear politicization of parts of the government that should be entirely apolitical (CDC, some economic statistics, etc) Congress clearly not effectively functioning as a check on an executive who shows contempt for the rule of law President grants clemency to someone who was convicted for an offense directly related to the president himself Crackdowns on peaceful protests Crackdowns on protests by unmarked and heavily armed personnel One political party clearly shows almost no public concern about clearly unconstitutional and/or unethical activities and rhetoric by the president to name a few...
What I find more disturbing than the deployment itself is that a) it was done against the wishes of local government and, even more unsettling, b) the officers' behavior (from not having name badges or insignia and wearing battle fatigues to physical abuse of unarmed, peacefully protesting people). Both are further indicative of a system that is broken. Additionally, it happens while those who so often talk about fear of federal government overreach are completely silent.
CLear politicization of the law and, even worse, the president commuted the sentence of someone whose criminal act was in direct support of his election
The latest attempt to eliminate checks on his ability to act in ways that benefit him personally but are against the interests of US democracy
I dont even know where to start... One of many indicators that he does not care about science or public health, and the country is suffering as a result. Not just health-wise, but lost educational opportunities, lost jobs, etc. A clear indicator that he has no sense of a national or public interest apart from his own reelection--&gt; a clear indicator of his authoritarian inclinations.
In the context of a pandemic it's far less important from the perspective of the health of US democracy than it otherwise would be
From a public health standpoint, it is very important, irresponsible, and dangerous. But I am not seeing an obvious and immediate way in which it threatens US democracy. It's just an additional indication of the president's apathy about public health.
The mention itself is irrelevant; but the facts that 1) doctors ordered this test in the first place and 2) he is obsessed with it indicates clear reason for concern about his psychological and mental health that are of significant concern for a president of the United States
There is zero evidence to support his claim. Either he believes it is true despite that, or he doesnt care whether it's true. Both are fundamentally unsettling, albeit it in different ways
Unimportant in the sense that I dont see it as an indication of democracy as being under threat.
It was clearly discriminatory, as it targeted even international students who were already in the United States. There was no public health benefit and, if anything, it put communities at greater risk of infection by attempting to compel them to register for in-person classes regardless of their personal circumstances or face deportation.
I hope you will continue these even if Trump is no longer in office
Democracy is under attack by a sizable portion of the public today. Even in 2015, there were problems but not as systemically threatening as today.
The Obama administration was not corrupt and the executive did not overreach.  The Trump administration is a complete catastrophe.  The executive has expanded its power without meaningful limitations by Congress or the Supreme Court.  Special moneyed interests dominate public policy.  The level of government corruption exceeds Teapot Dome and Watergate.  Political gerrymandering has not been curbed.  States dominated by Republican governments are taking actions to limit voting.  The President has refused to guarantee he'll leave office if he loses the upcoming election.  I fear for the continuance of the Republic.
He wants to minimize voting in swing states that might cost him the election.
It represents the end of the rule of law.
The president does not respect or understand First Amendment freedoms.
Another demonstration of personal interest over the interests of the American people.
Just another indication of his unfitness for office.
It will takes years to undo the damage to the environment.
Political tribalism, partisan gerrymandering, the loss of local new outlets (newspapers and TV) that inform citizens about local political decision-making, the power of money in political campaigns, and the attempt to limit voting rights all make the U.S. less democratic in 2020 than it was in 2015.
This action of the Justice Department subverts the judicial process.
Shows lack of judgment at the very least; reflects racial discrimination at the worst.
This is witness intimidation, simply retaliation for a U.S. citizen and member of the U.S. military speaking the truth to someone who doesn't want to hear anything but flattering, sycophantic comments.
This action showed the distain for individual rights by this administration.
The pandemic is being used to meet this administration's anti-immigration agenda.
Political office should not be used for private gain.
Another sign of narcissism by this president, who makes everything about himself and is unable to see the talents of others or his own lack of knowledge and ability.  This has nothing to do with the office of the presidency.
This is another example of executive fiat to serve a particular political agenda without discussion or bi-partisan support.  Also reflects political maneuvering for political gain.
Policy made without consideration of the impacts on students and our national security.
It's not so important or normal/abnormal that this president gave a 4th of July speech at Mount Rushmore.  It's how the event was managed and for what political purpose that makes this both abnormal and somewhat important -- disregarding local citizens (e.g., my relatives who live near Mt. Rushmore were not allowed to access information about local fires) and the fact that the 4th of July is for all of us, and not just this president's election.
Constitutional Law and Political Violence
Part of Trump's appeal and catering to white nationalist racists.
And Trump will not reveal what he has discussed with Putin and took Putin's word over US intelligence agencies regarding Russian influence in the 2016 election.  Astounding!
His appearance put those who attended at risk of COVID-19.
The U.S. hasn't made substantial progress in democratic norms in recent decades. Felon disenfranchisement and low voter turnout are persistent issues, while the voting population is not representative of non-voters on significant policy issues. The lack of competitive elections in the national legislature is an issue as well, although it isn't necessarily a new phenomenon. Additionally, the population's policy preferences on several important areas (especially healthcare and minimum wages) have little bearing on policy outcomes. In this regard, I tend to follow the recent work of Page and Gilens, which suggests that non-elite Americans only get their policy preferences when their preferences align with elites. They call this "democracy by coincidence."
The normal/abnormal scale is a little confusing.
Trump worked to systematically undermine the checks and balances that undergird our democracy, and Republicans enabled him
It surrenders the US's global leadership, something that leaders of both parties used to prize
Another attack to try and weaken universities, the best export industry we have
Abnormal because of the scale, but important to see the government respond to the greatest crisis of our lifetimes
Growing use of police and military for political purposes, increasing lack of right to assemble and protest.
President Trump's disregard for political norms & democracy and increased partisanship where both sides seem to be willing to sacrifice democracy for their own gains
The freedom to protest was more unquestioned. The Internet was not yet a thoroughly biased tool.  There was less questioning of opponents' patriotism.
Citizen's United  expansion and Trumps interference in the judicial system
Donald Trump and the Republican party constraining voting and access to quality of information, and the failure of Congress to limit the power of the Presidency. Plus the role of dirty money is more pronounced today
International politics and conflict processes
There has been a decline in legislative and judicial control that, frankly, began after 9/11 but has expanded rapidly under this administration. In essence, the U.S. has little to no existing constraint on the presidency in a way that was not true during the latter portion of the Obama presidency.
Elections, Party Systems and Minority Representation
Breaking down of norms across the executive and legislative branches; strategic restrictions placed on certain groups of voters; increase in politically-motivated violence
I don't say this lightly. But as someone who has dedicated his professional life studying democratic theory, Trump is the gravest threat this country has ever faced domestically.
Public cronyism and a flagrant disregard for the rule of law.
The Executive branch of government and the Republican party are undermining democracy and the rule of law
This is the action of a pathological state in action
The Justice Department is perverting justice
It is crazy and contrary to rational government.
The President is advocating censorship and punishment of political enemies
Stopping immigration to stop a pandemic is rational, stopping immigration for political purposes is a threat to democracy
All these help explain why our Covid response lags behind that almost all other industrial democracies
I do not agree but that is a policy decision not a direct threat to democracy
- Increasing attacks on loyalty of opponents by Trump and Republican party - Increasing efforts to suppress voting rights by Republican party
A blatant and crude assault against the constitutional right to vote
A direct conflict between public health and the president's re-election strategy
The US government has used worse reasons to restrict immigration in the past
An essential, if temporary, means to prevent economic (and perhaps social) collapse
In many cases, international students' attendance at US universities gives the latter an opportunity to instill civic and democratic values in these students.
Democracy in the US has deteriorated substantially.   Polarization has increased.  The Trump administration has systematically abused political power, and the effectiveness of horizontal checks has decreased markedly. The Federal Government is far more corrupt today than it was in 2015.
There has been an erosion in certain democratic practices and norms since then.
politics of identity; political violence; democratization
We’ve seen Shelby v holder gut the VRA in the south, and Article 1 abandon its responsibilities.
I worry about the precedence and legitimation of white nationalists.
Gassing the citizens for expressing 1st amendment rights...
Awful on the public health front - in terms of govt, it’s worrying to see him at odds with the administration’s experts.
More as a public health threat than a democratic threat.
I don’t know - it’s wrong, but amid all the death, etc, I don’t get too excited over it. Mostly I just think it’s tacky.
Please note when I say abnormal, I mean in the scope of us politics - this is quite normal for trump.
He has a lot of power to act on immigration - it’s tough to see the rationale though other that racism.
State provided misinformation; government sponsored voter suppression; government corruption
Trump administration and the people around him has been deteriorating American democracy.
Withdrawing from int'l orgs is in the purview of democratic leaders.  Withdrawing from the WHO during a pandemic is bizarre to say the least. Doing it to distract from your own failings in dealing with the pandemic is dereliction of duty.
I can't imagine what the greatest generation would think of a president encouraging NAZIs to undermine public health....
We are university professors - of course this is important to us....
Since 2015, the US has experienced an increase in abuses of power, political interference in investigations, foreign interference in elections, disrespect for and distrust in election results and the electoral process, and anti-democratic rhetoric from leaders.
This is not a threat to democracy, but it's troubling that our president can't set a good example for the country in a time of crisis.
This is mostly unimportant except that it further highlights something we already knew--that the president is an arrogant idiot, which is important.
Nothing about coronavirus is normal, but responding to a crisis with relief spending is normal conditional on being in an abnormal situation.
This action isn't necessarily a threat to democracy (which is the topic of this survey), but it's certainly important to the health of our society, the future of our economy, and the wellbeing of our citizens and residents.
The executive branch has egregiously corrupted the democratic processes since 2016. The Congress, which has been controlled or partially controlled by the president's party, has been unwilling to check his undemocratic behavior. Specifically, he has attempted and succeeded in profiting from his office, has purposely discredited reasonably objective sources of political knowledge, and has politicized the judiciary in ways I haven't seen in my lifetime. Not only has he probably pardoned illegally and tried to bully judges who might hold him or his allies accountable, he has politicized the attorney general position, the one supposedly non-partisan office in his cabinet, and publicly tried to appropriate the Supreme Court as part of his coalition. Finally, he has corrupted the electoral process by inviting foreign governments to sully his opponents in exchange for favorable government policy. I am  quite certain there is more, but it is hard to keep track.  At this stage in American history, I believe we are less democratic than democratic.
This sort of corruption, while not unprecedented, was taken to new levels. The president's brazen attitude is shocking and contemptuous of rule of law. Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich didn't near this level of corruption.
A nation cannot be democratic without voting. The president is attempting to restrict the suffrage to boost his electoral chances.
Given America's sordid racial history, the president's behavior is nothing short of stunning--especially after the nation elected its first African-American president.
Other presidents have attempted to infiltrate or mistreat political opposition, but again, the president's actions are egregious. He needs to be held accountable.
This behavior is colossally stupid, but isn't as threatening to democracy than his other behaviors. While he is attempting to undermine federalism, American politicians often fight about the proper parameters of each government. There are no objective standards for federalism and I can imagine cases in which I would want the federal government to intervene in state politics, e.g., if a state is undermining democratic processes. This, of course, isn't one of those cases.
Since I am not certain of the particulars of the case, I hesitate to comment. I read some articles on the case and found it disturbing.
The president's response itself suggests cognitive impairment. I believe he is not mentally fit for office.
This is democracy in action. The policy may or  may not be wise, but it was done through the appropriate processes and appears to be a reasonable policy given the current crisis.
Again, I think this is a stupid decision, but it is not anti-democratic.
The administration has attempted to compromise the American education, which depends upon foreign students, for the flimsiest of reasons.
There has been some decline in respect for judicial independence and for the openness of debate.  Much of that decline began with the 2015-16 election campaign and its social and media context.
Enforcement of federal law and protection of federal property aside - the threat is far broader and, lacking article six or 14th amendment rationale, threatens to violate article IV section 4
Twitter is for twits.  It is part of the problem.  Trump and Twitter are two sides of the same coin.
I abhor the thrust of his immigration policy but, as opportunistic as this aspect was, it is not abnormal during a pandemic
important to democracy or to my self-interest?  It may be the latter but not the former.
Democracy has decayed significantly, especially in terms of voting rights/voter suppression, excessive executive power and legislative dysfunction.
Donald Trump’s corruption of the justice department and foreign interference in elections.
The Trump Administration has significantly eroded democratic norms.
Estimates based on franchise availability
Seems interestingly conceptualized but wonder about analytic paradigm for combining response options.
We have generally become more procedurally democratic in a formal/structural sense, but have made much less progress in terms of the substance of policy —
There’s “normal for Trump” “normal for a democracy”, and “normal during this pandemic”, and they are largely orthogonal dimensions...
Having Trump complain about “indoctrination” is just a little bit rich...
We are increasingly an oligarchic country. The corporations, the Israeli Lobby, and otehr interests have come to control the policy making in our government.
Many worse things are going on. Why use a relatively unimportant matter for this quality?
Both Trump and Biden are impaired. Compare Adams versus Jefferson. Clay versus Jackson. Lincoln versus Breckinridge. Hoover versus Roosevelt. Stevenson versus Eisenhower.
Throw out some of our best next-generation citizens? Let them go to China, Japan, Germany, etc? No way.
The creation of an original political philosophy known as The Natural Left. Spoken all over the world on it.
Shelby county decision Prospect of more electoral manipulation
Actions of Trump Administration and increasing voter suppression.
I think the Obama Administration was engaged in an effort to expand the well being of those frozen out of political and economic life.  I believe the Trump Administration has been engaged in a slow moving coup against the American system of democratic Constitutional government.
Evidence of flagrant violation of democratic norms or law.
Everything about Trump is stupid and abnormal for a President.  And the First amendment is just about sacrosanct.
Sets a bad example. Undermines public health for politics.  And, of course, stupid.
weakens good order and discipline in the military.
Might be normal if there were no pandemic.  It is a unreimbursed campaign event.
Development of empirical theories of political behavior as extrapolated from formal models.
I hope there may be some real world impact from its findings.
The executive interferes with journalists and the courts, uses physical violence to intimidate protesters and limit free speech, and openly states that he may not accept the results of the November election if he loses.
It made me so depressed and anxious to read that list of recent events (all of which I was aware of, but just to click through them like that, in a row) that I am going to pour myself a glass of wine.
The U.S. has always had serious flaws, but the Trump Administration has systematically undermined democratic norms to the extent that the peaceful transition of power is no longer assured.
The US has become increasingly autocratic since Donald Trump has become President and Senate Majority Leader McConnell has helped him dismantle democratic institutions.
This is the end! Hard to call the US a democracy after this.
The President does not have this power, elections are governed at the state level. It shows him not respecting his powers and using money to extort compliance.
It shows Trump retaliation against people who try to check his power.
It’s perplexing that he’s proud of not having dementia, but I’m not sure this has much bearing on how democratic the US is.
Congress has even further abdicated their responsibilities, Cheeto Jesus (no offense intended to any Christians in the crowd with  us today) is out of control, etc.
The US system is gamed and does not represent majority views.
The system meets all requirements to be considered fully democratic in 2015 and 2020.
The erosion of institutions and the use of of elected office and campaigns for enrichment purposes since the 2016 election has had negative effects on democracy.
Inciting violence with racist language is now normal for the president but shouldn't be. The other issue is his repeated use of twitter.
Isolationism and lack of transparency on immigration matters.
Journalists are threatened more explicitly and implicitly by elected officials from 2017 through 2020 than in 2015. In addition, civil liberties have been curtailed in Portland very recently in mid-2020 in a "test case" of federal power that the presidency has now proposed to spread to other cities.
Trump engaged in a series of reprisals against people who gave evidence as part of the impeachment process.
Initially, the importance of this event seemed to be the willingness of the presidency to abuse protesters to generate a photo opportunity. However, in light of what has subsequently happened in Portland (and then was announced for Chicago and Albuquerque), the incumbent president seems to believe that the use of police force against protesters helps him politically -- even as it weakens constitutional protections regarding the First Amendment.
It's not all normal. I would be curious if any analogous action has taken place from the television era of the 1950s forward to the social media era.
It odd/abnormal primarily because AMLO had not traveled abroad pre-pandemic and appeared to waffle on a prior decision not to come during the pandemic. It was more important in Mexican politics than here in the USA.
Trump's actions as a candidate and president, enabling by congressional Republicans move me to make a downgrade after 2015
glad you are doing this--it is a difficult and uncertain time
Today a 53 because I think many democratic institutions are under fire; the US president is sending troops into the streets of US cities to fire on peaceful protestors, and there are questionable investigations or lack thereof surrounding the president and his advisors, Russian and Chinese influence in the elections ,etc.  In 2015 the US was not perfect but there was greater separation of powers and involvement in voting under the Obama administration
Despite all the noise ? I think the government & the rights of the citizens haven’t changed much. To me the biggest difference is cancel culture got off campus & onto everything else. The bad orange man didn’t cause that neither did most Democrats
Was it normal when Bill Clinton pardoned Mark Rich ? Unfortunately yes. Yes it was. Should he have done that ? No but just like trump with stone ? Presidents wrongly have this power and do they use it.
If those are federal funds then the feds can require things in return for using them. This is a broadly institutionalized rule in this country
He was going to get impeached for something. This was just the vehicle. I mean was it normal that the fbi misrepresented facts on a fisa application multiple times that happened to involve a trump campaign staffer absent which the surveillance would have never been authorized ? Doubtful. Does the government use opposition research dossiers as the basis of its fisa applications even after losing belief in the credibility of the source ? Those things are not normal. The are other questions that could be asked about the health of our system that don’t involved Trump
Again: incomplete context in the question. The way the USG acted in that case is what you should be asking about. I like trump & general Flynn way less than you might imagine but they’re not the only entities worth asking about currently
Any employee anywhere will tell you what happens if you take a shot at the boss & miss. This hits on the real lesson of the trump administration: transitions matter. Having a list of people ready to go on day one so that the incoming administration can literally remove anyone associated with the prior administration as I fully expect a Biden administration to do is a good thing. Col. Vindman, Sally Yates, James Comey ? Trump could and should have replaced them all on day one. It was the not doing so because there was no transition planning that caused all his troubles
Another misleading question. The regulation in question is a part of a 1990’s bill about internet regulation that demurred from that as long as there was no editorial discretion exercised by the web platform. Twitter’s attorneys told Jack Dorsey that he was inviting such as response when he personally approved this decision. Mr. Dorsey knew exactly what he was opening his company up to. This survey instrument is not as well calibrated as your previous efforts and I say that as someone who appreciates your efforts
This question is misleading. President Trump suspended all entry to the us by noncitizens/green cardholders unless deemed essential. That decision was not just about immigration but sure open movement across national borders should have continued because the policy allowing that has worked so well domestically. Oh wait there’s data that shows most of the virus outbreaks in the us were seeded by travelers from New York. If we could have closed state borders in March as the Democratic Governor of Rhode Island suggested & two Canadian provinces run by leftist did ? We would have been well served just like the Canadian provinces were. Now ? They’re virus free & we in the northeast are sitting ducks for it to return
Is it normal than 1.9% of the Harvard faculty surveyed said the were conservatives ? 1.9. Is that normal or representative of the society ? No. It is not. Are some of the things colleges got involved in during the last decade in keeping with the liberal democratic ideal ? No they are not. Is trump the first populist to pick on college professors ? No and he wasn’t by a long shot the nastiest. Institutions that enact speech codes & incident review boards full of administrators & the campus police are making themselves big targets.
Presidents call their immediate predecessors all sorts of things. This is how the game is played. When Trump leaves ? His successor will blame him for all sorts of stuff. That’s how the game is played & has been for a long time
Please keep doing these surveys. Like you I have a real concern that the forces of illiberality are winning in this country at present. Your work is an important tool to understand events as they unfold
unusual use of military force against law abiding protesters; violates civil rights.
Use of force against peaceful protesters is wrong.
Changes in accepted rule of law, faith in democratic norms, increasing voter suppression efforts, insufficient checks on executive power, and credibility of information have undermined democracy over this time period.
Presidential overreach, corruption, lack of respect for media. President doesn't seem to believe in multiparty democracy, is racist. Lack of res6for expertise,  particularly on health policy
We have had a worrisome deterioration in the right to protest and in the ability of the legislature to check the executive
It's only important if it's actually a sign of cognitive decline.
Trump's violation of democratic norms, evidence of personal corruption while president, and his blatant contempt for, and vocal opposition of, checks and balances; also, the passage of more restrictive voter ID laws in GOP-led states over the past decade.
political institutions, Congress, state politics, American political development
There has been a substantial erosion in voting rights and democratic norms under the Trump administration and Roberts court.
In the short span of time, it is unlikely to see large shifts in democracy.  It more often reflects the personal views of individuals towards the winning president.
I do believe that many of the peaceful protestors were not peaceful and the president was justified in sending in federal law enforcement, and I hate Pres. Trump.
An honest man would not act to protect himself if he is truly hobest
Who would do this other than someone who fails to support the prevailing views on democracy
Doing stupid things is not leadership.  It is being stupid.
The president is supposed to lead the country based on the best advice from his advisors and not based on his personal views or political calculations.
Presidents can act in the interest of public safety.  Was Trump doing so?  Based on his other actions, it is doubtful.
The captain did go outside the normal procedures.  This does not mean those procedures were right.  I would have loved my son to serve under such a man.
Like most things, Trump does not understand what he is discussing.
Presidents giveth and presidents take away
Southern politics, Florida politics and voting rights
In 2015 the executive power was checked to a greater extent than today. There was less interference in other branches of the government by the executive. Voter suppression tactics have increased since then. However, the issues of gerrymandering and not enough oversight over campaign contributions were as prevalent as they are today.
Overstepping of federal boundaries (and executive power).
Overriding legal convictions by the executive should not be allowed.
Another sign that the executive in power behaves irresponsibly and is not being controlled by other branches.
The tweet ignores the right to peaceful protest and equates protesters with undemocratic even anarchist behavior.
It is not in the interest of the US NOT to be a member of the WHO.
Important for so many reasons but above all uses politics to undermine public health.
Scoring political points seems more important than public health.
It is the latest effort to score political points with immigration issues.
It’s an accident. I meant for the numbers to be the same
The president should be leading during a true crisis
Other countries closed their borders entirely in the wake of the pandemic. We should have done it too. The political motivations behind some of the decisions should be questioned.
There’s nothing abnormal about Trump having a rally even in a pandemic. It’s unimportant because the people who attended didn’t have to attend. If they’re so stupid as to risk their lives to kiss the ring then they deserve what they get
The president personally promoting those who support him? Come on. Just guess how much money went under the table on THAT one.
Again self explanatory and an utter disregard for the 1st Amendment
He’s a blabbermouth. It’s not important unless charges of treason are actually brought
The only abnormal thing here is that Republicans and Democrats worked together to help the American people and it actually worked
A president giving a speech at Mt Rushmore for the 4th is completely inconsequential. Maybe you should ask about what he said in that speech
The question wording can be really bad sometimes
In 2015 we had a competent Executive branch that believed in the rule of law and helped to strengthen democratic institutions and practices. Today we have a President and Cabinet that routinely flouts the rule of law (E.g. the Dept. of Justice), undermines democratic institutions, and invites foreign influence over our elections. Moreover, the President is using federal law enforcement to quell peaceful protest and arrest protestors with little rationale. The GOP in Congress is not a check on a runaway Executive and in fact, enables their lawlessness.
Over the last 30 years the republican party has chipped away at the norms that underpin our democracy. today, the elected officials of this party seem much more interested in retaining power at whatever cost, than in preserving our democratic principles. under president trump we are at real risk of becoming an authoritarian police state, and that may happen within the next 100-200 days. citizens are being snatched off of the streets, the administration flouts law and convention, the government has failed at its most basic duties and foments violence in order to try and cover up this fact. corruption appears to be at an all time high and many of the organs of the federal government have been at least partially suborned to protect mr trump, his family and his cronies from justice. we are in real danger, and it will only get worse as we get closer to the election.
shows favoritism to those who will cover up his crimes or who know of his crimes.
same as previous. shows how much this administration as suborned the rule of law.
If you can successfully label your opponents as traitors, then you can bar them from office, jail them, or worse. this is the move of an authoritarian with no regard for the rule of law.
It is part of a larger pattern of anti-immigrant racism that smacks of white supremacy and a desire to expel those who do not fit a narrow vision of who is an american.
Significant undermining of institutions during the Trump presidency.
It's hard to understand why the president would interfere with how states run local elections.
racist history, and just another sign of the norm-breaking president.
highest government official encouraging protests against government policy? Insane.
One could expect changes to immigration policy in the case of a pandemic. However, the way it was done was punitive, instead of meant to have the most positive public health outcome.
Inappropriate, generally. Not a huge impact, however.
Never done before. But because of this norm-changing presidency, hardly noticeable, in a way.
A huge blow against international educational exchange, with a xenophobic edge.
Sure, it's a political speech, but not especially impactful.
Money in elections has corrupted our system at every level and in every institution, and Citizens United has made it much worse.    Public policy is dictated by big corporations and lobbies.  Members of Congress create policy that large donors want. Our justice system is too slow, bows to political pressure, discriminated against minorities, and Is partisan.  Our police are brutes and thugs that terrorize the population.  Both political parties are useless and compromised.  Elected officials use their office to extract rents.  Gerrymandering makes elections non-competitive shams.  We are an oligarchy not a democracy.  The United States is a failed experiment that is declining along the lines of the Roman Republic.
Racism and nationalism to lay the groundwork for roundups of undesirables
Vindictive and corrupt use of power = authoritarian.  And his GOP enablers are no better than Franz Von Papen
Sacrifices his own supporters and they still throw up their arms and salute
Laying the seeds for authoritarian crimes against opponents to come soon
May God help us all, for darker times are ahead and not behind us
Erosion of democratic norms and institutional breakdown
Increase in efforts at voter suppression and the increase in dark money
Important because president is furthering racism.
Due to differences in adherence to democratic norms and integrity.
A public display of bad and despicable judgment.
Not how presidents would talk about civil violence without resorting to more professional means to deal with situations like this.
Represents a major change in the U.S.'s leadership role in international institutions, especially given the need for the WHO during the pandemic.
When has this ever happened and in a pandemic?
Issues of freedom of speech and the press should be dealt with through the courts, not executive fiat.
With president's power in a national emergency.
The pandemic is far from a normal occurrence.
Treason charges against a former president -- whether warranted or not!
This kind of deficit, emergency spending is off the charts, whether with strong bipartisan consensus or not.
Within a president's discretion. Though the current context is not typical.
President Trump has expanded and legitimized insulting opponents' patriotism, condemning the media as the enemy of democracy, disparaging and ignoring the judicial branch, flouting campaign finance laws, and intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
There has been a decline in institutional conformity to democratic norms and ideals as well as abuse of power on multiple fronts that has remained unchecked.
US is not a democracy, but it has some democratic elements.
There was fierce competition, open assembly, and active press, and an executive branch that tolerated all of these, even from bitter rivals. Some portions of the US, especially those under Democratic Party mayors and city councils, are fighting over the ability of citizens to peaceably assemble and express their anger against an arbitary and lawless Executive branch with a visible but unnamed and unaccountable private army. Elections themselves are at serious risk, not just from the Executive branch, but also the entire Judicial branch, and many state party governments.  The way I put it, maybe 61 is far too high.
Some double barrelled questions in here.
The decline in democracy has been caused by attempts to oppress voter turnout and the increases use of alternative facts by one of the major political parties.
It is what I would expect of the Trump Administration, but its actions have been so extreme that commuting Stone’s sentence almost seems trivial.
Trump is verifying his position and dog whistling to his most ardent supporters.
Again, honesty and courage are discouraged.
A “law and order” president who wants to escalate rather than deescalate violence.
The WHO is an important international organization we shouldn’t abandon.
The captain was exhibiting real leadership. He was punished for it. That’s not a good lesson for our military leaders.
His ego needs reaffirmation every day. He provides his own reaffirmations.
The Trump administration has undermined judicial independence, limited the right of peaceful protest and moved far beyond historical norms for truthfulness in political discourse.
The highwater mark of American democracy were probably the 2016 elections in terms of their integrity, the 2008 elections in terms of their inclusiveness, and since then things have gotten mildly worse ... but it wasn't such a hot shot country to begin with.
Presidential pardons in this country have long been a joke. This is a new expansion, but hardly the worst ... Nixon, am I right?
We have long had various forms of political meddling in the advancement of army officials. It's dumb, and this is a dumb instance and worrying cause it's Trump ... but the US is a dumb country in many ways
In fairness, I think that the pandemic is pretty abnormal ... Clinton wouldn't have done the same thing, but that the PM of NZ did it without much backlash suggests it isn't out of the range of possibilities as a Democratic response.
It was the rule before March ... we have a broken bureaucracy and a dumb immigration system but this is standard (though despicable).
American Institutions, American political development
Erosion of constraints on the executive. open calls from chief executive for forcible suppression of opposition and violent response to peaceful protest. Chilling effects on freedom of speech. Unwillingness of senate majority and house opposition to put principle over party.
I can’t say why I chose those specific ratings. But 2015 was before the gutting of the voting rights act, and while there was significant repression of protest, it did not have the same lawless character as eg DHS agents kidnapping protesters in Portland. Perhaps most importantly, the president was not actively undermining the election.
Increasing restrictions on voter participation, executive overreach, repression of protests
The US met most of the standards of democracy to some degree in 2015. At this point, it is clear there is no accountability for the president. His lawlessness goes unchecked because he simply refuses to allow the executive branch to respond to subpoenas. He is personally profiting from the office, directing state resources toward his private gain, and there he simply refuses to be "checked" by the other powers. The 2020 election is the last opportunity to save democracy in the United States, and even with his defeat, we are likely to see low-level terrorism for at least a decade afterward.
Again, he's testing the waters for his supporters' willingness to engage in violence to keep him in office.
This is a dress-rehearsal for calling on militias when he refuses to leave office after he loses the 2020 election.
Civil-military relations; Latin America; Democracy and Authoritarianism
The U.S. has been a strong democracy procedurally and culturally  --  and has become more democratic over time in many ways (expanding suffrage to non-property owners, black men, women; and more recently enforcing Black people's right to vote. Since 2016 the country has become dramatically less democratic along many of these dimensions -- neutral bureaucracies have been politicized; fewer "widely accepted facts"; demonization of opponents; expansion of executive power; etc.
Democratic practices and outcomes are still the norm  However, partisan polarization and the politicization of courts and government have undercut democratic norms and practices.  Corporate money plays an ever larger role.  The gutting of the 1965 voting rights act has reduced voting rights form minorities in affected states.
Abnormal only in that they were deployed without the consent/request of local officials.
Very unusual to fire inspectors general for anything other than personal misconduct, which was not an issue here.  Essentially neuters one of the main institutions for oversight of the executive.
Abnormal in clearing an area for the president to speak; police using chemical irritants against protestors is obviously normal in the US (something I've experienced personally).
Captains get removed for all sorts of reasons, both good and bad.  The abnormal part was the acting Secretary of the Navy flying to Guam to lecture the crew personally for their misplaced loyalty to the former captain.
We've had presidents with cognitive issues before (Wilson, Reagan), and it is obviously a concern in a presidential system, although normally there are formal or informal structures in place to compensate (Edith Wilson etc.), which may not be true today.
Strikes a the heart of peaceful transitions of power in a democracy.  Ridiculous on its face.
In 2015 racial discrimination was less than what and economy for the minority groups was improving.
Contrary to previous practices and standards.
This is a possibility of discrimination.
It is good to have a friendly relationship with a neighboring country.
It is rather long but good for opinion formulation.
The US under Obama was much better than today.  Today, the Senate no longer serves as a check on Trump's terrible policies.  They look the other way when he does illegal and ill advised things in order to try to save their own jobs.  There is also more voter suppression by Republicans now, given their efforts to block voting by Blacks, seniors, former convicted felons, etc.  Various non-democratic views run wild on social media and are then repeated by the White House.  In Nixon's time some Republican Senators cared about checks and balances and constitutionalism.  Less so now.
One has to have order.  Eisenhower and others used Federal power to enforce laws.  But given Trump's autocratic values, the fear is that he wants disorder so he can appeal to certain ultra-conservative voters and that street chaos will distract from his record on race baiting and the pandemic.  Local officials have not requested those forces.
Trump and the Repubs, having minority views, are engaging in various forms of voter suppression.
The Justice Department is being politicized under Barr.
Trump is vindictive and always attacks and punishes critics.  Nixon too had an enemies list.  Both were paranoid and self-centered and insecure.
Nixon and others ran on a law and order campaign.  He mobilized supporters by criticizing protestors and demonstrators.  Trump did not invent such political/campaign tactics.
Trump is not interested in the welfare of Americans.  He is interested in his own re-election (and money).
Trump at times shows a mental health disorder.  He is narcissistic and displays megalomania.  Either he lives in his own distorted world, or he adopts irrational public statements and policies for attempted political advantage.
Repubs have long seen American colleges and universities as hotbeds of liberalism and Democratic support.  Trump just uses cruder language and threats.
One should not criminalize political differences.
the Feds do not normally engage in that scale of payments to citizens and organizations.  important to try to tide people over during the pandemic and limit the economic damage.
Many of our democratic institutions are under threat because of the current presidential administration and the utterly cruel partisan instincts that govern the Republican Party (i.e. the party that has sought for decades to pull back voter rights, civil rights, etc., and which props up and enables the current president).
It is the sum total of the 14 events that I commented on in this survey that reflect the threat to American democracy.
In the U.S., elections determine who holds elected office.  Under the Trump administration, there have been increasing efforts at restricting access to voting, leading to a lower ranking.
Presidents usually wait until they are lame ducks to make their blatantly political pardons.
This is the type of restriction on voting that calls into question the democratic functioning of the United States.
This is an overly aggressive reaction to protest.
The U.S. has threatened to withdraw or has withdrawn from international organizations and international agreements in the past.  Withdrawing from the WHO during a Global Pandemic is a particularly bold move.
This is a challenge by the chief executive to the authority of other political actors.
This is a restriction on freedom of speech.
One can imagine something similar happening at almost any point in time.
Abnormal in the sense that such a huge spending bill is extremely rare.
international development; foreign aid; corruption; governance
I'd really like to see the consistency of my answers over time...
Trump's administration since 2017 has led to a decline  in  democracy
Despite all of the hand-wringing about Donald Trump, I don't really see any substantive change. He's boorish and offensive, but it's mostly business as usual in government.
Trump's behavior is weird, immature, unpresidential, and often offensive. But things like this are ultimately harmless.
Would reset today to 65 - not sure there's a significant difference over the last five years. Am doubtful that "democratic backsliding" literature describes the Trump Admin.
American democracy suffers from the role of money in politics, a reactionary Supreme Court that fails to address political inequality (voting rights, gerrymandering, etc.), runaway income inequality, too little government regulation of the economy, a Republican Party completely off the rails and  a Democratic party that betrayed working class Americans.
Political parties, public opinion, interest groups, methods
Systematic efforts by the current administration to weaken democracy.
By 2015, yes, the GOP had gone off the rails and become an insurgent outlier party, essentially taken over by the dark money network of the Koch brothers and others -- so democracy was not in great shape.  But we did not have: (a) an authoritarian president; (b) a Justice Dept. used to protect him and punish his enemies; (c) attacks on the free press; (d) federal troops grabbing peaceful protestors and throwing them into unmarked vans, to be taken for questioning; (d) a president suggesting he may not accept the outcome of the election if he loses; (e) widespread vote suppression (f) a whole lot more, but you get my point.  Today, we have all those things.  America is significantly less democratic than it was just 5 years ago.
The President's criminal accomplices know that if they remain loyal to him, they will face no consequences for lawbreaking.  The rule of law means very little with Trump and AG Barr.
The President of the United States, openly encouraging violence against the exercise of a 1st Amendment right. Unreal...
It's the first play drawn up in the authoritarian playbook.
He degrades his office, to pander to his base.
It's not abnormal for Republican presidents to work to cut regulations.  Trump's obsession with repealing anything and everything Obama did is way beyond that, however.
In a different context, that wouldn't be abnormal...but during a global pandemic, and the given the divisive nature of the speech -- crazy.
Electoral politics, public opinjon, reserch methods
I greatly appreciate the work you're doing!  (And would love to use the data in my research methods courses. :)
Trump has eroded constitutional protections and practically infinite informal rules of American democracy, but he has merely pushed things further in the direction Republicans in particular (though also Democrats) have been tending. Private influence and corruption were certainly present under Obama, but not so glaringly. At the level of rhetoric, we are now significantly less democratic now than in 2015 -- say, 60 to 90 or some split like that. At the level of concrete changes, it's not that much less democratic, with the YET being the key word; if Trump is reelected, we'll see some seriously terrible attempts to quash democracy, and the difference between asking this question in 2020 and 2023 will be considerably greater than the difference between asking between now and 2015.
It's abhorrent and precisely the sort of thing any public official -- let alone the President -- should NOT do. It bespeaks unfitness for any public charge.
Authoritarian tendencies, complicit minions, abject failure. Pathetic.
Unfit for office; shockingly abnormal. Idiotic and the opposite of what public officials should be doing.
Good that it was done; it's what government should do in times of crisis, though the aid didn't do the right things, in my view.
Standard republican stuff from the past 30 years. Important because of the environment, not as a reflection on the Presidency.
I can imagine any President doing this, though not in the campaign-ad mode that Trump did -- that's all him. Really a distraction though so unimportant.
Modern German and American Political Thought
Keep up the interesting work. I always look forward to the reports. Thanks!
The influence of Citizens United and the impact of severe gerrymandering after 2010 and then the abuses of the Trump administration after 2016 suggest that the U.S. has become less democratic.
I am not in favor of such a policy, but it is in the purview of normal executive behavior.
There has been an increase in rhetoric that falsely attacks the legitimacy of American elections.
By 2015, the Republican Party's migration from the "reality-based world" (wording of Bush administration official) was well under way and the level of obstruction and willingness to damage democratic institutions had been slowly progressing for the better part of 50 years (so on second thought, 80 might be a bit high, but there is no "back" button).  However, the trends rapidly, and to some extent surprisingly, accelerated after the election of Trump.
Such political retaliation is destructive to democratic norms and institutions.
Another undermining of democratic norms.
Holding a divisive, campaign-style event, under the guise of an official function, on the Fourth of July is an abuse of the perquisites of office and sets a bad precedent.
e have a press that despite not being regulated is obviously biased, ideology has taken over rather than partisanship which results in all branches of government being skewed dependent on which party controls that particular branch. We have a populace which really is not as educated as it should be because schools and faculty are very much "politicized" which results in students being indoctrinated rather than educate from k through university.
Within his authority to protect federal property
It is within the authoriyt of the executive to hire and fire people, Trump does his job within that constitutional authority
I'd like to see the proof of this accusation
You are implying this was just  photo op...I believe this is very biased on your part
Chain of command is essential to the military
This "survey" is now becoming mostly an obvious way to hammer Trump once agin
I think this survey is an attempt to undermine the executive office of the President and is seriously bias against the present executive. Shame on you for promoting this rhetoric, you are also part of the problem in academe today
Effects playing out of Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United, etc. Trump administration actions and the inability/unwillingness of Congressional Republicans (especially in the Senate) to provide any effective oversight of the Executive Branch. Russian election meddling in 2016 with no effective response then or now. I could go on...
These are exceptional times with much uncertainty.
Most Republicans would have done the same.
Why would an administration jeopardize the ability of any school and the country from benefitting from the best of global talent? Why would an administration damage the business model of some of the biggest employers in the country and leading institutions globally?
I'm not a historian.  There's been a decline recently due to Trump.  1850 rating reflects pre-civil war division between South and North.  Franchise was extended to women by Amendment.  Voting rights act was in tje 1960s.  Both extended the franchise.  Also, there were the S.C. decisions in the 1950s (e.g., Brown) and others under the Warren Court that enhanced representation (one person; one vote).
It is an abuse of power and the historical autonomy of the justice department.  It reflects the shameless corruption of Trump and his administration and their contempt for the rule of law.
Plainly, anybody with integrity who refused to lick Trump's boots is not welcome in his administration.   Reminds me of Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox.
Who gives a rat's tail what this narcissist tweets any longer?  Same old, same old.
No sensible adult pays attention to the narcissist-in-tweet.  It is something that George Wallace might have said a half century ago.   What adjectives to apply to this person:  con-man, draft dodger, bully, liar, misogynist, tax cheat, philanderer, deadbeat, racist, ...the list goes on.
With respect to important international organizations, we don't pick up our marbles and leave.  We nearly always a key member.
Well, a pandemic is an unusual event.  Suspending immigration may be reasonable in some circumstances if it temporarily eases the burdens on federal agencies so that they can deal with other more important concerns during the pandemic.
Well, as an ignoramus, Trump enjoys thumbing his nose at medical experts and scaredy cat face mask wearing liberals.
Presidents sometimes urge Americans to "buy American" although Trump's remarks seem to reflect that its CEO is a political supporter.   I'm not a supporter of "Cancel" culture.  There are hard working Americans who earn their living at this company and I'd hate to see them lose their jobs because of a stupid boycott.
Not sure, but I think this has happened rather frequently in the past, particularly as a result of auto industry lobbying.   I live in the Dingell district!   GM and Ford's representative in the Congress.
Good luck with your research project.  The Trump presidency is a good test of the robustness of American democracy.   The career civil service is hanging in there keeping the country moving forward.  Presidents come; presidents go.  For this one, the sooner the better.
Executive lying;  ignoring of judicial decisions;  use of federal “police” in states and localities; extreme corruption of federal officials;  rule by kleptocracy and so on.  The dictatorial impulses of Donald Trump threaten either dictatorship or civil war.
Russian politics; African politics; democratization/ dedemocratization
The GOP has essentially attacked the mechanisms of representative government on so many levels in the last 15 years through Citizens United, gerrymandering, and fealty to Trump's efforts to deregulate the economy and weaken executive accountability that we can no longer refer to our country as a democracy.
Fascism again, Instead of restraint, we have race-bating and a call to arms for White Supremicists.
He is basically perpetuating the virus by basing his policies on politics rather than science.  Our only hope is that his ignorance will be self-destructive.
Trump lives in an alternate reality, and his reaction to factual criticism is a troubling sign of his mental limitations and instability.
Too little, too late, and also overly broad and not necessarily related to fighting the pandemic.
Classic example of irresponsible leadership.
Once again, Fascism in prizing loyalty and rewarding fealty.
He was trying to protect his crew, but that meant challenging Trump, so he was removed. This is an example of Fascism in the White House.
This is what government is supposed to do, but, unfortunately, the GOP built in rewards for those corporations who support the Trump Administration, thus denying small businesses much assistance.
That is what Presidents are supposed to do, i.e., work with other world leaders. Of course, nothing came of the meeting because Trump doesn’t understand diplomacy and sees these meetings simply as photo ops.
Judicial processes and environmental regulation and policy
This is getting really depressing.  We are watching as the GOP is dismantling the government and the rule of law right before our eyes.
Polarization has created a more difficult environment for free speech, and it encourages partisans, particularly in the Trump administration, to avoid compromise, or even basic empathy, with the other party.
Justice is undermining its credibility and giving favorable treatment to someone who, despite his prior career, directly compromised national security with his behavior.
Alone, this is a marginal issue and might be treated as an embarrassing mistake in other administrations, but in this case, it fits a pattern of irresponsible, inappropriate, and divisive behavior that confirms critics' worst fears and expectations of Trump.
A single appointment is typically not important, but in this case, administration personnel were punishing a whistle blower, which is unprofessional, illegal and undemocratic. It sets a terrible precident.
The WHO has some legitimate problems, particularly as they relate to authoritarian governments and transparency/accountability; nevertheless, a US administration withdrawing from the WHO in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic is catastrophically irresponsible and, further, weakens US standing in the world for no strategic or political gain.
This behavior only deepens domestic political divisions to no clear end except partisan mobilization and, even worse, endangers both the economy and thousands of lives.
It symbolizes the president's cavalier and ignorant attitude toward the national situation. The particular event is also important because it was an embarrassment and a turning point for the Trump campaign, not least because the team was trolled by K-Pop fans.
Completely inappropriate and effectively illegal. This might be a curious and marginal issue except that it fits a pattern of broken rules and corrupt behavior to advance the president's personal goals.
He likely suffers from mental or personality disorders that compromise his ability to make coherent decisions, deliver coherent national messages, or place national needs above his personal interests.
As an isolated incident, this might be dismissed as a gaffe, but it fits a pattern running back 10 years of Trump fabricating claims that are extremely dangerous if they get traction with even a small percentage of the population.
Any formal event with the Mexican president is of at least moderate importance since it represents possible policy change and is a barometer for the larger relationship.
In previous surveys, I assessed the administration's behavior as abnormal but not always important; however, that has clearly change. Trump and his more nationalist and/or close administration members are living down to the expectations of their early detractors by unabashedly abusing the power of the presidency.
Increasing interference by executive in independence of institutions; increasing politicization of routine professional activities (e.g., public health, mail), increased suppression of votes, police violence, use of federal law enforcement against local protests
Very important given action was essentially retaliation.
Critically important in context of global pandemic.
This might be considered mostly normal at another time, but not in context of covid pandemic. However, I would still call it abnormal given location (former Native American land and site of struggle).
1) Trump's unwillingness to commit to accepting election results  2) Trump's explicit support for suppressing voter turnout 3) Trump's willingness to employ state violence against citizens 4) Trump's willingness to incite violence among supporters 5) The inability of Congress to hold Trump accountable 6) The clear cut abuse of public office for private gain by Trump and others in his administration 7) The Trump administration's extensive reliance on disinformation 8) Trump's efforts to undermine the free press ... and I'm probably overlooking many things. The challenge for me is how to compare where we are today with US democracy before key historical moments of progress (e.g., 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, Voting Rights Act, etc.). It seems problematic to rate today's system as lower on the democracy scale than a system where people are denied the right to vote on the basis of race or gender. Yet I have a hard time identifying a US leader at the national level with the same level of disregard for democratic principles as Trump
There is a reasonably long history of sketchy pardons by presidents of their confidants... but at least those found guilty in the something like the Iran Contra Affair broke laws in the pursuit of what they perceived to be legitimate national security aims, not simply for private or political gain
what happened to rule of law and an apolitical DOJ?
Raises questions about the sanity of a man with almost unchecked power to launch nuclear weapons
horrific in the extent to which this undermines the legitimacy of political opponents and devalues the meaning of treason... and also ironic in that there are multiple instances (often related to Russia) where one could without justifiably question whether Trump himself has committed treason
For a functioning political system this should be normal. The fact that I had to consider whether it is abnormal for our government to push through some decent legislation speaks to the dysfunction we are facing.
I would not say this is important in the sense of sustaining democracy per se... but discouraging international students to seek higher education in the US is disastrous for our economy
rule of law, property rights, corruption, former Soviet Union
Thank you for continuing this valuable project!
The franchise has expanded but still arbitrarily and capriciously excludes minors, prisoners, resident non-citizens, and some people with cognitive deficiencies. Things have gotten worse in recent years because of gerrymandering, barriers to voting, and outright intimidation and other forms of corruption, especially after 2015 because of Trump.
It's creeping fascism in violation of federalist checks and balances.
Trump is encouraging and achieving right-wing violence.
It's counterproductive under any circumstances and highly irresponsible during a pandemic.
This behavior has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.
Trump is trying to overthrow truth with his preferences.
It's arbitrary, capricious, unjust, counterproductive, and unnecessary.
Violates the emoluments clause of the constitution.
It can help prevent a second Great Depression.
It's a blatantly political corruption of the Presidency.
Children's rights and activism (as reflected in my just released book Children's Voices in Politics)
Active steps by Republicans to curb voting by minorities.
It undermines the legitimacy of normal opposition and opposing parties.
The difficulty is to balance the democratic nature of many states against the non-democratic nature of the federal government and many smaller, poorer, states.The executive branch is down 80 points and the Senate about the same. The loser wins in electoral college, one-person-many botes for smaller stes in the Sente, voter racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. Democracy requires empathy and knowledge. there is impunity for upper strata persons in executives and judiciary. Ideological biases destroy the cultre of science and empathy need for democracy.
Criminals forgive those criminals who are loyal.
Trump is trying to delegitimize the vote while he votes absentee himself. It is one part of a multi-pronged attack on democrtic voters which has been quite successful in eliminating democracy where the GOP in control.
Who polices the policeman? The criminal gets rid of honest professionals and makes the police into criminals.
Trump and the GOP have destroyed the comity necessary for compromise between business and other less-powerful interests of all kinds. Non-violent protesters are framed as violent to divide of America. Conservative Republicans are fleeing the party as temporary guests of the democrats and seek to create a conservative party opposed to right wing self-destructive ideology.
The problem is Trump's contempt for law and the slowness and failure of the courts to enforce the law.
The Trump supporters are very enthusiastic about Trump even though he is kiiling them. They voluntarily give him impunity for his near-criminal actions. The enables are as irrational as the demagogue.
It;s not particularity serious, just weird and unethical. Goya employees blew the whistle on their ignorant boss.
Your summary does not have the nuances that make the captain's actions a find example of command judgement. The continued treatment of him did not pass any smell test and reeked of incompetent abuse of power. Monday morning quarterbacking in the face of death is contemptible.
Self-delusion and lying are a pathology dangerous in a President.
The indoctrinator frames education as what it is not in order to promote his indoctrination.
complex advoacy, citizen policy, environmental econoics
Substantial decline in respect for the rule of law within the executive branch and in one of the two major political parties; heightened use of voter suppression by a one of the two major parties; foreign intervention in a presidential election; use of force by agents of the federal government against peaceful demonstrations.
political regimes; democracy and regime change; religion and politics
In 2015 the US met most of the criteria for a (full) democracy though significant shortcomings existed on some (e.g. votes having equal influence on election outcomes, equal opportunity to vote through voter registration mechanisms and weekday voting etc). Since 2017 the executive has consistently broken formal and informal norms to accumulate power, damage political opponents and critics, as well as made moves to undermine fair and free elections (e.g. unfounded claims of voter fraud and the "voter fraud commission, unwillingness to indicate whether the president would accept electoral defeat etc.).
indicates the willingness of the administration to suppress peaceful protest and dissent with violence and the willingness of law enforcement officials to go along with those orders
I consider 100 to be the ideal, which no country has yet reached.  By 2015, the trajectory of the Republican Party had already compromised democratic values that are now in even greater peril.  I expect my estimate will be lower by Election Day based on the campaign and maladministration thus far.
Blatant abuse of power and obstruction of justice
Flagrant violation of law without consequence
Excessive power concentrated in the Executive Branch Barriers to exercise the right to vote Political intervention in the collection of data
against freedom of speech, critical principle in a democracy
The wide array of topics of the agenda between the two countries
The lack of accountability for today's executive branch, as the Senate covers for the executive's anti-constitutional practices. The stocking of federal agencies with individuals whose main qualification is absolute loyalty to the president. Voter suppression and other tactics that thwart majority rule. The continuing influence of money on the political process, ensuring that actual policy rarely reflects majority preferences. In fact, after spelling it out, I should have gone lower on that rating.
Provoking conflict to serve electoral ambitions. An abuse of the office.
More evasion of accountability. The Senate failed.
DOJ used to protect the president's friends.   What amazes me is how many people in positions of influence are willing to go along with these anti-constitutional actions.
Violation of constitutional rights for a photo-op.
He wants no accountability from any quarter. If he doesn't get what he wants, he threatens to use the powers of the office in an anti-constitutional manner.
I had not heard of this. But his actual goal is to ensure indoctrination, not prevent it.
Under the current administration the quality of governance in the US has worsened. In particular, executive branch has been used for public gain and protests suppressed with unnecessary violence
in 2015: despite systemic political inequalities, these were being pushed back against Today: govt. systematically promoting political inequality (voter suppression, etc.), violating rule of law, using authoritarian practices, destroying independent civil service, and so forth
what makes this so abnormal is the divisive nature of the event
The nation was more democratic in 2015, but there has been a serious erosion with constraints on voting, particularly voter ID laws in states and partisan gerrymandering, particularly at the state level. Most important, however, has been the systematic undermining of the rule of law by the Trump administration and Republicans, and the many attempts to negate congressional oversight, not to mention partisan manipulation of government agencies. Like many, I fear that America's strong tradition of democratic accountability is being lost, and I can only hope that voters give these trends strong consideration in voting this fall.
Same point. Inspectors general are vital to insure governmental accountability, as is meaningful congressional oversight of executive agencies. To fire those charged with oversight or to ignore legitimate congressional demands for accountability seriously undermines democratic norms and procedures.
Again, one of the signature cases of late. Partisan retribution aimed at critics of the Trump White House undermines the rule of law and governmental accountability, and thus democracy.
Less serious than the other abuses, but clearly not appropriate behavior for a president. There are ways to address policing behavior and to reform it, but to increase tensions and to ignore legitimate protests is counter to the open expression of criticism of police behavior. No president should encourage violence like this.
This is part of a pattern of partisan intrusion on governmental agencies that has been so evident in the Trump administration. Ignoring expertise in the EPA or CDC, or targeting military commanders who are trying to do their job has become routine in this administration.
Much the same reason. Trump needs to prove he is stable and competent when he is neither. Any other president engaged in such behavior would bring grave concerns about competence to handle the job. With Trump we are too used to his abnormal behavior.
He is a bully and knows no other way. He regularly threatens those he considers to be his enemies. My fear is that the public, or at least a significant portion of it, will get used to this and consider it to be normal political behavior.
What to say about this. Expected from Trump and strongly counter to democratic norms.
Clearly important, and mostly normal expectations for such behavior. The problem with the relief measure is that Trump rejected congressional oversight, and by now it is evident that a good portion of the money was not well spent.
This president knows nothing of democratic norms and cares little about expectation for the presidency. It is not appropriate to characterize his opponents as enemies of the nation or to increase partisan tensions in the way he does. When the nation needs leadership, as it clearly does today, this president cannot bring himself to build national unity and to chart a way to an acceptable future.
Less important than many other actions of late.
Glad that you are still doing this, and it would be interesting to compare results when/if Joe Biden assumes office in January of 2021.
There are many dimensions to consider, but the erosion of democracy, production/respect for independent science in policy making, respect for independent judiciary, breakdown of cross-party cooperation, refusal to examine foreign influence in elections, constraint on violence by hate groups, and many other factors make the Trump Presidency far more unhealthy for democracy than its predecessors.
political favoritism; undermines investigations, prosecutions, and convictions of crimes; rewards those who keep quiet
social media need to have some standards for dissemination of inaccurate statements and hateful ones
Mostly important because of the pandemic; also attempting to deflect attention from police violence and toward monuments
american political development, social movements
In the questions about importance of specific events, I was unclear whether I was rating importance from a democratic standpoint or from a general public policy standpoint. The rally in Tulsa for example was not important as a threat to democracy, but really important for public health.
Donald Trump’s election and the Republican party’s enabling of his abuse of power and violation of longstanding norms.
Same concerns about rule of law, but also jeopardizes the tools for constraining the president. If people can lie to the FBI and Congress to protect the president, with impunity, we are getting closer to an autocracy.
Politicization of the Justice Department undermines the rule of law and promotes further distrust of the legitimacy of our system of justice.
The law enforcement officers were one thing. But using the MILITARY against peaceful protestors is a very dangerous precedent (and the continuation of that in Portland).
Important because an example of the president intentionally being divisive and contradicting science. Sacrificing the well being of the country for his own electoral gain. Problematic for federalism as well.
Overreaction, but there’s a long history of that with immigration.
Unfortunately, demonizing immigrants has a long history.
On 2015 -- the role of Senate Republicans in blocking Obama Administration initiatives was a significant problem...   almost entirely partisan gamesmanship...    In addition, the problem of campaign finance as an impediment to free, open and fair elections was growing in importance...  Today -- the Trump "administration's" disregard for the rule of law is critical; the cavalier management of the federal government (by many former lobbyists seeking to advance their industry's {considered broadly) interests);  the failure to hold Donald Trump accountable (for issues ranging from his personal finances to his cavalier and casual management of foreign policy);  and, finally, the problem of campaign finance is worsening (with a modest thread of optimism about the emerging success of campaigns that are funded by small donor networks)...
Perhaps symbolic, but critical to the functioning of democracy in these times...
The systematic attack on mechanisms of accountability is an important problem...
Probably another example of the symbolic nastiness...    ... but it "disappeared" quickly, so maybe less important than other examples...
Part of a pattern of casual nastiness and symbolic gestures... ... but a bit more typical than many such gestures.
Part of a larger pattern that has grown more significant with the pandemic...
The "promotion" was largely insignificant...    mostly a typical stunt.
My inclination is to view this as typical bloviation, but it's not clear...
Probably should be dismissed as a typical bit of symbolic nastiness associated with DJT (but an example of his underlying weakness)
Part of the pattern of inept governance and symbolic gestures...
Public policy (health, environment) and public administration
Erosion of the rule of law under President Trump.
The actions of the Trump administration have eroded democratic norms in the United States, though they were already eroding during the Obama Administration - a particular example being the blocked consideration of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.
The current presidential administration has eroded many of the democratic norms within the country. The president directly personally and financially benefits from his office - pressuring outside entities to use his hotels and using his private property for government business. He has interfered with the job of journalists, preventing a fully free press. He has unleashed unmarked federal agents to arrest protesters. He has supported using force against peaceful protests. He has refused to follow federal judicial orders. He has used his power to gain leverage over his political opponents.
1. The Trump administration has run roughshod over legislative prerogatives and used court cases as a means of denying legislative oversight. 2. Voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts are rife - most egregiously in Georgia, but elsewhere as well. 3. Massive funding of election efforts skews the playing field.
2015: Citizens United and gerrymandering/other vote suppression Today: Unidentified federal paramilitary arresting peaceful protesters against wishes of local authorities; vote suppression still high; executive disregarding court orders; high danger that election results will be undermined by sitting president.
Continuing Degradation in limits on executive power and judicial independence, lack of equal access to voting rights, especially since Shelby county decision, threats to right to peaceful assembly
Consistent with broader pattern of corruption, but perhaps not important on its own
Threatening lives and voting rights at the same time
Unimportant in context of broader actions - his ideas aren’t a secret
It’s horrendous, but a drop in the bucket
Unchecked executive power facing no resistance
Borderline normal rather than normal primarily because the industry wasn’t demanding this change
Not much has changed in terms of the system--the people might be different and the shrieks in the media and academia might be louder, but the system has not fundamentally changed.
Standard pardons for political friends and cronies...
He can't do it and won't. It's just bluster, and every president gets upset at the media or people criticizing and threatens them somehow. Trump just does it more often and more publicly than his predecessors.
See previous answer--lots of vague bluster that won't translate into action. He says the things that many politicians think but won't say out loud. In some ways this is a less sophisticated version of the Dear Colleague letter issued by the Dept of Ed in the Obama administration that threatened to cut off federal funding for universities that didn't follow the administration's preferred process for adjudicating sexual assault claims. By putting it in a Dear Colleague letter it signals an enforcement action that might or might not happen but depends on people acting on their own to change their procedures even though the policy would not likely stand up in court.
The INA clearly gives the president the authority to restrict any class of non-immigrants or immigrants from entering the country. Foreign students received their I-20s, then their F1 or J1 visas based on a specific type of educational interaction that has changed. Is it a good policy idea? Probably not! But the president clearly has the legal authority to restrict entry.
Norms that served as bulwarks against the politicization of the Justice Department and self-dealing by the president have been substantially eroded.
The Trump presidency has violated many of the norms that sustained freedoms and the protection of rights as demonstrated by recent federal actions in Portland and by attempts to suppress the vote.
Use of federal troops without invitation raises 11th amendment issues and raises the spectre of secret policing
Shows lack of commitment to judicial processes especially since the president is directly implicated in the actions for which Stone was convicted
Not an unprecedented move in dealing with potential violence--however, in this case it was unwarranted
Can be seen as a legitimate means of protecting public health even though this administration's motives are suspect
Threat to public health for political purposes
Elected leaders are not supposed ro hawk products
A threat to free thought but not unprecedented
Classic and Modern Theory and Public Policy
Assault on norms by Trump administration that in turn becomes normal behavior for state and local elected officials such as hindering transparency, attacking full rights of citizens.
Undermines rule of law by pardoning co-conspirator.
Undermines civil services norms, not existential threat to democracy
Stupid, but presidents encourage social groups to lobby for his agenda.
President has always attacked the media to influence coverage.  LIke working the referee in basketball.    It's not good, but I think it is inevitable.  Politicians are always going to complain about media coverage.  See Erastmus Corning's attacks on Times Union facility in mid 1970s.
Don;t like policy, but Reagan did it and Obama did the reverse.
The government appears to be using force to mass oppose political opposition, undermining access to the vote, using public office for private gain, and perhaps most importantly, the leader is unwilling to confirm that he will respect the outcome of the next election.
Again, this suggests the President is using his political power to ensure that his political supporters do not face the same legal consequences as others would.
It suggests variation in the treatment of individuals under the law as a function of political affiliation.
The president seems to believe that what he says is true and accurate, just because he is the president. In all seriousness, he believes he is not subject to the sanctioning by individual private actors.
This does not compel citizens to do anything, it is simply poor decision making.
Demonstrates complete lack of awareness of the propriety and scope of executive office. But with limited wide-scale consequences.
I know little about military command. However, my understanding is that orders that are immoral or against the code of conduct are not necessarily to be followed without question.
As threats from this president go, this is rather moderate...though it does present the possibility of a chilling affect on free speech.
This is a policy decision. I happen to strongly disagree with it, but it does not appear to be outside the bound of normal executive decision making. It is important because of the environmental consequences.
Poor timing and complete lack of sensitivity.
global development, conflict, environmental politics,
President Trump is steadily eroding virtually every aspect of democratic government.
This is simply unprecedented and deeply injurious to democracy.
The president of the United States is wholly incompetent and dangerously authoritarian. Elected officials in his party are too weak to rein him in because they perceive Fox News and similar media organizations as threats to their credibility and electability if they were to do so. The consequence of incompetent governing is 150,000 human lives and the worst quarterly economic growth in American history, and an unprecedented erosion of democratic norms unlike I have witnessed in my lifetime and my career.
The president's reelection strategy is to undermine our system of (mostly) free, fair, and timely elections.
This violates the faithful execution clause and would be an impeachable offense for any other president, yet here we are.
The president's sense of self worth seems unusually low for an adult.
Executive enrichment, obstruction of justice by president and attorney general, failure to respond to congressional oversight erodes horizontal accountability, violations of election laws.
undermining of rule of law, obstruction of justice
He was channeling past segregationists and police state mayors, so it is not completely abnormal but something in our past.
only semi-important because he has no power to do so
A diversion reflected through his insecurity and narcissism.
Voter suppression on the rise Political leaders calling into question the electoral system if it looks like they might lose; questioning whether election should be delayed or term limits suspended Geographic boundaries increasingly favor one party over the other in elections (i.e.,Electoral College) Use of public office for private gain Use of pardon power for private political gain Federal LEOs target president's political opponents (Lafayette Sq and Portland) but not his base (heavily armed anti-mask protestors) Attacks on peaceful protestors Lack of accountability for LEOs Lack of faith in govt data and expertise re: Covid Open calls for fascism (Tom Cotton op-ed)  I could go on. I think we started backsliding before 2015 (see Shelby Supreme Court case). It's been turbo-charged since.
He is threatening the very system that can hold him accountable.
Put this with the Stone case. The president's cronies are allowed to commit crimes on his behalf with impunity.
We've had virulently racist presidents in the past, so not abnormal in that sense. But it is abnormal by the standards of a functional democracy to have the president openly calling for racist violence.
Undermines the role of whistleblowers in our government.
Pillar of democracy and U.S. 1st amendment to be able to protest. The president is threatening violence against protestors. He has since carried out those threats on live national television in order to hold a bible in front of a church for 2 minutes.
President's ego more important than public health. He may have murdered Herman Cain.
Blatantly illegal. No consequences. The president acts as though he is above the law. Not even pretending.
We should, from the perspective of a healthy democracy, not call into question the patriotism of political rivals.
I think a president has this power. It's suspect when THIS president exercises it this way.
The executive today is actively trying to undermine democratic elections in a variety of ways with the connivance of his party. He is also openly corrupt yet receives no sanction of any kind. In 2015, this was not the case. U.S. democracy wasn't perfect then, which is why I only gave it an 80. I rated it lower than in previous years, which I put at 85, because, after Shelby vs. Holder, some states began interfering with voting in ways that would not have been permitted under the Voting Rights Act before that case.
Cobbling together a militarized federal police force and using it against protesters is way out of bounds. Few things that have happened during the Trump administration have worried me as much as this action.
Providing impunity for the President's allies erodes the rule of law. It is a terrible abuse of his power.
Legal impunity for the president's allies threatens the rule of law.
It is within his power to do this but, like his other efforts to undermine multilateral rules and organizations in international politics, it is a departure from normal practice.
The threat to close them down is not within the power of his office, though it is within his power to urge Congress to regulate them in various ways. Making this threat to retaliate for putting a warning on his tweet is pretty extreme, though.
This is definitely within the President's (or the Secretary of the Navy's) legal authority. The fact that they did it for political reasons--because the captain wasn't sticking to their talking points--is vile, though. It is dangerous to run the military on this basis.
I hate this policy, but it is a normal policy decision.
This is probably within the powers of his office but it serves no purpose other than to harm these people and the institutions they were planning to attend. A lot of people are being harmed for no good reason.
Core institutions continue to function, we enjoy all basic freedoms and liberties, leaders continue to be chosen in elections, etc.
respect for open debate is less today. Political violence is increased. Government is used to attack political opponents more often today. Media is under political attack today.
There has been an erosion of democratic norms and practices by the Trump administration.
Trump and the Republicans were just getting started on dismantling their part in preserving Democracy. They have made much progress towards this goal, but have not quite yet succeeded in destroying democracy in the United States for good. They haven't given up yet, and it remains to be seen if they make much more progress.
Trump is the most corrupt government official in U.S. History.
Barr is an idiot lunatic (not quite as much an idiot or even lunatic as Trump) and is a threat to democracy.
Trump is beholden to Putin, and doesn't understand U.S. institutions, but doesn't care to.
Trump is an idiot lunatic whose self-hatred may only be surpassed by his hatred and disdain for his idiot lunatic supporters.
Trump is a greasy stain on world history.
Trump is an idiot lunatic and a threat to democracy
Because democratization indexes say US reached high point in 2005 and has been de-democratizing since.
Since the election of Donald Trump as president, there have been numerous signs of democratic backsliding. Donald Trump has continuously sidestepped or completely disregarded norms that previous presidents have upheld or been held to. Examples include appointing family members to paid senior positions in his administration or not divesting of his business interest. In addition, there has been marked examples of corruption within the administration such as the president using his own properties where taxpayer money is spent.  Moving beyond the administration, there has been a continual degradation of democratic norms in Congress and in the states. This predates the current administration, the usage of subpoena power by committees has been abused by chairpersons to investigate their political opponents. Examples include the Benghazi investigations or the now ongoing investigations of Joe Biden's son and his business dealing in the Ukraine. The sole purpose is to uncover dirt on political opponents.   Where significant backsliding has occurred is in the states. This predates the current administration and has escalated by the GOP to lock-in power for the party regardless of election results. Wisconsin is a prime example of this. Gerrymandering and reducing collective bargaining power of labor unions earlier in the decade helped lay the groundwork to recent power grabs. The most egregious examples include legislations passed by the GOP held state legislature to strip power from the incoming Democratic governor during the lame-duck session and the conservative controlled state supreme court overturning the executive's health orders to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Added up, there has been a decline of American democracy since 2015.
This is ignoring states' rights to police their own territories and the holding of individuals for no crime.
Latin American politics; Indigenous and Afro-descendant representation; democratization
Voting rights and voting access around the country- particularly for Black voters- continue to be tampered with. This seems to have picked up in the last few years. Moreover, some state legislatures have been stripping incoming governors of their powers
It is important for a number of reasons. a) The President is not supposed to promote products. b) The president is signaling that loyalty to him will have payoffs c) The president constantly engages in antics like this to procrastinate work/governance. I think the last point gets lost on a lot of people who believe these behaviors are meant to serve as a distraction from his other scandals. While they may do that, they are also his way of avoiding his actual job.
In the last year we have seen the erosion of the rule of law.   This is especially the case with cronies of Trump receiving special treatment in the courts or pardoned after conviction.   The recent use of force against protesters across the country also shows that the executive and law enforcement agencies show that legal protest is not as protected as it should be.
The national government is not supposed to be interfering in state political processes.  This is also a sign that the federal government is no longer looking at the interests of all Americans.   It is looking at the interests of Trump and Republicans.  A government that plays favorites is not legitimate and without legitimacy democracy is nigh impossible.
This is an attempt to undermine rule of law.
This is completely abnormal.   On its face, this appears corrupt.  If the DOJ looks corrupt than its legitimacy falls and that harms the rule of law.  Once legitimacy is gone, it becomes very difficult to get it back.
President's normally do not show support for overt racism.   In doing so, the president is empowering white supremacy and the denial of rights to non-whites.
This is the personalization of executive power.   It appears to be vindictive - and nothing else.   By acting this way, the president undermines the independence of people in government.   We want effective public servants, not toadies.
This encourages violence against american citizens and is a way to freeze public protest.
This again undermines public health measures to contain the virus.
This behavior undermines the public health messages needed to control the pandemic.  When leaders fail to model good behavior, citizens are less likely to follow guidelines as well.
While abnormal, and unbecoming of the office, it is not a significant item for our political system.
This shows incompetence of the president.  It does not really have an impact on our democracy.
US defense and foreign policy.  War and security.
There has been a systematic erosion of democracy with respect to elections, governing institutions, the judiciary, corruption by the executive, law enforcement attacking people of color and peaceful protestors, increased foreign interference, increased voting restrictions.
Clear contempt for the rule of law from the president and congressional and senate Republicans as well as other areas of the executive branch, most especially Barr and the DOJ. President's authoritarian tendencies WRT the media, protest, opponents. Likely foreign interference in the 2016 election. Constant violation of ethics rules, standards, and norms in the executive branch (e.g. emoluments clause, campaigning in a public office, profiteering, nepotism, etc.).
Latin America, political economic, public policy
The erosion of democratic norms propagated by President Trump, Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act and subsequent voter suppression legislation in Republican-controlled states intended to limit non-white voter participation, and complete abdication of institutional responsibility of the Republican party, especially within the Senate.
One of the primary responsibilities of government is to respond during a crisis.
Int'l Conflict, Comparative Political Behavior
The executive branch has systematically engaged in corruption, unconstitutional overreach, suppression of information, and solicited foreign interference.  To wit: just this morning the President Tweeted falsehoods about vote by mail, and suggested moving the date of the election.
Post-Shelby v. Holder restrictions on voting rights, clear political influence on previously professional and independent government agencies, use of public authority for private gain, unwillingness of Congress to rein in executive branch.
state and local politics, campaign finance
Increased executive corruption without effective oversight or punishments by judiciary or congress, increased voter suppression, decreased transparency of large campaign contributions.
Executive interference with electoral laws undermines the foundation of democracy.
Increases racial divisions that can result in political violence with the purpose of generating political benefits for the present administration.
Reflects the ability of leaders to abuse their power to control police and security forces and use them for political, not public benefits.
The distortions of the Electoral College have become much more apparent in undermining the democratic principle in presidential elections, gerrymandering and voter suppression is much worse, the judiciary has become less willing to challenge constitutional abuses of power, speech is much more dependent upon money, various republican norms have been abandoned, political corruption has become more normalized.
The pardon power is absolute but democratic conventions should prevent its use for partisan gain, especially when the person is truly guilty.
It is a clear violation of the rule of law and an egregious abuse of executive discretion.
This sort of military decision should not be micromanaged by a president, especially when it has been done for retaliation, which further undermines the principles of open and accountable government..
This action inflames divisions within the country, undermines the rule of law and equality, and destabilizes the system.
Elected officials should not be promoting commercial products or personal agendas.
This incident represents a break down of the conditions that should guide military priorities within a democracy.
In addition to attacking free speech and promoting a personal agenda, it also undermines federalism relating to education.
It is a conventional approach toward public policy, especially during an economic and health crisis.
This action undermines other democratically determined policy priorities without legislative input.
Democratic systems, American and comparative
that was an error -- 2015 should have been scored 98
This is an unprecedented use of federal power in pursuit of highly questionable goals.
Yet another instance of the politicization of the legal system: rewarding friends (in this case for Stone's refusal to cooperate with authorities).
The president threatens to use his executive powers for political reasons to interfere in matters that are reserved completely to the states. This goes against constitutional principles.
Trump's politicization of the Justice Department -- rewarding friends and punishing enemies -- is likely to have lasting effects, well beyond his presidency.
While the action is way beyond the political pale, it is not all that important because the president lacks the means or the will to follow through with his threat.
I say borderline normal because instituting border controls during an international pandemic would normally be considered a reasonable, or at least understandable, response. It's borderline because the president almost certainly was using the pandemic as an excuse to push through changes (albeit temporary) in immigration policy that he has not been able to effect so far. It is important because the action will have lasting effects on the US economy as well as international perceptions of the US.
Yet another instance of the president's self-absorption. Although very weird and very revealing, it's probably not that significant. People have grown numb.
I repeat myself: violation of long-standing norms of political discourse.
The fact of the speech is not in itself unusual. The content of the speech, and its overtly political tone, is not normal. This is significant because it represents yet another instance of Trump ignoring long-established norms of political behavior and discourse, which could have lasting effects on our political system.
It is not completely normal because this press conference was held during a pandemic, with the president trying to signal to the public that everything is fine when it is clearly not (I don't think he wore a mask at the presser either). In the grand scheme of things it was not that important -- Trump's attempt to signal normality was quickly swamped by other events and the fact that most Americans were probably not paying attention.
comparative political economy of Europe/European integration
Finely crafted survey -- it was actually fun to take!
The current president, through a variety of methods, has worked to undermine the legitimacy of American political institutions, elections, and data. While disagreement has existed in the past, and critiques certainly were prevalent (many for good reasons), this is the first time that factually inaccurate claims have been continually embraced and openly supported by such a high profile political leader. Even at the state level, resentment politics and institutional changes have been made to advantage one party over another (i.e., voting changes, changes to institutions based on the party of those holding the office) to degree not recently seen.
President Obama sought ways to make the country more democratic and helpful to citizens. These include health care, of course, but also better environmental regulations and the DACA program. There was an expansion of rights for individuals and policies that would benefit the nation. Many of those have been compromised by President Trump who seems to have no understanding of individual rights or their importance in a free society.
Further proof of the good old boy system alive and well. Why am I not surprised?
Presidents making threats about states trying to find ways to keep their citizens enfranchised is yet another assault on our democratic system.
While it is part of what many perceive to be racism in our society, the question is about just one incident.
He can legally do that, but his reasoning is flawed. Another step in our withdrawal from international involvement and leadership
I am shocked at the lengths this president will go to disavow the importance of scientific data. I don't know if he simply does not believe in science or if he is making appeals to his base. Either way, not good.
Another example of unfair actions against people trying to do the right thing. Not unusual in American politics
The president's behavior is often unusual or abnormal, and this is an example of someone concerned about how they come across to people. I do not believe any other president has ever made such claims.
Just another action related to the culture wars wherein some believe that educational institutions indoctrinate students
Another part of the President's determination to eradicate all vestiges of rules and laws to protect the environment
Incident displays President's lack of understanding of rights of Native Americans and how such a display would be perceived. Add to that the fact that it took place during a Pandemic and did not include directions to participants to wear masks.
Civil rights and liberties, especially First Amendment issues
I love this study and think it is important. It is a pleasure to participate.
Trump and his allies have eroded democratic norms and undermined democratic institutions,
The key is whether it is resumed after the coronavirus crisis.
In 2015, US democracy had some flaws, such as pervasive gerrymandering and new threats to voting rights like voter ID laws. Issues of unequal rights for adult citizens remained.   In the last few years, the president has used anti-democratic rhetoric, pardoned political allies while threatening to prosecute political opponents, and while media is mostly free, he has elevated media that supports him while attacking media that opposes him and suggesting it should remain illegal. He has undermined the legitimacy of the judicial branch and mostly ignored one of their recent rulings (DACA ruling).
Significant deterioration in a variety of norms: civil discourse, integrity of media and elections, declining protection of civil liberties, and stoking of violence in civil society.
he has the right to do this, but more or less openly admits that the purposes are political
anything affecting the integrity of the electoral system directly impinges on democracy.
His power to block such testimony remains legally unclear
Again, substantively important but probably in his presidential powers.
Substantively, I believe the policy change is important but not necessarily a democratic derogation.
Same as prior responses, but here virtually no consultation with affected sector.
Horrible speech, but he has the right to give horrible speeches
Transitions to and from democratic rule; political economy of East Asia
US was more democratic in 2015 because Trump administration has since rolled back some rights (eg, Muslim travel ban)
There has been significant movement toward becoming an illiberal democracy during the Trump presidency. As I type, for example, Trump's tweet calling for a delayed election is trending. So far the 2017, 18, and 19 elections suggest the US can pass this stress test but the damage to its institutions is real and potentially catastrophic if not addressed robustly going forward.
For "normality" here, this is difficult to evaluate.  The current coronavirus situation is, of course, highly abnormal, but seeing elected officials provide benefits to constituents during a crisis is not that unusual.
The Senate is a profoundly undemocratic institution, and the House has become less democratic. Five years ago there was, I think, a sense that political norms operated to produce democratic results even though there were structural issues that prevented the full realization of democratic goals. This perception no longer exists
Corrupting the administration of justice is not democratic
This is giving license to unlawful behavior
The rally in question was a display of contempt for science
Chain of command is important. What makes this notable is the breakdown of norms: the Captain of the Roosevelt had legitimate grounds to believe that the peril he was confronted with was being ignored for political reasons
Bush was stupid. Reagan was definitely cognitively impaired. Both of them were higher functioning than Trump
The science is clear, and there is no legitimate policy reason to do this
Racist. Also very bad for American institutions of higher learning, which are imperiled
I had been unaware of the history of Mt Rushmore. In the  context of that history, and the growing social awareness of it the presentation was racist
Heads of state meet and hold a press conference. That's a good thing considered in a vacuum
It didn't make me feel much better about the state we are in
Elections were and are overwhelmingly free and accurate: there is minimal voter fraud, ballots are tallied accurately, people can vote without intimidation, and ballots remain secret.
I would consider the widespread use of mail-in ballots a direct threat to democracy, given the ease of fraud in such a medium. Right now, though, this remains so low-scale as to be of little concern.
This is abnormal only in the extraordinary sum, not in the mere fact of passing relief.
Republican party control of national government erodes democracy, while Democratic party control enhances democracy.
His actions accellerate the protests rather than quieting them.
Erosion of faith in institutions, destruction of key norms, trump rhetoric,
Pardoning someone as a reward loyalty to the president circumvents the justice system.
IN 2015, foreign electoral interference not an issue, and Department of Justice not a partisan weapon.
The trans-historical democratic ratings need benchmarks.  What does a 50 mean? Are we evaluating in historical context or to some trans-historical ideal?
The Trump administration has attempted to use government agencies to punish political opponents. The neutrality of the civil service has been severely compromised. President Trump has attempted to use his office for personal gain. He attacks the media and political opponents in personal and uncivil ways.
President Trump consciously flaunts the norms of the president. I don't think this is super-important, but the fact that he is provoking political opponents, it is worthy of attention.
I really do not have enough information about this case to provide an opinion.
By semiimportant I do not intend to downplay the danger of COVID-19. I am simply noting that this is the work that congress and the president should do as a matter of course in a democracy.
In 2015, the political system as whole was the object of serious challenge, but the judiciary held.  The principle of equal representation has never held in the US.  Today the central Federal institutions are compromised by corruption, the public bureaucracy is subject to pressures that make it ever more difficult for it to perform its functions, some elements of it are outright repressive (e.g. Homeland Security).
The subjection of funding to political (even  narrowly political) considerations is commonplace, but there is usually an element of "decorum" which helps to protect the normative foundations of the state and the rule of law. In this case, there was no semblance of normativity. Worse yet, Trump openly challenged the legitimacy of Michigan authorities and encouraged armed groups. Finally, COVID is  serious epidemic that has resulted in at least 150,000 deaths in the US alone. The function of government at every level is, at a minimum to protect the lives of people. Trump has openly abrogated this norm.
Completely inappropriate and worrisome for the very fate of democracy and the rule of law in the US. Had I remembered this, I would have given the US in 2020 a much lower rating.
Expresses absolute contempt for the practice of Congressional oversight and the norms of the rule of law.
A global pandemic calls for international cooperation. Not only will people die as a result of this action, it also undermines the international system of states and its relatively vulnerable order.
Another expression of the current government's bent toward arbitrary rule.
It is "normal," in the sense of commonplace, for this administration to take a stance of willful ignorance and promote it among the population. People, and not only those present, have gotten sick, crowded ICUs, exposed healthcare staff because of this particular incident. The normal processes for handling an epidemic, processes established by the two previous administrations, is for political leadership to follow the lead of public health experts and legitimate their solutions. The Trump administration and many Republicans in Congress and state and local governments have done exactly the opposite.
Civilian authority should have control over the military. On the other hand, the captain of the TR was doing exactly what a leader ought to do: protecting his troops in a situation where no military or national security objective would be undermined.
Who touts having had to take a dementia test?
Normal in the sense that this roughly how emergencies are handled. But also normal for Trump and Republicans in the sense that the provisions of the CARES Act favored their clientele (major corporations especially in the extractive sector, corporate farms, etc.)
Under normal circumstances, this would be a normal symbolic action.
Trump administration is not following rule of law on multiple fronts and now he is threatening to recognize the validity of 2020 elections.
The primary difference is a president with little respect for democratic norms, rules, and processes.
Restraints on executive power have been undermined, both by the legislative and judicial branches unwilling to stand up to an authoritarian presence in the White House. Use of US troops and law enforcement deployed internally without requests from local authorities and in violation of the Constitution. Just today, an unpopular President suggesting delaying the fall election and widespread disinformation spread by an executive branch meant to serve an individual's interests rather than those of the office.
Commuting this sentence is clearly an attempt to undermine legislative oversight of the executive. It is blatant and undermines rule of law.
Politicizing the justice system in this way undermines the rule of law, which is fundamental to democracy.
"White Power" is anathema to democratic rule. Having the leader of this country retweet this either shows someone who lacks the intelligence to hold that office or someone who supports a racist, apartheid system. Most likely both and neither is good for American democracy.
This is another example of punishing those doing their sworn duty to defend and protect the Constitution for petty, personal, and political purposes. It's a textbook case of corruption.
Directly going against CDC recommendations in the midst of a pandemic not only undermines public health, but also undermines public trust in medical science. The release form demonstrates a lack of caring about citizens beyond what they can do for the President's ego.
Like the independence of other branches of government, this threatens to undermine institutions who disagree with the President. It is another blatant attempt to muzzle opponents using the power of federal taxpayer dollars to serve the interests of a corrupt executive.
Deflection with a strong dose of racism for personal political gain.
This is a policy change, not uncommon across different administrations.
While xenophobia is nothing new in the US, this clearly targets a nativist vote in the upcoming election. To be so blatant is abnormal.
Trump. Attacks on legitimacy of elections. Anonymous federal agents operating in the states against wishes of state and local officials undermining both federalism and civil liberties. Threats to postpone election. Selling out to foreign autocrats. Increased negative effects of the electoral college in overrepresenting one party at the expense of the other undermining equal impact of votes.
This scares the shit out of me. Maybe the biggest violation of his presidency which is saying a lot. Violates both civil liberties and federalism. Looks like preparation for imposition of autocracy. Targeted directly at core protected democratic rights like free speech and assembly.
This is a very serious attack on rule of law and the legitimacy of legal process and the DOJ. It is also a serious attack on congress's legitimate powers of oversight. The pardon was a nakedly corrupt act and almost certainly should be considered obstruction of justice whether or not there is a smoking gun record of an agreement to trade the pardon for Stone's silence.
Political retaliation for legitimate oversight is a huge problem.
This is just crazy. It undermines the rule of law and damages the dept of justice even after he leaves office. Flynn's crimes were serious and corrosive of democracy. It might be less important if Flynn's crimes had been personal to him like tax evasion or assault.
It is an attack that violates the first amendment in itself even without taking concrete action against the platforms. Railing against the press is one thing that politicians might often do, these kinds of threats are at a different and more disturbing level.
Modelling bad behavior that is leading to people's deaths.
Violates established first amendment rights and part of de-legitimizing opposition. To be fair, he's just building on an already established set of attacks on universities by his party.
It was really weird and more a campaign event than a presidential event. And it was excessively nationalistic even for the 4th of July.
The current administration's attack on journalists and claims about voter fraud have undermined critical democratic infrastructure compared to just a few years ago.
Voter suppression, gerrymandering, misinformation and disinformation campaigns by both domestic and foreign interference are undermining the voting process.
In 2015, the press was not labeled "fake news," and science was still respected by most politicians. In 2020 the free press is under attack by extremes on the left and right wings of politics, and both sides question science. The president also participates both in attacking the free press and science. Likewise, important environmental regulations and regulations on big business have been loosened. The "super rich" are able to wield much more political power, as well.
It appears to me to be a way to test the waters for further authoritarian action undermining the US Constitution.
This is politically motivated abuse of executive power.
This is politically motivated abuse of executive authority.
It appears to me to be a way to test the waters for further authoritarian action undermining the US Constitution, especially our First Amendment rights.
His decision was not based on medical data, but was meant to appeal to his political base.
This is an example of politicizing the Executive Office of the President.
The military chain of command was involved, but this was mainly a political decision.
There was a law in place prohibiting international students from taking all classes online. Now, the president is using this not for national security reasons, but to appeal to his racist, white nationalist, political base.
Politicians do such things, but the issue is what the president said.
US National Security, Public Administration, and Political Philosophy.
Undermined freedom of the press Voter suppression Undermined freedom to assemble Unchecked executive power hyper-polarization
Disrespect for federal agencies and health experts.  Endangering Americans.
Include statements about Congress and the Courts.
Generally, over time the US has increased the democratic nature of its system, allowing more people to vote, securing increased civil rights, and honoring the norms of separated powers and peaceful elections.  However, under the Trump administration, the separation of powers has been diminished, with the executive ignoring judicial and legislative authority.  The executive has undermined faith in free and fair elections, encouraging foreign interference and the reduction of voting rights.  The executive has drawn election results and term limits into question, undermining people's faith in outcomes and the legitimacy of their elected officials.  The administration has use the government for private enrichment in a way not seen in 100 years.  The judiciary has been politicized and used a cudgel for the president's interests.  The President has encouraged political violence and intimidation against those he disagrees with.
Again, this is blatant corruption and retaliation against critics.  Further, it creates climate of fear and limits the ability of inspectors generals to maintain independence.  This is also an impeachable offense.
Blatant racism and white supremacy from President.
This is blatant corruption.  Retaliation against whistleblowers and witnesses to federal investigations is a crime and should be an impeachable offense.
This tweet continued his pattern of encouraging political violence against opponents.  It also shows clear racial prejudice and encourages white supremacy.
This effort undermined his administration's own recommendations and ran counter to the public health  These messages undermined the ability of states and government to effectively contain the spread of coronavirus and likely killed thousands of people unnecessarily.
Evidence of the President's continued attack on media and anyone who criticizes him.
It is odd for any president to brag about a test score, especially when the test is a screening for dementia.  I'm not sure why not having dementia would be something that someone should brag about.  But, it really shouldn't have any effect on the nation.
This abnormal because of the timing during the ongoing pandemic and the policy to not have fireworks at Mt. Rushmore due to fire hazards.  The president put people at risk of infection and risked damaging a national monument in order to campaign for election.  Further, he turned a holiday of national unity into partisan rally.
state politics, representation, LGBTQ politics, direct democracy
More faith in free and fair elections without political interference, Less pushback to expressing political speech (including protests), Less corruption by those holding national offices and government positions
Senate almost completely giving up its oversight authority of the executive, general collapse of a shared factual reality as the basis for community problem-solving, dramatic increase in the explicitly corrupt dealings of the executive. Jesus, the more I write this down I think '65' was being generous...
Recent corruption trials involving the executive branch have undermined the national government.
Policy, budget, national and state institutions
there's been an erosion of democratic practices and norms under the current administration: increasing efforts to disenfranchise voters; disputes over basic facts and truths; attempted restrictions on the free press; recent attempts to prevent peaceful protests; and a general attack on the unwritten rules of democracy and democratic participation from the highest office in the land.
During the Trump administration, the weakness of Congressional oversight and the politicization of Executive branch agencies have eroded horizontal accountability (intra-governmental checks and balances).
Polarization + Executive interference in the judicial branch
Economic inequality continues to rise and the current administration has increasingly committed human rights violations, tried to silence the press, and today has questioned whether we would even have a national election.
Again democracy relies upon equality under the law; while the president certainly does have the power to pardon, using it to pardon someone who enabled an elected official to remain above the law is not an example of equality under the law
The president's henchmen should not be above the law; equal treatment under the law is a key component of democracy
Again, political equality is vital to democracy. The president supporting some citizens who would kill a subset of other citizens because of their race is completely antithetical to democracy and human rights.
Ensuring the safety of the president from demonstrators is not inconsistent with democracy; the fact that the protests were peaceful and the repression of them violent (including destroying medical supplies used to keep demonstrators safe and shutting down press coverage of the demonstration) as well as the fact that the president's foray through the protests was completely unnecessary (it's not like they were blocking his path into the White House) make these unusual, undemocratic events.
Deciding whether or not the country should belong to an international organization is well within the prerogative of of a president in a democracy. Deciding to withdraw from the WHO during a pandemic is stupid public policy and has important impacts on the world's ability to combat COVID 19, but it is not undemocratic.
A free press is a core component of democracy
Democracy relies on mutual trust between competing parties
This is a routine example of using the executive branch's powers; this might be stupid public policy but it is not any different than Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter setting regulations on campus enforcement of Title IX.
This is extremely important to the students and the universities; but administrative changes to visa policy are not relevant for democracy
Too high level of political polarization; extremes of rhetoric on right & left
It's normal behavior.  The indictment was based on entrapment and there was not an underlying offense.
The Republican Party (and its conservative allies) has eroded important norms of democratic governance in the service of electoral and political victories.
This is a tricky question to answer. A pandemic is itself very abnormal, so I’m answering the normal/abnormal question assuming the existence of a pandemic (the “normal” response to which is likely to include some pretty abnormal things compared to non-pandemic times).
Increased corruption in public office, manipulation of the justice department for political purposes including related to potential election interference, executive pressure on courts for outcomes, limitations on congressional oversight both from within and outside congress..
creates norm or immunity for those who act illegally but on the behalf of the president.
Protection of allies and creates norm of impunity for breaking law as long as it benefits the president.
The president is most likely a white supremacist... That's not ok.
illegal to retaliate against whistleblowers.
Presidents call on their supporters to push political agendas all the time.  There's not really anything wrong with it, except the context that it's a global pandemic and people will die because of it.  Change the context to protesting abortion or some other partisan issue, and it's rather normal.
He agreed to the EULA and private companies have a right and obligation to enforce standards in their spaces.  First amendment doesn't apply to private actors such as corporations.
He shouldn't be doing it, but it's a minor offense.  It would probably be more important in a different white house where the president behaves more in line with norms for presidential behavior.
He tried up the COC first but didn't get adequate response.  that's the abnormal part.  Had he simply circumvented COC it would not be abnormal.
Demonstrates that he's not competent.  And that he knows it, because otherwise he wouldn't think to mention it.
I'm uncertain how DOE defines student for immigration purposes.  Does seem like there would be restrictions, otherwise anyone could enroll in an online class for a few thousand bucks and use that as the basis for a visa.    Motivation in this case is clearly political, however, not security related.
There has been significant degradation of the free press, independent judiciary, and political leadership free from corruption.
Justice appears to have a double standard with the commutation of Mr. Stone's sentence.
The issue of double-standard in justice is raised with the attempted dismissal of charges against Lieutenant General Flynn, especially after the Department of Justice had prosecuted him successfully.
The closure of borders due to COVID-19 is not unprecedented across countries, but it is hardly an ordinary event.
Disregarding official government agency public health advice during a pandemic is extremely irregular.
It is extraordinary for a President to promote commercial products while in office.
Acting in disobedience of the chain of command appears to have major consequences, yet given the public health situation on the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, the captain appeared to have little choice in raising awareness of the rampant COVID-19 aboard the vessel as his superiors appeared ignorant of it.
The CARES Act was necessary to avoid economic and societal collapse in the wake of the first wave of COVID-19, thus it was not normal, but the legislation went through normal (if accelerated) channels.
There are stipulations for international student curricula.
The speech itself was rather divisive by the standards of presidential holiday addresses, but it is not unusual to have the President give such an address.
Press conferences with heads of state are quite normal activities for the U.S. president to engage in. They set a tone for relations with the other country.
The widespread efforts of the GOP to prevent Americans from voting have severely compromised american democracy
The punishment of whistleblowers compromises the legislative oversight required under the Constitution.
This is a denial of the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and protest. It is all the ore serious as the action was taken by command of the President whose sworn duty it is to uphold and defend the constitution.
In stressful times, the president needs to give an example of serious attention to all aspects of a serious problem  or one portrayed as a serious problem, not play Archie Bunker.
This is a threat to the first amendment.
The move is symbolic but not necessarily in line with science, showing once again contempt for science and a desire for dramatic gestures.
It demonstrates once again the egomania of a charlatan. At least it warns the general public about the nature of the man.
Yet another threat to abridge first amendment rights.
This is a rollback of regulations meant to protect the public health of the nation, something already in danger from COVID-19.
Them ove seriously threatened the higher education system of the US, a system that has been bringing much needed talent to the US and generating billions of dollars in income for the nation.
It is a highly symbolic event recognizing in a public way mutual recognition sovereignty.
There has a been an unchecked expansion of executive power and a feckless legislative branch unable to stop it. Partisan polarization has increased, along with hostility and aniosity towards political out-groups. I've seen police attack journalists covering protests time and time again. Misinformation and conspiracy theories have become mainstream and there is no reason to think the upcoming election won't involve foreign meddling.
The president signaled that if you lie to cover up for the president, he will make you immune from the consequences.
Like with the blocking of the Lt. Colonel's promotion, this will have a silencing effect on others. The message has been sent and received that if you cross the president or speak out against corruption in the administration, you will pay a personal price for it.
Like with Roger Stone, if you lie to protect the president and cover up his corruption, you are protected.
It's not important because an individual was driven from service. It was important because it signaled to others that to speak out against corruption is to put your career in jeopardy. This will have a silencing effect on others.
This was the incitement of violence against protestors by a sitting president. He went out of his way to inflame racial tension.
The politicization of the pandemic is the dumbest thing this president has done. In contradicting his own government's guidelines, he encouraged 40% of the country to ignore the virus. This has served to increase the spread of the disease, further tank the economy for the long-term, and has led to 150,000 deaths. A comparison between the viral spread in the US vs. the EU is a good indicator of what "could have been" had social distancing and masks not become a partisan battleground.
It's mostly-important because, my holding the indoor rally, the President is signaling to his supporters that the virus is not something one needs to take precautions about. This has deadly consequences.
Government spending during a recession is pretty normal. The most abnormal part about it was that the bill was passed in a largely bipartisan way.
The main factor is the increasing tendency for the executive branch to overreach its constitutional authority.  The functioning of Congress has remained similar.
This represents a unprecedented abuse of executive power and challenge to the federal nature of US system of government.  Nascent authoritarianism!
Very troubling.  Independent oversight is a critical safeguard which is being eroded by this administration.
If this is found to be an unwarranted interference by the Justice Dept., it represents a level of politicization not seen very often.
Use of a chemical weapon against peaceful protesters, although not unprecedented, is very troubling, especially for the reason given - a photo op.
Going against recommendation by CDC represents a blatant disregard of personal safety considerations.  Very irresponsible.
It's sad that this president has to sink down to these depths to make a political point.
The rantings of a mad man.  What else can you say.  I suppose it can be excused by reference to its being a ploy to appeal to "the base", but it is unprecedented, and DANGEROUS to the democratic process and political stability.
Reversal of Executive Decisions is not that unusual, though the extent to which this has happened in the current administration is unprecedented.
Another blow to the reputation of the US.  Needless, and very counterproductive.
Would be perfectly normal and unimportant in the absence of COVID-19.
Trump and his national and subnational enablers in the Republican Party have gone a long way toward destroying fair elections, basic human and civil rights, the rule of law, and executive and judicial constraints on the executive.
The Trump administration has effectively seized more exec power, with Legislature not effectively fighting back. Trump admin has attacked the pess and has worked to undermine judicial independence, as well as encouraging the maniu[ulaiton of electoral rules of the game in ways that benefits Rs and Trump.
Rated semi-important only because, like many Trump "initiatives," it will not (and cannot) be accomplished.
A window into Trump's mind (sic).  Important in that it raises the curtain on Trump's racist worldview.
Peaceful protest disrupted for pure political purposes by quasi-military forces.
Not completely abnormal because you could see this as a response ina crisis from another president.  Important because it's one more element in Trump's consistent anti-immigratioin policiies, which are likely to have seirous long-term efects.
Despite some unusual circumstances, most of this was wihtin chain-of-command authority. (not saying it was a wise decision)
More meird than importnat.  but important to bring it into the presidential conest, probably to the benefit of Biden.
Semi-important only because it's an idle threat.
Largest such bill ever, passed with virtually no debate.  If that's not both abnormal and important, I don't know what is.
Long-term consequences to US place in world aong yung potential leaders and other influentials.  Arbitary administrative action done for political purposes (shoring up Trump's support among core backers)
The first three negative ratings reflected historical periods when only white males could vote. Things improved somewhat in the 20th century, improving even more when the vote was given to 18 year olds. Still, ex-prisoners can still not vote to this day. Citizens United and the partial repeal of the Voting Rights Act in the past two decades have further eroded US democracy. The inability of the President's party to offer an independent voice apart from the President to represent their constituents has unfortunately meant democracy is in severe decline again.
Again, this action is within the rights of the president. However, the rationale for doing this (protecting a loyalist) is abnormal. I don't think it's terribly important though, given the president's limited power to take this action.
Inspectors General are supposed to be protected from these actions, however much a president might seek to neutralize them. This is a direct challenge to the rule of law and I am pissed off as hell at the Senate for letting it slide.
Borderline abnormal rather than fully abnormal because all presidents say stupid things sooner or later. I think it's naive to think presidents should normally being promoting peaceful solutions. Mostly important because incitements to violence will harm human beings, especially young activists.
On the face of it, this action is within the rights of the Executive Branch. However, given the rationale for the action (xenophobia) it's only borderline normal. And it's extremely important to public policy given the timing (the midst of a pandemic). At some other time it may not have been so important.
I call this "mostly abnormal" rather than fully abnormal because it's no crime to be stupid and ignore facts. I'm old enough to remember the pro-tobacco campaigns. But it is highly important given the health implications. Beating back COVID is a full-court press effort. It won't work unless we are united in addressing it.
Highly abnormal because the pandemic is highly abnormal, so all actions tied to the pandemic are unusual. Important because of potential impact in that this action could help stem the spread of the virus.
It's the normal actions of a narcissist, so I guess we can call it normal. It's unimportant because the voters don't give a crap what his cognitive test said. It doesn't change a thing in terms of how people feel about him.
Mostly abnormal because he is a mentally abnormal individual. Mostly unimportant because he can't actually take this action. His threats are mostly empty.
Although it has sometimes grated on me, the ability of current and former presidents to maintain decorum and public respect for one another helps support continuity of government. I am reminded of how shocked we were to learn of the prank Clinton staffers played on Bush when they removed the "W" from typewriters. That was just a prank and its lack of respect and decorum shocked us. What are we to make of a president who lacks any respect for the person he replace? Trump is a narcissist and a mental case.
Again, it's not terribly abnormal to put industry interests above those of public health. I don't agree with the policy but it's within presidential powers. It's important in the sense of its widespread impact on public health. I wish I could write that it's only semi-important given that a new election will make these presidential actions short-term and temporary. But that would be courting fate.....
have you considered giving us a "back arrow"?  I answered all of your open ended questions but would have liked a chance to go back a page to clarify some points for you.
US in 2015 not perfect but rather good and making more progress.  US today at 70 because of polarization; notions of "fake news" + conspiracy theories endorsed at highest level of federal govt; more and more obvious use of office to get money by some politicians; constant questioning of others' loyalty and patriotism by Trump Adm (including John McCain); clear rolling back of voting rights; Trump Adm decisions about sending federal agents behaving more like paramilitaries that "disappear" people than like properly constituted police.  Not lower than 70 because of continued ability of citizens to protest, pushback by state and local authorities against paramilitary-like federal agents, judicial curbing of some of the worst ideas (so far), fact GOP does not control both Houses of Congress provides some insulation; Trump already working on discrediting 2020 election and hinting he won't accept result if he loses.  Erosion of rules about reporting government data, listening to experts when the issue turns on things experts understand.
Presidents have that power, though usually have not had to use it for such close associates.  Commuting the sentence does not erase the convictions.
The US Constitution leaves authority to run elections to the States  It is not a federal matter.  Trump threats are even worse for US democracy because of their close link to Trump's loudly expressed beliefs that mail-in balloting hurt his reelection chances.
Weird; makes Justice Dept look like it has no idea what it is doing.  In the grand scheme of things probably not important since the citizenry is so split on whether Flynn did anything wrong (with those thinking he did not regarding the initial trial as a railroading).
That particular action, not even waiting 30 minutes for the curfew to begin, and lots of light available for the pictures shows complete disrespect for the citizenry.
Decrying violent protests is ok.  Use of that particular phrase was doubly problematic - issues a threat and amplifies tensions by repeating a phrase used by some of the most racist cops of earlier eras in reacting to demonstrations that are protesting racist acts.
US presidents do not have authority to regulate or close down companies on their own, so more noise.  Troubling as more evidence of Trump's inability to deal with differences of opinion like an adult citizen of a democacy.
Borderline normal because suspending all travel is a normal way of dealing with infectious disease but saying at the same time that it applies only to travel for purposes of immigration suggests a different motive.   Mostly important for showing how far Trump Adm will go in implementing its own agenda on this issue.
Pushed away from proper forms of regulating economic activity towards giving goodies to friends and denying them to others.  That is how patrimonial states work, not how democracies work.
Hard to tell from the outside whether the captain really had good reason to go outside the chain of command, and things said since do not clarify that for me.
Nature can produce recessions; govts need to address recessions.
Important inasmuch as it signals his lack of focus on the crucial duties of his office and pressing national problems.
Two words - Donald Trump.  The score of 54 was based on giving the rest of the political system the benefit of the doubt.
Revenge has no place in promotions within the military.
COVID-19 should not be used as an excuse for doing something that it hurtful to the country.
2015 included a robust online/internet world (rife as always with conspiracy theories and misinformation), but the media and the executive (and many Congressional leaders) generally agreed on things that did and did not constitute an actual threat to the well-being of the country.    That agreement about basic facts seems to have evaporated. Protesters are being punished for protesting, the executive lies with impunity, the AG is essentially the lackey of the president, the presidential pardon is being used for nakedly partisan reasons, the emoluments clause is a farce, the evidence supports conviction on the impeachment charges and a party line vote spared the president, no one can investigate the president for anything because of executive privilege, and we cannot question members of the executive branch for the same reasons (which means basically NO oversight of the executive is possible). Not to mention that anyone who disagrees with the executive is labeled a traitor. And he's going after news outlets by name, refusing to answer good faith questions, refuses to use press briefings as anything other than campaign events... I mean, we're in trouble. And just today, of course, the president floated the idea of postponing the election: I'm heartened that members of party have pushed back, but that he imagined he could say that without anticipating major pushback...that's terrifying. And he's consistently trying to undermine the legitimacy of the election by calling mail-in voting fraudulent!  And it's hard to imagine more egregious violations of the Hatch Act with those damn beans.  Gah. Seriously. We're in trouble.
Appalling. This is some authoritarian/slide toward tyranny violation of federalism, of law, and certainly of norms around state's rights. That the Republican Party isn't up in actual arms about this suggests that their "principled" defense of freedom is not principled at all.
That this perversion of justice and the machinations of courts happened is DEEPLY alarming. It suggests that the DOJ isn't currently working to preserve the Constitution, but to keep Trump in office and prevent him from being prosecuted.
He's just making the dogwhistles audible. So it's abnormal in that he's giving these bigots a platform and there is no subterfuge, but - with the exception of Obama, mostly - the dogwhistles have always been there.
There's a reason this is the first amendment. This is appalling behavior for an executive for NO GOOD REASON other than a photo op.
He's literally encouraging people to protest rules and advice of HIS OWN CABINET and all of science.
He cannot tolerate dissent and has no problems using government power to silence those who challenge him.
It's norm-destroying.  A loyal opposition is a hallmark of a democratic state.
They did something and while it was mostly terrible to give corporations beaucoup money while handing out $1200 to individuals, it was the normal kind of conservative economic terrible. Nothing particularly unusual about it, but important in that it shows not all institutional power has been wiped out.
Also making dogwhistles real loud. Hard to imagine a more white supremacist place to give such a speech, but to do that during a freakin' pandemic is mind-boggling. I mean, give a speech wherever you want on July 4th! All presidents do that. But here...well, ugh.
Keep recording this data.  It will be helpful to reconstruct what people were thinking as the empire toppled.
The Republic Party and President Trump are eroding democratic institutions at all levels of government in the US.
2015: fair and legitimate elections, albeit with archaic rules; executive branch relatively constrained in domestic policy, though not in foreign.  Good enough to rate highly but not 100 given various minor issues  Today: fairness of elections unclear but not looking good at the moment; serious executive branch lawlessness, such as ignoring court orders, sending unidentified federal agents to quell protests, etc.
The use of executive power to attach the media and provide the public with mis information has contributed to the change in score. Also the inability of the Congress to respond quickly to national crises.
Less disagreement about basic political facts.
President Trump and the GOP have spent considerable resources on voter suppression, violent crackdowns on speech and protest, and subversion of the federal judiciary and its independence. He has said repeatedly the he would not accept the outcome of an election he lost and even today suggested postponing the 2020 election, which legally he has no power to do. Gerrymandering has become scientific, making a few states (like WI) non- or barely-functioning as democratic republics, and the electoral college and Senate are both now rigged to unprecedented partisan advantage.
The Trump administration has repeatedly violated the Constitution and laws to a degree unheard of in the Obama administration and predecessors, and Has aggressively disrupted the administration of justice. Congress (the Senate) has abetted these behaviors by undermining the impeachment of Trump. The electorate (subject to the vicissitudes of the Electoral College) is the last line of defense for democratic rules of the game now. Democracy teeters on the brink of failure.
Reveals DJT’s disregard for the law and federal system’s division of powers, as well as an ongoing effort to suppress voter turnout in 2020 and establish a predicate to contest the results should he appear to be losing.
An illogical and propaganda driven act at a time when international cooperation is essential to humanity and national security.
Shows his disregard for the public good In service to his political ends and self gratification.
The captain’s action was a military version of civil disobedience. His punishment by the command hierarchy was to be expected.
Reveals DJT’s disregard for “guardrail” elite norms and for the rule of law.
A wasted and counterproductive action not sought by the automotive industry and dangerous to the environment and public health. Exemplifies Trump’s hatred for government and regulation in disregard of the public good.
Terribly potentiallY damaging to higher ed budgets And undermining a policy that supports economic growth and technological progress.
As a campaign event it stirred more dissension and division than national unity.
Latin America, democracy and democratization
Mainly because of sharply increased polarization, disregard of democratic values by top leaders, and sharply increased efforts to suppress voting rights.
Forms of democracy and electoral systems
I let it hinge largely on enfranchisement--the granting of the vote to African Americans and women. Then, after the Voting Rights Act, I figured Trump has had some success in eroding democratic norms.
An attempt to delegitimate the basic institution of representative democracy.
Of course in a healthy republic this is not how virtuous public servants are treated.
The obverse of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Stupid bluster, politically does Trump more harm than good.
It would decimate many colleges and universities, and recklessly ruins the plans of many young adults.
Validity--looked good to me Enjoyability--quite
Increased use of executive authority to support political cronies. The judiciary and congress seem generally uninterested in stopping this.
Suppression of protest isn't that abnormal but the federal government being involved without local request is.
Presidents always do photo-ops, but using the police to remove peaceful protesters is a new low and demonstrates a willingness to do whatever is necessary for re-election.
Since taking office in 2017, Donald Trump has threatened American democracy in innumerable ways.  His rhetoric has been more anti-democratic and authoritarian that his actions so far, but he seems to be getting worse in fulfilling his authoritarian threats in 2020.  The courts and Congress, though less so in the Senate, have resisted his anti-democratic impulses and they have attracted widespread condemnation in the media and from past leaders.  But the threat is strong, and dangerous.
Has happened before, though maybe not as political inspired as this seems to be.
Sends an especially repugnant signal to the country.
Comments such as these have been made by past presidents, e.g., NIxon, though not as stridently.
Not purely normal, because we have not experienced such catastrophic events before, or at least since the Great Depression.
Previous administrations have rolled back some of these regs.
Hard to see anything as normal with the Trump Administration, tho the distinction between normal and abnormal is sometimes difficult given our history (e.g., slavery, Jim Crow, all white male electorate).
During the Obama administration, while Republicans attempted to thwart many of the president's initiatives, there were still norms of decency, respect, accountability, and honesty guiding national-level government in the U.S.
It's unclear to me just how violent the protestors were, outside of the parts that made for good TV. I've seen plenty of instances in which a largely peaceful protest was made out to be a near-riot based on the behavior of a small number of people in a few city blocks (cf. the "Battle in Seattle" at the 1999 WTO meeting). In the absence of real danger, the federal government should not be using troops (because that's basically what they were) domestically. And of the many places with protests, Trump happened to be most concerned about those in a hotbed of liberals? Nonsense.
Corruption, pure and simple. Disgusting.
1. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that mail-in balloting increases vote fraud.  2. Running elections is handled by states. 3. In the absence of evidence for fraud or other serious legal concerns, the federal government should not interfere in matters that the Constitution indicates are left up to the states. 4. The federal government is arrogating to itself a power the Constitution explicitly denies. 5. Messing with the Constitution is abnormal and important (and corrupt.) 6. QED
Nothing democratic about a leader using force against peaceful protestors exercising a Constitutional right. For the vanity of a photo op? Disgusting.
The U.S. always grumbles about the efficacy and burden-sharing of the U.N. system. This time, it's more than grumbling. It's important now, but I trust that when we have a sane leader (Republican or Democrat) again, the U.S. will take up its normal institutional role: grumbling, but supporting.
Some limit of the flow of people in and out of the country made sense. Specifically targeting immigrants was just opportunistic use of tragedy to play to xenophobic constituents. It's important because if the administration really cared about protecting Americans, there are plenty of other actions (masks, contact tracing, diverting resources to public health, etc.) that would have been happening alongside the immigration ban. Therefore, I doubt the safety of Americans against disease was the real motivation for the policy.
The U.S. president as a huckster for a private company? What about being the representative of American interests in general? Using the Oval Office as a photo op to sell beans? Disgusting.
The military functions on a strict chain of command. I'm not surprised someone was punished for going outside of it. That's how the chain stays intact. But if the punishers didn't privately pat this captain on the back for his commendable humanity, then they are stunningly callous.
Everyone actually agreed on something. That hasn't happened in years.
Obviously, a government needs to have a say over who enters the country. The logic of this particular choice was largely lost on me, though. It seems to be just one more excuse to appease xenophobic constituents.
Donald Trump's presidency in which he twists data to meet his needs, tells clear lies to the public politicizes the Department of Justice, foments racial hatred, supports voter ID and fictitious claims of voter fraud, and uses the presidency to enhance his personal brand and make money. Oh, and doesn't investigate foreign influence in elections when the outcome of the election benefits him. Perhaps I should have rated democracy in the 60's rather than 72 in my original answer.
political communication, democratic deliberation, U.S. Congress and institutions
Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to American Democracy in my and my parents' lifetimes. When presidents are ranked he will be in the top three most harmful, and incompetent presidents. Because of social media, Fox News and his tendency to use them to polarize rather than unite Americans, it will be difficult to recover a positive sense of being American after his presidency for many years. The attacks on expertise and endorsement of conspiracy theories are actually killing more Americans than we might lose in a terrorist attack like 9/11. On every measure of presidents he is terrible and he is destroying American democratic institutions while also governing like an authoritarian madman.If it wasn't for the states and federalism, we would be in even bigger trouble. Another way the framers of the Constitution had a good sense of what kind of governance might tear a country apart.
The US is mostly democratic.  The less than 100 score has to do with the vagaries of the Electoral College
These questions are highly skewed as an attack on President Trump. This is not an objective survey.
The election of 2016, and the executive administration that it brought to power, represent a recent low in the democratic-ness of the US.
US political discourse is full of these kinds of threats. It shouldn't be, but it is, and so no one of them is all that important.
An unnecessarily rigid application of an otherwise valid rule/law, when flexibility and compassion seem more appropriate (and what previous administrations of both parties would probably have done).
One main consideration in agreeing on causes for the falling back of the United States, also as compared to its own missed opportunities to increase democratic and representative legitimacy (and public authority) between 2020 and 2015, is the sustained and extraordinary impact of campaign contributions. Whenever financial (or information-based, including disinformation via [foreign-sponsored comments and ads on] online platforms and agents like Cambridge Analytica) contributions are made, to especially the two major parties and their respective candidates for the office of President of the United States, the democratic caliber (also considered in terms of effective administrative capacity, legitimacy, and instituted norms of rightful conduct and justice) of most government institutions diminishes. Voter participation may indicate voter frustration, or rejection of the establishment, so that I find levels of participation in the election and voter system a rather poor measure of democracy. Nonetheless, the drop-off in non-elite and young voter participation between 2008 and 2016 is disturbing, to say the least. The question of choosing a base-line of democratic institutional norms in the United States in comparison to other election systems, finally, is pertinent--as well--but I have found studies by Pippa Norris -- and by several others on a repeated failure to reform U.S. campaign financing -- more than helpful in answering. The book Democracy for Realists did not answer it.
No doubt: this is not a foreign policy infused by isolationism. It is rather an active move to seek re-election by the President of the U.S. but without any regard for the public and the national interest. This is one of this administration's outright rejections of the community of states, of public health policy, and of (medical) science in general. It is absolutely the case that withdrawing the U.S. from an international body, but especially from the WHO, rejects international norms and therefore places entire populations at a significant risk of higher mortality rates.
Any sign of corruption is important, all the time. This specific conflation of private or personal interests, by the President (and likely by family members who may or may not function as formal advisors), with their use of their office and their public affairs staff is highly important. It is also the sign about which the schools and universities must teach more about, so students better learn to recognize such and similar abuses of public office for private gain. Remember Cicero.
One ludicrous verbal statement is not as important as this administration's other forms of inaction, including the active mismanagement of government and the dereliction of duty amidst a pandemic.
Trump is an anti democratic authoritarian (this the decline) but it is not clear to me that the systems of democracy are substantially less democratic than they were 5 years ago. We will know more after the election.
I think distinctions between what Trump says and does are important.
I don’t feel like I have enough information about the situation to confidently answer. It also seems more an issue of military administration than democratic principles.
Executive domination of both the legislative and executive branches has reached new heights; political gerrymandering of districts has been around a long time but, after some improvement, has regressed in recent years. Use of police power to restrict political protest has reverted to levels not seen since the 1950's and earlier, where especially in the south Jim Crow laws restricted political participation. In the 19th century slavery and genocide of native Americans was a major failure of democratic governance, although the principles of democracy were well developed. Today that has returned in attacks on religious minorities, especially Muslims, and on immigrants, especially Latinx.
The level of the response was totally disproportional to the nature of the problem faced in Portland. Using para-military units without identification against mostly peaceful demonstrators was totally unwarranted.  It also completely superseded the prerogatives and advice of state and local authorities, a federal assault on state rights. It reminded me of what I witnessed many years ago in Pinochet's Chile, and thus reflects a fundamental attack on democracy that portends real danger for the future.
This is the first move in a concerted effort by the president to restrict voting at a time when voting in person can be fatal for many voters; this potentially undermines the fairness of elections, the fundamental activity of a democracy; two states in a primary is one thing (although state laws govern the process for primaries), but this was clearly a "test case" for the November presidential election.
Col. Vindman told the truth about what happened in Ukraine, a topic about which I have done considerable research. To punish someone who told the truth, even if embarrassing to the president, and to do it over the recommendation of the military leaders (albeit with the collaboration of Trumps' Secretary of Defense) was a complete abuse of presidential authority.
The right to criticize the president is fundamental to democracy and no media source should be attacked for doing so.
If this were done primarily as a health measure, it might be mostly  normal, but there are good reasons to believe that COVID-19 provided an excuse to do what the president wanted to do for other reasons, namely to restrict immigration from most of the world (Norwegians perhaps excepted!). My answer is a compromise between the stated purpose (mostly normal) and the likely real purpose (mostly abnormal).
Contradicting the advice of his own health advisors to advance his own political interests only shows that he puts his own self interest above the interest even of his political supporters.
Well, promoting a particular product made by a major donor's company is just not in the normal behavior of a president, even if the incident itself was not of major global importance.
While reflecting Trump's narcissism, indicating serious psychological issues, it was largely a bizarre exercise in bragging about performance on a simple test to indicate the possible onset of dementia, not what he claimed it was.
Tis was WAY over the line - accusing one's predecessor of treason for no good reason reflects an extreme authoritarian behavior.
There were two problems with this: 1) It reflects a xenophobic policy really intended to keep foreigners out of the US, and 2) it constituted an undemocratic attempt to influence how colleges and universities conduct their classes in a time of a global pandemic. These decisions rightfully belong only in the realm of decisions by college and university leaders, and the effort by the president to prevent them from following their best judgment goes far beyond any appropriate power of the presidency.
International negotiation and conflict resolution
An excellent set of questions!  This is an important survey - please keep it up!
The Trump administration has politicized the justice department to protect Trump and his cronies
Trump is using his authority to enhance his power, wealth and influence.
He is attempting to threaten and punish women Democratic Governors for challenging the message coming from the White House.
Trump is using the power of government to punish someone who he considers to be an enemy.
Ideology, political culture, political parties
The current president did not win the popular vote and won by virtue of the Electoral College, which in effect counts votes in more rural and less populated states more than in populous states. Each person's vote does not carry the same weight. The current president and his family are benefitting financially from the presidency. The majority party in the Senate does not hold te president accountable. The current president has sent forces to crack down on peaceful protestors and has encouraged governors to do the same. The current president vilifies the media and sows distrust in information that he doesn't like or isn't beneficial to him. People of color are treated unequally by many state institutions at the federal, state, and city levels. Voting rights are not upheld in all states. The U.S. was slightly more democratic in 2015 given that the current president was not in power, but there were still problems with the Electoral College, legislative oversight and holding the executive accountable, equal voting rights, money influencing policies, and institutionalized discrimination and racism. The current president exacerbates all of these already existing problems and undermines free speech, right to assembly and protest, civil military relations, and federalism.
Today executive power is basically unchallenged. 2015 -- government reflected science and value based public policy.
The deterioration of the rule of law, and intentional efforts to undermine confidence in democratic institutions during the Trump administration have led to a deterioration in US democracy. In 2015, the US still had shortcomings in its democracy; unequal treatment of under-represented groups by institutions, for example.
States control their election processes. This kind of blackmail is inappropriate.
Using law enforcement to violently clear an area with non-violent protesters for a photo opp is anti-democratic and highly problematic.
While the president has the authority to make such decisions, they are damaging to US public health efforts and undermine international cooperation. I noted this as borderline normal because the benefit to the US is unclear and has not been articulated.
President Trump inciting violent behavior and an effort to undermine democratically elected state governments is highly problematic.
Violations of chain-of-command are generally treated as problematic in the military. However, the extraordinary circumstances change the calculus of how "normal" this action was.
Once again, this is an effort to undermine institutions (in this case, educational institutions). It is authoritarian in character.
The sitting president accusing a former president of treason is outside the norms of democratic behavior.
As a university faculty member, I have many problems with this decision. But, it falls within generally normal behaviors.
Holding an event at Mount Rushmore is not especially troubling, but the pandemic renders it at least somewhat problematic.
today political inequalities are more prevalent than in 2015, especially in regards to money in campaigns. Another difference involves executive overreach and attacks on judicial independence.
semi-important because Trump is using this information to undermine his political opponent (Biden)
Two main reasons.  First, is the rise of voter suppression efforts.  Not since the Jim Crow era has the US seen such efforts to suppress minority turnout.  Second, is executive branch malfeasance, graft, and undermining of legal and political norms.
Undermines the rule of law and creates/reinforces the idea of a tiered legal system where friends of the leader operate with impunity while everyone else has to follow the law.
We're in the midst of a deadly pandemic.  150,000 people have died and countless more are going to be sick for a long time.  Encouraging people to make things worse is obviously a bad idea.
This is just posturing by the president.  While denigrating democratic norms with this kind of rhetoric is never good, it's pretty obvious that he won't be able to actually make good on these threats.
Even though the president's record on immigration is highly objectionable, almost every western democracy has chosen to limit immigration as a public health effort during the pandemic.
Just more lawlessness in the executive branch.  Also, reinforces the idea that, if you're nice to the leader, you get special treatment.
The economic fallout of the pandemic and the PPE shortages required government action.
Republicans have been fighting fuel efficiency standards for decades, so this is normal policy stuff.
This move seemed to be entirely motivated by opposition to immigration rather than concerns for public health.
Obviously it's normal to give a 4th of July speech at a national monument.  It's just bizarre to do so in the middle of a pandemic with tens of thousands of people dead or dying.
social contract thought, analytic political philosophy
Mitch McConnell. Senate Republicans made every effort to thwart the Obama Administration, however, he was able to promote the General Will through Executive Orders (not the best path in the abstract, but few options were available). McConnell has enabled Trump’s narcissism and idiocy, and both of them have undermined the institutions of American Democracy. Mitch by procedural encroachment (and grifting), and Trump through corruption and race-baiting.
Done in coordination with the state (concurrent powers), it’s acceptable. As a part of the DeVos Family Hit Squads, it’s criminal. But, Mitch will protect him.
The President is racist. He is using social media to distract from his terrible performance and bolstering his base with dog whistles (Of increasing volume during desperation)
Trump is a con-man relishing the role of q-anon savior. I think he’s a “real phony” (Jay Berman’s phase), in that he really believes it himself. It’s an insult to peaceful protest and to honest People of Faith.
Dog whistle. Clearly a quote from Jim Crow (Miami). He’s racist, no doubt. But, I’m not sure he’s smart enough to come up with that on his own...his administration/campaign is helping to craft these messages.
He cannot allow himself to be contradicted. He fears intelligence. He’s done so much harm to the USA globally, from climate to alliances...we may not be able to fix it. If we do, we can’t go back to the old way. We need to new and better America.
This would be laughable if he wasn’t actually killing people (E.g., Herman Cain). It’s another move to protect himself by hiding behind laws and demanding that his followers obey him above the laws. It’s an obedience test. Thankfully most folks stayed home and his rally was just a sick joke.
If they have a refrigerator in the Oval Office, I’m sure it’s hanging on the door. Over-compensating Narcissism (small hands).
Another swipe at the stereotypical “liberal” university. Education is a path for social mobility and critical thought...that is the threat for him and his base. He’s clearly not inclined to intellectualism and his academic record, as far as we know, is little more than a rich kid buying his way through.
Pandering to a nativist base. Completely against who we really are as “a nation of immigrants.” Disgraceful in “a land of opportunity.”
Standard public display for Heads of State
Hopefully, November will bring better news.
increased evidence of foreign interference in elections and reduced role of Congress as a check against executive power
Democratic backsliding since 2015 fostered by voter supression and limits on the franchise in the states, and President Trump's overreach of executive branch powers.
2010 Citizens United, gerrymandering, voter suppression  Trump's attacks on media, judiciary, and various groups in society, federal agents in Portland
I found the historical ranking difficult, as there are many undemocratic features built into our constitution from the very beginning, include but not limited to the Senate, the electoral college, slavery, lack of women's suffrage, etc.   "Democratic" can mean a lot of different things.
decline from Obama to Trump administrations
Political science language: institutions were more stable. Real talk: Donald Trump does not care for, and has undermined, constitutionalism and the rule of law. Moreover, he is both a cause & effect of heightening partisanship--more Americans put their party above their country and the Constitution.
The issue is important to me, but in terms of global and national events (i.e., pandemic & Black Lives Matter), it can be moved to the backburner.
Where do I begin? The last four years have witnessed significant rollbacks in democratic norms. Most of these have to do with how the executive is run and staffed.
I'd rate it as more important if I thought that it were a credible threat.
Trump's blatant disregard for the facts, as well as his recent threat to delay the presidential election brings the score down a bit more.
Previous Republican Party administrations regularly did provocative things as well.
Previous Republican Party administrations have also been unilateralist.
The US in 2015 had eroding norms of democratic behavior, but the principal institutions were still largely robust and the majority of citizens still shared most important values and beliefs critical to the functioning of a representative democracy.  The system was not perfect, given the malapportionment of the US Senate, growing polarization, and influences of systemic racism, but it was democratically adequate.  Since 2015, there has been a marked decline in institutional functioning, the rule of law, and belief in key democratic norms, led by a proto-authoritarian and corrupt President and his growing league of sycophants and enablers.
This is an anti-democratic use of the powers of his office and the tools of federal governance, even though little came of it.
The act of giving a fourth of July speech is perfectly normal;  the degree to which it openly utilized campaign rhetoric in an official function, and the anti-civil and semi authoritarian substance of the speech made it abnormal.  But the question asked about the normality of giving a speech, not the content or conduct associated with it.
I have some quibbles with question wording, but this is important research.
The Trump administration has promoted the idea of the unitary executive, which looks more like an elected dictator than the way the Obama administration operated in 2015. Trump is appointing judges who share this view, so I see a significant decrease in accountability mechanisms in our regime. The paramilitary groups and the secret federal police attacking civilians in Portland also are very bad signs of a loss of rule of law and, consequently, loss of legitimacy. DHS compiling intelligence reports on journalists is another step toward authoritarianism.
Violating norms, abusing presidential powers to undermine rule of law. Very, very bad. It looks like a quid pro quo reward for Stone's loyalty.
Undermining rule of law, retaliating against a whistleblower, refusing to accept legislative oversight of executive. Very bad for regime stability.
Violation of norms, abuse of law enforcement resources, attacking people for peacefully exercising their first amendment rights. Including the military in this operation was also abnormal, important, and very bad.
Our country led the process of founding IGOs like the WHO. It's crazy that we're withdrawing from them and trying to tear them down.
Violates the first amendment when the president punishes a private company for following their own rules about social media posting. He is abusing his power here.
Looks like a pretext to promote nativist policies that are not popular enough to make it through the legislative process.
Unconstitutional to retaliate against universities for the content of their curriculum. Undermines rule of law. Abuse of power.
It's a violation of our norms, but it's also a threat to abuse law-enforcement powers against a political rival. Very, very bad for our regime stability.
These abrupt policy changes without going through the legislative process is more like an elected dictatorship than a fully-functioning liberal democracy.
It's impulsive, capricious policymaking that undermines trust in our system.
Legislative oversight in democracies in Europe
Thanks for helping us track the changes. There's so much crazy news, it's hard to believe all those were recent news stories. I'm more worried about civil war than de-democratization at this point.
The fact that this happened during a pandemic elevates its importance.
The actions of President Trump and his administration have hurt democracy in the U.S. Trump himself this week talked about postponing the 2016 election. That would be enough on it's own to indicate a threat to democracy. He has also used his office for private gain multiple times, hindered the work of agencies' inspectors general and the Mueller investigation, used the powers of his office to intimidate political opponents, among many other things.
This threat can hinder the free flow of ideas in educational institutions. The free flow of ideas is an important component of democracy.
The moral leadership of the presidency is incredibly important. Accusing a previous president of treason, falsely, seriously undermines this.
There is nothing normal about what is going on with COVID-19.
Under Trump the Republican Party has moved further and further away from a commitment to democratic processes and values, including championing voter repression, widespread and pervasive govt deception of citizens, barriers to racial and other minorities, increasing power to wealthy interests.
A complete travesty of democratic values and practices. But not as bad as Portland, where govtal lawlessness was even greater.
Trump's style is to make off the cuff remarks that often have no grounding in any project that he is undertaking, so a comment like this, which in other circumstances would be abnormal, is probably less threatening to democratic practices and so less important than it would be in a regime whose elites are more focused and task oriented (e.g., Orban). But the fact that someone in his position makes them cannot be discounted too deeply. The erosion of democracy can be slow, but it's still erosion.
It's a stupid measure in terms of dealing w/ covid-19, especially considering the almost complete absence of screening and quarantine measures at entry. It's deceptive, pretending to address an epidemic, but actually aimed at other ends, increasing the opacity of public life, which is inversely related to democratic success.
Corruption is inimical to good governance, let alone democratic governance. This was blatant corruption.
It's an attack on a fundamental principle of free expression, especially of political speech. Like so much of his fulminating, it may not have immediate effects, but its role in undermining public life makes it very important.
You can't have a democracy w/out lowering the stakes of political conflict. If your opponent is treasonous then democracy becomes impossible.
The scale is not normal, but we haven't had this kind of epidemic for 100 years. It's important in that it suggests that the system hasn't broken completely, and the Congress and can still focus enough to address an issue. Alas, we don't see the necessary follow through.
This kind of pushing in a certain direction at the margins is the stuff of democratic life. The failure to address climate change is deeply important.
That he gave a speech at a symbolically important site is more or less normal and not important. The content of the speech is clearly out of bounds. The content and symbolism was abnormal and important.
modern liberalilsm, justice and equality, global or int'l justice
The presidency of Donald Trump has considerably disrupted many of the variables on which you are focused. Sending troops to Portland, for instance, is a major disruption. Targeting the media as a legitimate political actor, using quasi-military force, undermining the rule of law using the pardon power or the Justice Department, and questioning the legitimacy of American elections--all of these and more add to the rapid decline of democratic norms. In fact, after meditating about it a bit, I'd change my original rating to 75 given the chance.
Justice must be independent of any particular political actor. This is a major violation of our Constitutional norms.
The use of police and military power against peaceful protesters to create a photo-op is one of the reasons I cited in my overall response.
One of the roles of the president is to demonstrate leadership during times of crisis. Spreading misinformation and encouraging disagreement over simple public health measures undermines the health of our people and the economy.
This is a complex question given the interaction with the pandemic. I think it is "abnormal" under usual circumstances. I think it is consistent with Trump's nativism. I think he is using the disease as an excuse. But it is borderline normal over all.
Once again, the departure from the norms of the presidency is shocking.
It is not clear to me that this was done as part of a normal decisionmaking process. All indications are that it was retaliation from the Commander-in-Chief. His willingness to involve himself in this case and others like it risk politicization of the military. When that happens, democratic institutions will quickly collapse.
This is about the most "normal" thing I've seen over the last four years.
This is "normal" from the perspective of the Republican Party. I believe it is a mistake and I hope that it will be addressed by the next Administration, however, I don't think it is "abnormal" with regard to the exercise of democracy in the US.
This is a major threat to the greatest system of higher education ever created. As such, universities are centers of innovation--they are an economic engine. That said, since the question does not address generally undermining colleges and universities as institutions (which I think this is a small part of), it is less-importantly abnormal.
That a president wants to give a speech on Independence Day is not abnormal itself. However, the content of the speech (its divisive tone) and its location in a sensitive environment. Add to that the timing, during a pandemic, this is very odd behavior.
Keep it up, y'all. I "enjoy" reading the results.
Political parties and elections; political culture
Thank you for continuing this important study.
In 2015, the government did not use federal forces to suppress peaceful protests in cities like Portland; the President did not publicly make false statements about the security of mail-in ballots; the President did not publicly make false statements about diseases; the President did not seek aid from foreign governments to assist his reelection efforts.
Trump administration deploying federal troops to suppress political protests in 2020.  Post-2016 Trump advancement of post-1980 Republican elected officials efforts to sabotage government capacity to solve social, health, environmental, economic problems. Republican Senate refusing to consider appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016. Post-2016 treatment of refugees. There is much more, but I will stop there.
There has been a clear backsliding of democracy under the Trump administration, with federal forces used to attack civilians, a lack of respect for democratic norms, and the legislative and judicial branches of government unwilling (although maybe still able?) to sanction the executive.
Our democracy is under severe threat at the moment.  The president is undermining faith in our electoral system, and his party has been conducting a coordinated campaign to limit voting among certain segments of the population.  Federal troops are being used to suppress demonstrations, firing chemical weapons on peaceful protesters. Disfunction in the legislative branch is preventing any coordinated fiscal response to the economic catastrophe wrought by the pandemic. I have never been so concerned about the fate of our democracy.
The president is less responsive to public opinion and congress exercises less oversight today than in 2015.
Important for my job!  Not sure how important to others.
Campaigns and elections, parties, interest groups
There has been a significant erosion of checks and balances given the timidity of the Senate to hold the president accountable for his actions
The Department of Justice should not act to please the president's political calculations
This behavior is a behavior of an autocrat
Deterioration of democracy 2015 - 2020:  1 - use of extrajudicial force against peaceful protesters (D.C., Portland) 2 - conflicts of interest among president, president's family, associates -- benefitting personally from public office  3 - appointment of unqualified personnel to key goverment posts 4 - presidential obstruction of justice (firing Comey; signaling to Stone & Manafort about pardons; etc.)  5 - disastrous handling of covid-19  6 - rejection of expertise 7 - demonization of scientists/academics/anyone who tries to point out problems 8 - "alternative facts" from the president/administration/supporters  9 - systematic dismantling of the rule of law
Part of a systematic attack on the rule of law.
Before the Nov. election, include questions on:   a) quality and fairness of election administration in respondent's home state (e.g., accurate voter registration lists?  timely and efficient processing of absentee/mail-in ballots?) Does the USPS currently have the capacity to deliver ballots on time (given budget shortfalls and covid-related illnesses of postal workers)?  b) normality and importance of government advocacy of human rights for marginalized groups -- the State Dept. is in the process of reversing the U.S.'s longterm commitment to defende LGBTQ and women's rights.
The U.S. is failing at many of the issues in this survey.
All of these are normal for Trump but abnormal for other U.S. POTUS.
Laws restricting voting rights have been passed in several states. The President has openly questioned the legitimacy of elections, condoned violence against political opponents and critics, deployed federal agents exerting military or quasi-military force against protesters in American cities, and floated the idea of postponing regular elections. Only the last of these developments has been widely challenged by members of *both* major political parties.
Again, this seems to be political interference in the rule of law
This seems to be political interference in the legal process, as well as national security. This is very worrisome.
The President advocating violence against American citizens used to be unusual if not unthinkable.
To have a President contradict his own medical advisors and call for defiance of state health policies in the midst of an emergency is unusual and concerning. Insofar as the President has condoned or encouraged protesters who threaten violence against public officials, this is very abnormal and alarming.
The entire covid situation, and the administration's highly ideological response to it, are very far from normal.
The politicization of/ideological attacks on independent civil society institutions is a classic sign of authoritarianism.
This move may have only slight impact on the already extensive reach of executive power; but the impact on American higher education and the economy.
Trump is bent on showing to his 'base' he will use force, "they have the power"
the USA has routinely undermined IOs if it perceived it not working in its interest
only an idiot (Trump) would need to tout that he is not
unjustified criticism of certain institutions of government against others have intensified, fueled by for-profit media, individual actors, social media, and $$, eroding democracy in comparison to the cold war era.
Federal government has this authority.  However, these actions are contradictory for an administration that champions states' rights and a decentralization of power.
Jeopardizes independence in governmental admistration
Motivations to divide rather than unite are damaging to democracy.  This is a path the Republic Party has been on for decades and is harmful to democracy
Patron-client politics is incompatible with a democratic political system, and while this has always happened in the US the politicization and use of such tactics are damaging to democracy
These "America First" policies make no logical sense outside a populist platform
A temporary suspension is justified in response to a global pandemic, but the motivations, targeting, and duration of President Trump's actions are troubling
Important because the normal chain of command did not properly respond due to political pressure, which was abnormal and counterproductive
Again, the motivations for such suspensions (corporate profits, discounting of science, repeal of Obama-era actions "just to do so") are counterproductive to global realities
Comparative foreign policy, international law, Middle East politics
The system is quite democratic. It was never meant to be perfectly democratic and, I believe, that is a good thing. It is responsive to a broad and somewhat informed, but not very deeply sophisticated, public will in a general way. The biggest shortcoming, I believe, is in the haphazard nominating systems for the major parties and a convoluted and ineffective campaign finance system at all levels.
The local officials had been unable or unwilling to protect federal facilities and federal employees from violent rioters for nearly two months. I though AG Barr's testimony at the recent House Judiciary "Hearing," the one where the Democrats barely allowed him to speak, explained the rationale. The Homeland Security acting-secretary also explained the Portland, OR situation well in his memo at the time.
The plea deal was extracted from Flynn in what was essentially entrapment rather than a legitimate investigation.
This is a cheap shot. As I recall, an elderly guy at a Florida retirement home was abusively screamed at by a protester and he shot back with this. The gist of the retweet was the attack, not the response.
Rallies and mass protests had been taking place in this period along with an opening of the economy.
It is somewhat normal and important under the circumstances because of serious concerns about the cognitive abilities of President Trump's opponent, Joe Biden. Biden has appeared in public forgetting where he is, what office he's running for, the year, and many other commonly understood facts. These may be evidence of the onset of senility.
There is evidence that educational institutions are failing to educate students in civics in a fundamental and impartial way. Public opinion polling (see Pew studies) shows the most recent generation is less likely to properly appreciate and understand American history, its democratic principles, and the political process of our liberal republic.
The shutdown of the economy with the onset of the pandemic had widespread repercussions throughout the economy. This was similar to government relief or stimulus to help restart economic growth.
The parties have long differed over how they balance concern for the economy and regulations on matters damaging to the environment.
The visas only make sense if taking the classes requires being in the country. Since that is not required, there is no reason to grant the visa.
Elections, public opinion, political parties, empirical democratic theory.
Why are there no questions about the overreach of some in Congress?  I also found the question about the legislature limiting executive power to be odd. Some limits may be democratic, but others may undemocractically usurp the powers of a democratically elected executive. Overall, I thought this was coming at the issues almost entirely from the political left.
US in 2015: I gave this rating because of Citizens United and because of relentlessly increasing economic and political inequality.  US today: I think 25 is a generous rating. We are on the knife's edge of dictatorship. My knowledge of 19th century politics is not strong, but I can't imagine that we've been in worse shape since the end of slavery.
Trump is an extreme manifestation of tendencies that have been brewing in the US for awhile.
US foreign policy, democratization and human rights
In 2015, Democrats controlled the executive but actively sought compromise with Republicans (who did not reciprocate well) and also seemed unwilling to allow the executive to act unchecked or to dismiss the judiciary. By the present, however, Republicans controlling the executive and the Senate appear to have entirely abandoned the idea of compromise or even the legitimacy of the other party.
Americans did not have equal influence in choosing their representatives in either period, but the US is less Democratic today than 5 years ago because of the backsliding caused by the Trump administration and its allies in state governments, especially in regard to attacks on voting rights, election integrity, minority rights, checks on presidential authority, and corruption. The 2016 election outcome with an unpopularly elected president is another factor, beyond the constant potential for that outcome.
This may exaggerate the decline, but there has been a significant drop. Main issue is failure of legislature to check executive power, breakdown of norms around Attorney General, acceptance of solicitation of foreign interference in elections, intimidation of government whistleblowers and inspectors within government agencies.
Federal influence on the conduct of elections invites bias and inequity in the elections.
Overt racism of this type must be condemned.
Punishing government officials for testifying against the President is dangerous for democracy.
Bad politics, but not likely to have a lasting impact.
President Trump openly courting far right forces is novel, but courting these supporters subtly has long been a part of us politics.
State censorship of the media is a problem for democracy.
If private citizens do stupid things like a sign release, democracy is not imperiled.
Chain of command is critical, but corona create a novel situation unlikely to be repeated.
BAd policy, but not one that imperils democracy.
Rule of law has been undermined, with judiciary only partly able to provide check on unlawful activities in the executive branch. Government agencies are used to target political opponents. The power of donors has risen. Despite some progress against gerrymandering, some officials at every level of government are working to undermine free and fair elections, leading to very unequal representation. The president and other senior officials as well as their friends, allies, and donors are benefiting corruptly from government resources.
Context matters here. Deploying the feds to work in task forces or protect Federal buildings is normal. Deploying them as a pro-Trump militia for campaign purposes is a violation of several democratic norms.
Authoritarianism in West Asia and Africa
All too close to encouraging illegal and racist inspired shootings.
As it is a declaration tht can still be reversed, it is not yet into the "important" category.
In the world of Trump, this is only "borderline" because so many other worse things (not counting the terrible policies he is advocating) he has done that I need space on the responses to squeeze things in.
At least, it is very important to those who attended and might die.
Again, he can say what he wants as long as no action follows and it is not presented as more than a tweet-like opinion.
As long as it is "only" a tweet rather than an actual action, it is wrong but his opinion.
It is an ordinary policy decision with which I strongly disagree, but is not relevant to the status of democracy (only relevant to life on earth :-) ).
Elections, parties, Congress, American democratic institutions
Voter suppression efforts, executive branch attacks on civil servants, violating norms on supreme court appointments, congressional failure to impeach for demonstrably impeachable offenses, use of DHS and other security agencies to repress protesters, are just a few among the many signs of deterioration since 2015.
extraordinary interference of AG and DoJ acting as a criminal President's personal fixer
Bull Connor and George Wallace never occupied the Oval Office...
i'd rephrase this item. he did not suspend immigration in response to the pandemic, but rather used the pandemic as an excuse to get away with a white supremacist objective that previously had eluded him.
it is important work -- more so every week...
Congress (largely, but not entirely, the Senate) is failing to hold the executive branch accountable for criminal behavior that has taken place in the current administration.
The executive can try to convince states to go along with his policy through controlling federal funding -- what makes this abnormal is the election interference as the policy goal, not the funding-as-stick.
Again, what makes this abnormal is the intent. Closing borders is prudent in a pandemic. But here, the president isn't acting prudently -- he's using the appearance of prudence to pursue a distasteful agenda, and it's the agenda that's abnormal, even for partisan politics around immigration.
I disagree with the policy goal, but changing regulations seems standard for a GOP president and is within their power.
The locations of political speeches are always political -- what makes this distasteful is the divisiveness of the message sent by the location, but choosing a speech site strategically is fairly typical
more sophisticated and successful Republican party approach to elections: executive vs legislative powers (WI, NC, MI for example); gerrymandering (same, plus lots of others), enabled by federal courts (Shelby); ballot suppression; failure of felon enfranchisement initiatives (e.g. FL) does not change baseline but makes it look worse.   Basically, more "brown zones" in the US
There are tenuous legal precedents (e.g. Barr in USVI) but context of both Trump and a politicized DHS, and scale make this hugely problematic.
Remind me why we have IGs, and for that matter bicameralism, if the President can sack them and one legislative chamber can't do anything about it?
While the history of use of federal law enforcement in the US is complex, the use of a federal militia against citizens for political reasons is not complex and undercuts a key protection of US citizenship (see Stuart Schraeder's work)
I wish Trump were novel here, but he's just a bit blunter than Reagan or Nixon (let alone Palin, Gingrich and other key Republican figures)
Elite signalling is really important in public health messaging! This undercuts any sensible message from governors or governments.
He's working the refs, so it's still in the hands of Capital Hill (given the general failure of FCC for a generation)
US and comparative health politics (including disaster and pandemic response)
The 90 was probably influenced by rose colored glasses looking back at the Obama era in comparison to today. Had just had two fairly high turnout elections (08,12), a popularly elected president, and an administration working toward transparency and protecting voting rights. Today, we have Trump floating the idea of delaying the election, federal police arresting peaceful protesters, unfounded claims of mail-in voter fraud, and a major party more or less going along with it and often encouraging it.
Suspending immigration could make sense from a public health perspective in slowing the spread of the virus (I don't know that!). Of course, he hasn't done much else to control the virus so maybe doesn't get the benefit-of-doubt here.
In 2015 because donors controlled politicians, many districts around the country were gerrymandered, Republicans questioned the loyalty and patriotism of President Obama, and they obstructed his administration 100% even though they represented a minority of the electorate and the Democrats a majority. Today, because, in addition to the problems we had in 2015, Republicans and Democrats do not share a common set of facts, President Trump has interfered in federal investigations that target his political associates, there is systematic vote suppression by Republicans, and Congress is not effectively checking President Trump.
Congressional + executive cooperation has worsened slightly Executive power is being used to a greater degree in illegitimate ways
Gerrymandering is more openly and precisely practiced; the current President, aided by the ATTORNEY GENERAL (!) and other Admin. officials as well as a R majority in the US Senate, consistently misrepresent/lie about govt actions to misinform the governed, and they pose real threats to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the public’s access to facts.
The troops appeared to be violating protesters’ rights.  Their presence appeared to me to be only a subterfuge — a placing of blame for “threats against law and order and destruction of federal institutions” to justify the President’s wanting to make it appear that Blue States’ governors had lost control and condoned lawlessness
Although Presidents have the authority to commute sentences and grant pardons, there should be some accountability, and this is especially important when the accused is charged with illegalities which are directly associated with the President himself.
All protesters were not looters, yet Trump chose to paint all with the same brush as he advocated a violent response.   A President should join in promoting peaceful resolutions and supporting law enforcement against those who would disrupt a peaceful protest or who would, under cover of a protest, commit crimes.  Instead, Trump egged on anti-protester sentiment, with no protection for those exercising their legal rights.
Any organization that works to promote a healthy world is not our adversary. The US should work to improve the efforts of such a group instead of abandoning it.
Guidelines regarding the public health should not be politicized.  While our nation’s economic health is very important, it should not take precedence over the lives of our citizens.  For one example, ordering meat processing plants to remain open without first providing adequate protection for the workers’ health is just plan wrong/unAmerican!
A President should encourage behaviors that protect the public health rather than disparage them.
Our educational institutions and academic freedoms should not be used as political pawns nor threatened with economic measures for partisan political advantage
Thank you.  In these “fake news” times in which experts in health and various other fields as well as Pulitzer-prize-winning journalists are constantly under attack by an untruthful Administration, I am very concerned about citizens’ threatened access to factual, unbiased reporting as well as their capability to locate, understand, and evaluate  opinion pieces. I hope you will be successful in sharing your survey results with a broad and receptive citizenry!
Executive no longer constrained by Constitution, officials now using public office for private gain, oversight of Executive by other branches has waned, unidentified federal police attacking and arresting protestors
Serious erosion of efficacy. Restraints on executive under stress. Norms of equality now openly questioned in ways I thought not possible post-64/65.
Questionnaire is poorly designed to encourage confirmation bias.
restrictions on press; increased critique of loyalty of opposition; politicization of facts
The Trump presidency and the Republican Party's capitulation to its manifest authoritarian, anti-democratic policies and pronouncements. In a few months we might not be a democracy.
GOP playbook pre Trump:  arms control, etc
Self-evident because Trump is by definition abnormal. That is why you are doing this survey.
GOP was doing this kind of thing pre Trump's tweets.
Russia now interferes with US elections, hacks the results, and faces no consequences. Rampant criminality in the executive branch has gone without any censure.
Presidents send troops on many occasions (or federalize national guard or state militias). But Portland doesn't seem to justify it.
I think that conditions have been made consistently over tme to enhance access to voting.
Federal law enforcement officers can be deployed anywhere, theoretically. The issue in this case is that (1) they were drawn from several different agencies, and not necessarily trained in crowd control and proper use of force; and (2) they remained secret, and refused to identify themselves to the media or to the people in Portland.
It's an abdication of the rule of law and encourages others to break the law knowing they will be pardoned by the president.
The rule of law must be applied equally and fairly.
It's a signal of the president's inclinations. Even if the excuse that he didn't see it is true, it's an indication of his lack of interest in paying attention to what he retweets.
State-sanctioned violence to move demonstrators for a photo op is totalitarian behavior.
It's normal in the sense that Americans have long viewed international organizations and regimes with suspicion, and have threatened or withdrawn from international organizations and regimes before.
Extremely dangerous to democracy and public safety.
It's normal in that presidents have the power to do this, and Republican presidents usually try to resist regulations. But of course it's disastrous to the health of the country and the planet.
I tried to leave the historical questions blank, not assign zeroes. I don't have enough confidence to assign scores for earlier decades.
Indicates president acts in naked personal, political interest, undermines public confidence that leaders will enforce laws fairly
It's abnormal in the sense that other presidents didn't do it, but these are abnormal times because of the pandemic. That makes almost any answer to your question misleading.
I can't recall another president who did that.
normal/abnormal characterization is misleading in context of pandemic.
The basic dynamic of checks and balances is not functioning as well, as the legislative branch is not effectively balancing out the power of the executive.  More alarming, the executive leadership incites violence against political opponents and the media, and this leadership demands loyalty from within the executive branch and within other branches as well.
Political actors should not incite violence.
My evaluation here is time/context-specific.  If it were not for the BLM protests in response to the George Floyd killing shortly before this speech, this event would be normal and unimportant.
I meant 1985 to be "95" or so.  The decline is Trump. He is eroding essential democratic norms.
Development of a federal police force, used for political purposes, is bad, bad, bad.
President should not be regulating voting procedures in states.
Not sure about the power of the Executive v. IGs but this was done for obvious political reasons and thus corrupt.
President shouldn't be intervening in local police affairs in a manner that could incite violence.
Perhaps not technically illegal, but contradictory of public health.
Might be defensible in terms of Exeuctive power but violating established norms.
Really? Shilling beans from the Oval Office? Disgusting.
Seems to be within the powers of the Executive but a bad idea.
The policies of the Trump administration have severely eroded the quality of democracy in the United States.
This is one of the most disturbing policies in recent memory that threatens most severely to undermine democracy in the United States.
The decline in democracy from 2015 to today is a result of (1) increased partisanship and polarization, which undermine effective governance; (2) increased antagonism toward basic freedoms, such as protest and free press; (3) increased politicization of executive agencies; (4) political interference into criminal and other investigations; and (5) undermining of fundamental norms regarding electoral integrity and peaceful power transitions.
I don't agree with all of Obama's policies in 2015, but it was open and fair government.  Today, the press is the "enemy of the people" and targeted by Trump supporters and unnamed federal thugs in Portland, the CDC has capitulated to politics, and crucial immigration asylum data and other data erased or incomplete at DHS. Voter suppression is happening at the state level and also through Trump messing with USPS funding.
Other presidents deploy federal authorities in the aid of citizens (Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson), not to oppress peaceful protestors.
This goes straight to the rule of law. There appears to be one set of laws for Trump's friends, another for everyone else.
Voting should be encouraged, not threatened. This is an authoritarian move.
The use of the military and law enforcement against peaceful protestors for a photo opp is unprecedented and authoritarian.
Other GOP presidents dog whistle their racism. This guy fog horns it.
He has politicized mask wearing in the middle of a pandemic that has killed 150K people. The repudiation of science is breathtaking.
He has lost touch with reality and keeps calling attention to it.
He's taking culture wars straight to college and using federal funding as a threat.
He did it without proof. But it's only among one of tens of thousands of lies the man spews each day. He lies more easily and frequently than any US president.
The Administration is using the pandemic to reverse many environmental an d immigration policies while people are distracted. They're only good at destroying, not creating.
The wanton destruction of norms and "gentlemen's agreements" by the current Adminostration has exacerbated already disturning trends, along with ramped-up efforts at voter suppression.
Blatant interference in the electoral process.
Utterly despicable act of an authoritariam that smacks of Mayor Daley in the 60s.
While there are things to ctiticize about the WHO, it is a vital global resource.
Just a dumb policy decision at the worst time.
Democracy is eroding because the norms and rules of the office of the president have been eroding such that transparency has been decreasing while corruption and executive oversight have been increasing.
African politics; autocratic politics; public opinion
Should add don't know options for normal/abnormal important/unimportant questions.
Currently active and violent suppression of organized dissent; some evidence of attempts by officials to manipulate elections and undermine confidence in outcomes (e.g., making fraud sound commonplace when it is rare); continued manipulation in the form of closing of polling places; further erosion of the Voting Rights Act.
These forms of suppression have happened semi-routinely in this past; this one leans toward abnormal because its purpose appears to be solely for a photo op.
It is normal to be disciplined for going outside the chain of command. It is abnormal for something as serious as a ship-wide outbreak of a potentially deadly disease to be ignored.
Public policy (inclusive of American politics)
Federal actions support state policies to suppress voter turnout in minority communities far more than before.
Rising authoritarian attitudes have translated into more authoritarian policies, mostly on the Right, but occasionally on the Left as well.
Democratic countries do not politicize the military.
It's a legal move, but inconsistent with the US claims of being a leader in the world.
Very scary.  Sets precedent for a Democratic president to shut down Breitbart.
Sets a precedent for Trump's successor to call him the same thing.
Only abnormal because it went through Congress so fast, but that occasionally happens.
Just bad public policy, but not an affront to democracy.
Doing the speech at Rushmore is fine, but the politicization was out of bounds.
Presidency, parties, American political development. Elections.
I believe that despite political differences, the US was moving toward a more open and accepting political culture, moving toward racial, gender and sexual equality.  In addition, the Obama administration was among the cleanest in my living memory.   I am fairly certain that in 2020 the US is struggling to remain a fully free Republic where elections are accepted under the rules as largely legitimate, conventions and rule of law are fastidiously observed, and a peaceful transfer of power is likely.  More to the point, the level of personal corruption is altogether different.  Now--in 2020--we have a President who is the most self serving and dishonest  I have witnessed in my 66 years.
I have never seen a President use the pardon power like a personal toy.  Trump loves it.  It makes him feel royal.
The Justice Department, and the Office of Attorney General must be neutral players in the administration of justice and the law. The Flynn deal is the contrary of that condition.
It might be the right thing to do--but if only with a real national strategy in execution.
It is a horrible idea--but not the first time I have seen environmental policy be undermined for the worst of all possible reasons--the enrichment of the few.
It could set a precedent that will only grow in time.
Modern and contemporary political theory; American political theory
Governance during the Obama Administration (2015) was moving toward greater democracy.  The Trump Administration has moved toward a less democratic system of governance.
The commutation raised serious questions about the equal protection of the laws.
There should be a single Federal standard.
The integrity of the Inspector Generals is very important and their actions should not be subject to political needs.
Stifling the free speech of any citizen is dangerous.
The Federal Government should not intervene in such measures unless it is also willing to support the necessary restrictions to contain the pandemic.
Commanders should be rewarded for protecting the health of those under their command.
The charge is scurrilous and drastically undermines the legitimacy of the political system.
Regulations should be based on science in a democracy not on the political power of affected groups.
Still a bit too long.  But interesting.  I liked the state question.
Obama offered an inclusive democratic vision--however, the plutocrats had undue influence, scuttling many of the policies that the public largely supported. That's why 2015 is 76% not higher. Today? Because Trump is an incompetent fascist who is using mis-information, violence against protestors, graft, etc. to benefit himself, and his own election. Fuck him, and the Republican party that enables him. He demonstrates the fragility of American democracy.
Using the justice Department to benefit himself and curry favors. Corruption to the hilt.
Draconian creeping fascism. It wasn't even a good photo they got out of this cynical photo-op. Fasicm + incompetence - democracy = Trump
Abnormal that Congress can disperse $2 trillion. THIS IS NOT NORMAL!! However, it is normal in that senate and the house are actually legislating in the face of a crisis. However, the fact that this bail out benefited primarily corporations and the wealthy is huge problem.
Cutting all regulation at the behest of his private donors.
Demonstrates his nativist fascism. Using nationalist symbolism to demonize those we disagrees with. The absence of COVID precautions is particularly shocking.
Obrador is a democratically elected president of an American ally and neighbor.
The political system in 2015 during the Obama Administration was largely democratic although there were efforts afoot to by the Republicans to limit or suppress voting.  Those efforts were largely supported by the Supreme Court.  By 2020, the efforts of the Trump Administration, the Republicans in the Senate and the Supreme Court had taken a number of anti-democratic steps.  Voter suppression continued, big money continued to flow into Republican coffers, the Senate failed to hold Trump accountable in the Impeachment proceedings, among other things.
Congress has continued its trend toward irrelevance; the primary check on executive power seems to be the judiciary, which is not a democratically-elected institution.
Voting is interfered with especially for minorities, the young, etc.  Executive authority is not adequately limited by Congress or courts.  Money plays too large a role in elections.
Racism is tearing the country apart, and a normal president would try to reduce it, not increase it.
Shows lack of concern for freedoms to demonstrate in a democracy and for no good reason other than personal attention to the president.
This is not just bad policy, but abnormal lack of concern about world health and scientific policy making.
Shows lack of concern for the health of the country as a whole to further his own political goals.
Shows almost insane disregard for other people’s health and well being in order to satisfy an ego that requires stroking.
This is mostly normal behavior for the Navy where scapegoats are a way a of life.  Should not be, but it is.
Trump’s usual violation of democratic principles.
Gov must respond to emergencies in a timely and effective fashion to maintain public support.
Bad policy, but lots of things presidents do is bad policy.  He is within his constitutional role here.
Stretch of usual behavior, but not unprecedented.
Efforts to suppress vote, lack of presidential accountability/presidential crony capitalism; public use of militia's to suppress protest, lack of will to address systematic racism, false narratives from public office, judiciary becoming partisan starting with DOJ, ICE,
attempt to suppress vote for partisan advantage use of public funds to secure partisan advantage polarizing
subverting justice dampening effect on judicial process executive above the rule of law
clear quid pro quo--corruption.  entirely defeats judiciary check on presidential power, puts president above the rule of law
Isolationist policy that makes it harder for US to organize collective provision of international public goods
Use of public office to suppress first amendment rights through intimidation
false narrative raises stakes of political game
needed but flawed abnormal measure in abnormal times
a policy choice that I'd like to see reversed
While I do not think the US is currently undemocratic, there are several worrying signs, such as the attempted use of the military against protesters (which was prevented) to the use of federal agents to attack protesters (which was not prevented). The executive branch has also interfered in investigations and used government resources to attack political opponents. This, coupled with attempts to discredit elections and make it harder for citizens to vote, raises concerns about possible interference with elections. The US is currently a liberal democracy; it is unclear if it will stay that way.
Technically he didn't really go outside of his chain of command. The military serves at the president's pleasure- what was odd - and what has been more concerning- is the executive branch's meddling in military justice and discipline.
Democracy in the United States has been under assault from an ambitious executive with the means and wherewithal to undermine constitutional checks and balances.
Political Economy of developing countries
The US has never been a perfect democracy (not that such a thing exists), but in the past five years, the Trump administration has engaged in a series of actions - cracking down on peaceful protests, renewed attempts at voter suppression, and mobilizing the power of the pardon and of the judicial branch, generally, to protect political allies' blatantly illegal behavior. A ranking of 80 in 2015 may be too high, and a ranking of 70 today probably is, as well, given how much the Trump administration has undermined deep seated political norms and mobilized the power of his office against his political opponents. But, I placed the greatest weight on voters' ability to access the franchise and parties' ability to contest elections in making this determination.
It is normal for presidents to commute sentences as they fit; it is not normal for presidents to get their friends out of jail free for protecting their personal interests.
This was an absolutely insane series of events. Gassing peaceful protestors apparently without warning under any circumstances is an outrage, abnormal, and important to name as such.
Pandemics are inherently abnormal, and this might have been a smart policy move at the very beginning of the pandemic.
Promoting private companies' products is an ethics violation, which is why it's important; the stupidity of focusing on this for a news cycle in the middle of a pandemic in which the president appears to be trying to kill off the opposition makes this relatively less important than it would be in normal times.
This is an attempt to silence political opposition and distract from the pandemic. It's still important, because it could have real implications for innovation, science, and development.
The uncertainty this has introduced to foreign students about their ability to get a degree in the US, independent of their desire to stay here, is going to make it harder to attract top talent to US institutions in the future. This is bad for innovation, bad for the economy, bad for science.
Since Donald Trump has assumed office, he has deployed many tools in the "dictator's handbook" to undermine democracy. - Publicized many thousands of lies and undermined facts, including those crucial to public health - attacked the free press - used the office to enrich his business interests - destroyed political careers of opponents using the tools of the office - fired bureaucrats who would not lie on his behalf to protect him - called for imprisoning his political opponents - pardoned from prison sentences his cronies who lied under oath to protect him - prevented the release of public information of conflict of interest - conducted treason by favoring Russian interests over US democratic institutions - deployed military forces against civilians to repress peaceful protesters - incited race wars to divide the civilian public further - denied civil liberties to women and LGBTQ community - violated human rights on US-Mexico border - undermined the credibility of elections. If you look at the agenda of most egregious dictatorships in history, Trump is slowly checking off the boxes to move the US in their direction.
Trump is an idiot and the test is not designed for intelligence, rather to diagnose dementia.
Important because it contravened public health concerns about Covid-19. The content of the speech was atrociousl
The democracy "thermometer" prompt about U.S. history was too hard to answer for me to give a meaningful response. I don't know how you'll use that data but my hunch is it will be unreliable.
I do not believe the US has ever been wholly democratic.  The influence of wealthy donors and corporate interest groups, lack of equal voting access, and discrimination against especially racial and ethnic minorities have all always been problems.  However, currently we have an out of control executive, Congressional and judicial branches unable or unwilling to check the President, outright voting suppression, and impunity in government actions against citizens, including protestors.
I think people tend to overweight contemporary developments related to the Trump administration while ignoring more positive developments related to ballot access and redistricting.
This survey does not kill fascists, even if it feels better to do something.
Less check on executive authority, foreign election interference and domestic voter suppression (although now that I think about it, it had started by 2015 and I might drop the 85 to 80), government manipulation of data now, ability of president and other government officials to benefit financially from their positions now
This isn't a violation of democratic norms, but it is certainly a violation of good governance that has cost lives in the interest of satisfying the personal whims of the president
I'm not sure how many people even pay attention to these types of things anymore
It is normal in the sense that it followed the standard legislative process, but it is certainly not typical (normal?) in terms of its scope, but neither is the crisis it was meant to address
Access to voting has become more limited since 2015--really since 2013, but 2015 was the closest point available on the survey. Changes since Shelby County v. Holder have been to restrict access and to do so in ways that benefit certain Americans and hurt others. Voter suppression, along with decisions weakening campaign finance regulations have served limit democracy. Both changes limit the voices of people of color and lower socio-economic status.
Important both as harming pandemic control and for furthering ties between White House and right-wing groups or individuals, in many cases armed
Trump exacerbated the conflict with this move.
Vindman knew he could suffer the consequences of his testimony.
There was no way to monitor this idiocy.
Slavery prevented democracy from being realized; so did Jim Crow.   But the complexity of the US political system for much of its modern history kept it from being completely captured by autocratic forces even though America has never been a model democracy.  Now, however, the Republican Party is refusing to stop -- and even enables - a president who (at best) doesn't understand and (at worst) wants to destroy constitutional government.    Republican complicity has paralyzed congress, resulted in capture of the federal and some state judiciaries, and has filtered down through governors' mansions where state leaders would rather see open bars than lives saved.   Covid shows that even the protection of the life and health of the citizens no longer matters to a whole political party - and it shows that the lives of Black and Brown people are worth less than ever to them.  The mobilization of police and repressive forces to enforce this Republican understanding of power and "liberty" means that we are closer a tipping point into autocracy than I ever though the US could get.  That said, if you're looking on a world scale, where China, Venezuela and Zimbabwe in in the mix, the US is not at the bottom of the heap.   But to be in the middle of the world rankings, where the average country is a hybrid regime, is pretty bad!
undermines the independence of the inspector general system - not only in Atkinson's case but also with the firing of other IGs who were closing in on exposing the president or his allies in corruption, self-dealing or inappropriate conduct.
Justice is not equal for all.  This is part of a pattern of pardoning or otherwise undermining the normal operation of the judicial system as a reward for personal loyalty to president.   The flip side is cruel and vindictive treatment of those who have stood up the president.
The presidency should not be a platform for hate.
So many things are abnormal and abhorrent about this:  -- the use of chemical weapons banned by international law -- the destruction of peaceful protest and harm to protestors -- the use of unmarked federal troops -- the mobilization of military (chairman of the joint chiefs, defense secretary) to support the unprovoked use of force against civilians. -- the cynical use of religion -- the destruction of the independence of the justice department and the attorney general's complicity in this violation of the constitutional rights of protestors.
Political protest is normal - astroturf demonstrations of opposition to sane public health measures is not.
Social media need sane regulation, but not executive diktat.
The number of lives shattered among those excluded is extraordinary - to say nothing of the effects on institutions and families inside the US.
Of course, I'm in a university so this particular one hits close to home.  But the more general principle - that a president would use the tax code to punish his opponents -- is important and its violation is the sort of thing we see in autocratic governments.
this has two pieces -   1) the sudden retraction of the ICE guidance that permitted international students whose universities in a non-covid world had in-person classes to remain - ripped up lives, gave no notice either to the students or their universities and was aimed at pressuring universities to open when it wasn't safe.   This was appalling, unfair, discriminatory and cruel.    2)  the refusal to grant visas for international students to START programs that for covid-related reasons must now be online - guaranteeing that these students cannot study online from within the US.   this involves reclassifying universities rather than people but still has toxic effects, not least on online teaching which now much span impossible numbers of time zones.
Good questions - and glad to have the chance to explain particular answers.
The US today is quite democratic compared to most countries in history, including its own former self. I have concerns about the current behavior of the executive branch (corruption, political control of historically-insulated bureaucratic positions) as well as elite efforts to publicly undermine the legitimacy of our election processes.
I mean, a giant stimulus bill because of a global pandemic isn't something you see everyday, but the legislative process itself is pretty normal.
I haven't followed the process that led to this particular policy change, but it's not out of the ordinary for a given presidential administration to make regulatory changes that undo a previous administration's efforts. This particular presidential administration seems to sometimes do this without the usual public-comment and other processes, but the basic idea of the action is normal.
it's not normal for presidents to give speeches at that location, at least in recent years; nor was the delivery particularly normal for presidents in recent memory. But it's not abnormal for the president to give a speech, nor is it necessarily abnormal for political candidates to choose speech locations with political significance and a fraught political history (in this case, particular significance for the people who consider the carving a desecration of sacred ground).
We're not commenting on the president's behavior or statements at press conferences, right?
We are seeing a rise in requirements that federal officials prove some sort of loyalty and accusations that opponents are unpatriotic. Federal officers taking people off of the streets in Portland? Only letting them out of jail if they agree to give up first amendment rights to protest? That's not democracy. The courts are increasingly on a collision course with democracy-- SCOTUS this past season was a mixed bag. (Maybe that's democracy?) I believe it's more than half of those in highest positions are "acting" and "interim" meaning they have not been vetted & approved by Senate-- which would provide a check on the power of executive. Many states are curbing the right to vote-- consider KY and GA cutting polling places in recent elections. The president has undermined the press since before he took office and is undermining the legitimacy of our elections-- and our postal service???-- everyday. Honest to God-- what country is this?
Commuted sentences for felons because they are friends of the president? Again-- not in a democracy.
Again, rule of law should mean something in a democracy. Was he the victim of a set-up? Maybe-- but lying to federal officers is still a crime.
Again-- a step closer to fascism & dictatorship every day.
There's the bully pulpit-- which is about getting people to do the right thing by persuading from a place of influence. And then there's the playground bully-- who demands what is in his best interest, and if he doesn't get it, he pushes the other kids to the ground and goes home.
Securing public health is a fundamental duty of government in a civilized society. Undermining public health for political gain is not democratic.
Only important because it's so damned illegal. No one is supposed to profit from the presidency-- no administration is supposed to advantage one private company over another. Again-- Dude, where's my country?
I think the whole story involves WHY he had to go outside of the chain of command and that's where it becomes abnormal.
He's a moron, too bad 30-40% of the American public don't care.
Unfounded accusations of this significant nature are indicative of dictators, not democrats.
Federal government should not try to bribe subnational authorities.
Public officials should not endorse private corporations.
Democratization, presidential powers, populism, parties, sexuality
Formal barriers to participation are few, but representation and responsiveness still imperfect.
Executive branch interference in democratic rights .
This signals that it is alright to pursue illegal activities, be convicted, then overturned, similar to the Iran-Contra scandal.
It promotes the tolerance of white supremacy, which is unacceptable.
This was a potential witness who could have had potentially strong evidence for the impeachment case.
The comment promotes government violence in the U.S.
This is a direct threat to freedom of speech.
A high-ranking government official should never use the government position to promote commercial interests.
This is just indicative of his narcisism.
President Trump has provided no confirmed factual evidence of this accusation.
GOP and Donald Trump's efforts to disenfranchise voters and cast doubt on legitimacy of elections, growing influence of lobbyists/corporations, undermining of confidence in government.
Undermines fundamentals of our rule of law.
Violation of the principle that a President is accountable.
Aside from the vulgarity of the video, it provided another example of the President's racism.
In any other administration it would have been significant.  Here, it's "what else is new?"
Suggests that the President has in fact lost his judgment and capacity to reason.
Threat to use the power of the federal government against institutions for unspecified offenses against the President is cause for impeachment, conviction and removal from office.  But crickets....
More delusion, racism and egocentrism. Impossible to remain constantly outraged.
Giving the speech was normal, content of speech, doing it in a health crisis was very troubling.
Both the states and federal government create impediments to full transparency in government and erect barriers to full participation including voter ID laws, limits of former felons at the ballot box, weak ethics laws, etc.
It is normal in the sense that it happens a lot. Ford pardoned Nixon. Bush (against his better judgement) pardoned Scooter Libby.
Again, inconsistent with American (and possibly human) values. But not necessarily bad for democracy.   Consider there are arying degrees of racism in many socities. For example, there are many post-colonial african states where the British, Belgium and French are broadly unpopular. For these governments to respond to anti-European sentiment would be both racist and democratic.
There is a long history of the executive punishing whistleblowers who come forward in National security and preventing them from coming forward at all.   For example, Bush admin. tried to prevent disclosures by Tom Drake and others on NSA surveillance. Then Obama Admn. fiercely punished them with long jail sentences.   Related, the government tried hard to silence the release of pentagon papers. For a comprehensive review of this common pattern see National Security Whistleblowers, forthcoming in JOP.
It is not "important" for democracy in the sense that democracy represents existing citizens. It doesn't mean it is consistent with American values.
Blaming pre-decessors for policies = normals.   Accusing them of crimes like this = abnormal / dangerous.
We have regressed in key areas of election integrity and foreign influence, attacks on judicial independence, undermining rule of law, the concept of loyal opposition has decayed, equal protection improved for LGBT but regressed around race, toxic disinformation, the Trump administration.
While I understand there are few limits on the pardoning power the Farmers gave us there have been decades of democratic norms built around how this is used. Commuting his campaign advisor’s sentence (reward) for not snitching is what the mafia does not a President.
The rule of law not of men. Interference by the AG on behalf of President.
Conduct unbecoming a President of the United States and racist.
Retaliation in open sight. What a dictator does.
The President should never endorse products on business time in our White House. Absurd.
The entire Administration save few have undermined an effective response and gone to lengths like this to hide the true danger of Covid-SARS2.
Elections have consequences for policy disputes like this.
Democratic societies and superpowers allow foreign nationals to attend their universities. It is a sign of soft power in education. Using the pandemic and online solutions to kick out smacks of nationalism.
During a pandemic has a crowd without masks  and the speech is demagogic and not unifying on our national Independence Day holiday.
In 2015 American democracy was functioning pretty well, but still lacked some key aspects of electoral integrity: control of political finance, reduction of barriers to voting, no professional election management. Today, we have a corrupt executive branch, little legislative checks on the executive, use of military and state para-militaries against demonstrators, roll back of rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, and the abuse of federal power as a means of enhancing the electoral chances of the incumbent president.
Things seemed more democratic. We had less knowledge of foreign intervention. Our leaders did not lie constantly as they do today
Tyranny thy name is Donald. He has expressed his antipathy toward mail voting. He is trying to delegitimize the election
Whistle blowers are supposed to be protected. Even some Republicans were opposed.
Given his apparent racism, this is consequential
In the middle of a pandemic when everyone should be pulling together. Another stupid move
Completely irresponsible and they paid for it.
There is a pandemic and 150,000 people have died. Unemployment is skyrocketing. Do something
Just cruelty here. Very stupid and very much in character
Presidents give speeches. The pandemic makes this an act of irresponsibility.
Presidents meet with other leaders.  Nothing unusual except the wanton flattery.
Increasing political polarization, wherein declining levels of trust diminish a common commitment to: (a) electoral processes, (b) a refraining from use of government agencies to punish political opponents, (c) a mutual understanding of facts
Clearly political maneuver to bolster support among white conservatives. Unusual to use federal law enforcement in such a nakedly political way.
Trump conflates loyalty to him with duty to office to the utter detriment to the idea of public service.
Mr. Trump's behavior exemplifies political scientist Bruce Miroff's theory of presidential spectacle - in which everything is orchestrated to manipulate public perception of the president to the advantage of the president. The incident at St. John's is a perfect example of it.
Again, utter failure to understand obligations of the chief of state. To see and communicate the complexities of such a social event.
It's a reflection of the president's nationalism, and disdain for the international institutional system, and thus consequential for the future of efficacy of the international system and our relationship to it.
Reflective of his disdain for expertise and science. Important in that he risks amplifying this same tendency among a section of the electorate.
Mr. Trump clearly does not understand the role of chief of state, in which he represents the entire country and is bound to serve its larger interests. Everything is understood in terms of his own perceived interests, nor does he seem to see the Office seen as above crass political gimmickry.
By itself it seems unimportant. But as an indication that Mr. Trump is compensating for personal insecurities, it reflects legitimate concerns about his psychological fitness for the office.
Very indicative of the intensifying hyperbolic nature of political rhetoric that is part and parcel of our polarizing conditions.
Public Policy and Environmental Politics
Govt harassment of journalists under Eric Holder's Justice Dept. Executive branches refusal to share info with Congress during Obama era. DACA declared after President declared such an unilateral action would be unconstitutional.  Etc.
politicized investigations of political opponents then but not now.
what happened to Flynn is precisely the sort of abuse of government authority the first part of the survey focused on. Those responsible must answer for it.
the officer's violation of chain of command had significant security ramifications.
he has been subjected to attacks based on mental competency so it seems appropriate to counter.
In 2015 there were still some deficiencies like the practice of gerrymandering, messy electoral processes producing at times inaccurate electoral results, limits to the political participation of some minorities, but the checks and balances worked mostly as they are supposed to do. Today, on top of those problems that were present in 2015, the Congress is not an effective check on the Executive power and there is bullying from the President to free media.
We have backslid in terms of my confidence that the law enforcement powers of the federal government are no longer politically independent from the president. I'm concerned with overreaching by federal law enforcement and attempts to limit free expression on arrested protesters in Portland. Voting rights have gone in the wrong direction too; more and more voter suppression, see Georgia in particular, since 2015.
It's not a good look, the justice department playing favorites. Only matters if there's an understanding created that not snitching on the president earns you a pardon. Then it's a huge deal
Very weird and narcissistic. Concerning to use federal troops against citizens exercising 1A rights for a photo op. Seems to be a one-off, which reduces importance.
Terrible. You wonder why the pandemic is largely contained in most of the world but is an inferno here? This is a big reason why.
The president's refusal to take COVID19 seriously has gotten thousands of Americans sick or killed, and has kept the economy in a state of depression. It's a nightmare scenario, and the president still refuses to send positive signals on public health measures.
Far more norms of the democratic process have been broken or discarded between 2015 and 2020.  This started with the Senate's decision to not take up the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016.  The current US president has used his office for personal profit, he attempted to conspire with foreign governments for help in his reelection, he has sown distrust in appointed officials in the Executive branch, and has promoted arresting protestors by unmarked soldiers, to name a few.  The legislative and judicial branches have demonstrated their ability to limit presidential powers in some areas, but not fully. In 2015, hyperpartisanship and Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United and overturning of the Voters Rights Act prevented the US from being the most democratic.
This disregard for the first amendment is deeply troubling as it portends future acts of government intimidation and the political usage of the executive branch to go after enemies.
This demonstrates political interference in the executive branch, it reduces accountability for the president, and it weakens the independent powers held by members of governments meant to be apolitical.
Threats of violence against protestors by the president is deeply troubling.
A significant number of politically active individuals do not believe in democracy and they have captured a major political party.
I used 50 to mean a country is more democratic than not. We moved into the positive side, in my view, based on changes in political rights and liberties for women and then people of color. The decline between 2015 and today is due to three things:  (1) Republicans leveraging gerrymanders created by post-2010 redistricting to create artificial legislative super-majorities that were then used to attack other branches of government. (2) The same process is being used--and has accelerated since 2015--to make it more difficult for Americans to vote for the sole purpose of trying to stop elections from reflecting the will of the plurality.  (3) Trump.  Rhetorically, there's his assault on the media, democratic norms, elections and the cultural fabric that makes democracy work. Institutionally, he enriches himself and has politicized the Attorney General's office as well as other investigatory actors to make it such that he and those who show blind loyalty are above the law and those who try to pursue the rule of law play high costs. Republicans in the Senate and on the Supreme Court are embracing theories of executive power (presumably only for politicians in their own party) that are dismanteling horizontal accountiability while also allowing the president to trample on mechanisms of vertical accountiability. The outcome of the 2020 election and (presuming a Trump loss) response of the Republican Party will determine whether the US is experiencing an undemocratic moment or a much more profound reversal. If Trump could secure everything he's proposed publicly, we could easily move back to a sub-50 score.
To the extent that federal *non-military* forces are being used to protect federal property when local police cannot or will not, this does not seem out of line (politically not very astute). A federal judge said the same thing.
An effort to interfere in vertical accountability.
I truly believe that our idiot for a president didn't hear what the racist said. The white nationalists are already all voting for him, and this harms him with the swing voters he needs, so I think this one was an honest mistake... which is something I rarely say about this president.
Encouraging violence by nonstate actors is undemocratic. It becomes even more so here because most of the folks in the street were peaceful, albeit highly angry and agitated political protesters.
In the middle of a pandemic? The US chooses to leaves international institutions from time to time, but not like this or for the reasons given.
There's a reason we have a chain of command. And the removal was carefully reviewed.
Politically not smart. Economically, a moronic decision that harms the US economy and society over time. While I don't agree with the policy, however, the idea that a president can choose to restrict immigration in the middle of a pandemic doesn't seem like a power reach. If universities say students do not need to be on campus for the term to take classes, it doesn't seem particularly undemocratic to say that visas are not necessary for foreign students at the moment (incidentally, lots of other democracies have stopped all foreign students from entering for this year).  -
Latin American politics, but much of my research and scholarhip these days is on gender politics and polarization in the US
It is truly depressing that we are asking these questions about our own country.
Lack of transparency in presidency.  Efforts to discredit news sources.
Empirical methods, institutions, political economy
Your questions should specifically reference federal versus state institutions and behavior.  I think many of our states behave far more democratically than the current federal government.  Yet, it is not clear in the question which level is the referent.
More awareness of racial and structural Issues limiting democracy now.
Decrease in standard political norms, attacks on free speech/press, degrading of fundamental institutions
It’s extremely troubling, but it hasn’t been the first convicted political ally to be pardoned or have their sentence commuted.
Breaks down international norms and sets a dangerous, isolationist precedent
It’s relatively normal for leaders to shut down borders during health crises, especially to the degree of the COVID outbreak.
It’s odd for the extent Trump has endorsed certain products, but presidents have always highlighted successful companies
It’s not surprising given his policy positions, but it will contribute to negative long-term effects
It’s a clear threat to foreign students and plays on a nativist narrative
It’s important because of the precedent of Native American land and disregard for fire safety at Mount Rushmore, but it’s generally normal for presidents to make speeches on national holidays
I believe that the current debates and disharmony are a sign of democracy working.  Civil Rights have still needed to be improved but I do not think that Trump is the cause of unequal access to robust civil rights; the problem predates him.  Trump has been held to constitutional standards despite frequent attempts to do so.  The Senate has been a bulwark for the Republican party.  The US only ranks in the 70s because of gerrymandering which unfairly punishesthe majority Democratic party.  Gerrymandering is also responsible for Trump's election.  He has been a disaster, but the problems for US democracy predate him.
Trump is crossing federal authority with state authority over what is mainly a political issue, not a security one. I mark it mostly abnormal since there have been similar deployments of national guard troops to quell demonstrations in the Vietnam era.  If  Trumpcontinues to act in this fashion regarding protests, I would change my importance rating to  to mostly important or even important, since Trump would be testing the foundations of our federal division of power.
I am not very familiar with Trump's rationale for this action, but I do know that election methods are typically the purview of states, not the national government, and it seems that Trump believes that the mail-in system will hurt his re-election chances.  I have read news commentaries that actually the Republican turnout will be suppressed in these states.  Trump's actions are probably unconstitutional, but by the time the matter is resolved in the courts the damage (in Trumps favor? he presumes so) will be done.  It is another deficit of our democracy that decisions are not made quickly enough to deter improper behavior in the first place.
It is not good to do, but other presidents have done similar firings for bureaucrats who do not support the president's agenda
Presidents who send messages that disloyalty to the president personally will result in ruined careers risk politicizing the military.  An apolitical military is crucial for the working of a robust democracy.
This behavior is sickening from a leadership and public policy perspective.  However, a new president could turn this acitivity around and have strong public and scientific support for a more strengthened public policy direction.  The behavior does not break constitutional requirements for the President (head of government).  It does, however, continue to damage the "head of state" function of the executive branch of the United States, and will need curating in the future to restore the previously highly influential "head of state" status that the US president routinely assumed on taking office.
Freedom of the Press is essential to a democracy.  Twitter is of moderate importance in the spectrum of press information to the public.  I more fear the precedent than the closure of the platform per se.
Trump again is acting to promote his election agenda, but by promoting a particular commercial product is seeking to politicize the economy.  The Goya example would stand as unimportant if it were not part of the relentless efforts by this president to promote his personal well-being as if it were synonymous with the national well-being.
See the previous comment; the military was "pubished" for taking the pandemic more seriously than was politically expedient for Trump's re-election chances.
The president has a powerful influence on public policy, setting the agenda based on a claimed mandate from his election.  Almost all presidents can claim this mandate based on winning the popular and the electoral vote.  Trump cannot, having only won the electoral vote (the one that counts for gaining the presidency).  His loss of the popular vote makes it difficult to argue that he has a mandate from the people.  It is a flaw in the US system that hurts its democracy, since Trump is undertaking a policy that is not favored by the majority of the population.
Again, Trump has the power to do this.  But he harms higher education and the economy by denying these international students the visas needed for (especially graduate) university work in the US. There seems little national security or health reasons for this policy.  It does, however, play to his electoral base and thus falls into a (sadly) normal category.
The degradation of several institutional norms and inter-branch checks and balances is frightening. The deployment of federal troops to suppress peaceful protests is fascistic. The deliberate undermining of basic public health facts, threats to science, and dismissiveness toward the government's own experts is shocking and undemocratic. This is the most fragile I think the democracy has been since the civil war.
Good luck. And may God bless the United States of America.
It seems to foster criticism of the current US president
Leaders & their associates are increasingly not held accountable for gross misconduct; Elected branch of government (the Senate) increasingly unwilling to play a role in public policymaking; Declining role of journalism/availability of reliable information; Increased foreign influence in US elections; Polarization making gerrymandering/unequal election systems worse
Serious declines in many categories since Trump’s election
Possible that other Republican administrations would have done the same.
Democracy today has been compromised by Trump's assault on democracy and aggressive efforts by Republicans to suppress access to the ballot box. Partisan gerrymandering continues to undermines democracy and court decisions have not helped very much to do away with undemocratic election practices. In 2015 under Obama the situations was a little better, but still efforts to undermine democracy have been unfortunately successful with Republican courts and the U.S. Congress refusing to do little about it. The overruling of key provisions in the Voting Rights Act has not helped.
I believe on 19 occasions presidents in the past have deployed troops into states, some without being invited, including IKE and JFK into ARK, AL, and MISS respectively.
Just plain outrageous behavior that has been widely criticized for being just that, especially since it was motivated by self-preservation. Stone was convicted in  fair trial and not unfairly as Trump claims.
Some presidents have done this in the past such as G.H.W. Bush when he pardoned Casper Weinberger. However, Trump has pardoned several people to protect friends and to play to his base. His pardons or commutations have been outrageous.
The same crazy behavior that in this case have turned many military people against Trump.
Simply irresponsible, insane leadership endangering the public.
Trump has, as any president, the right to protect its borders from a Pandemic, as long as his reasons are rational. Many nations in the world have banned all sorts of people, immigrating or not, from coming in to their countries at this time.
This constituted insane and irresponsible behavior by a president. He should set a good example to help stop the spread of the virus, This campaign rally showed that Trump prioritized reelection over the health of Americans. In fact, OK is now reporting higher cases than most other cases on a per capita basis.
Actually, this is prohibited by law, but Trump has little respect for federal law/the rule of law.
Trump should not have intervened in this military matter.
This is simply childish, unpresidential behavior used to intimidate universities for some partisan advantage, as well as to play in a demagogic manner to pump up his base. He lacks any evidence for it. He also should leave academic institutions alone, as virtually all presidents have, even if they do not like the liberalism coming from them. Previous presidents have at least displayed some respect for academic institutions, but Trump slams any parties that hold different views than from his.
American presidency and campaigns and elections and administrative law and public administration
Too long. i think that you are going to get very predictable answers about Trump. He has been rated by professors contributing to another survey as the worst president in U.S. history. You are asking over and over again whether his behavior is normal. It is about as far from normal as it could get. I have taught the American presidency for four decades and the Trump presidency is totally rogue. He disregards the norms of presidential power and acts as unpresidential as any president. The reason that you are likely getting answers similar to my own is because professors realize how dangerous this man is to American government. He has put at great risk our nation's standing before the world. No president has had the military, the intelligence community, the courts, the federal bureaucracy, and even many members of his own party *behind closed doors) against him. You should have asked whether Republicans in Congress have put the nation at risk by not seeing to it that he was thrown out of office through the impeachment process.By not doing so, they have put the country at risk and our democracy at risk.
Rule of law, freedom to criticize the government, and peaceful protest are all robustly protected in the US today and were in 2015. If the legislature actually tries to restrain the executive it can do so. Election outcomes are generally respected by winners and losers. In my opinion these are some of the most important elements of democracy.   However, the conservative party tries to limit ballot access for minorities, and weakens election administration to do so. This seems worse than 20-30 years ago. Also, there is more polarization and less political compromise than in the 1980s or 1970s. So, the US is not as democratic as it was then.   Still, the situation is far better than in 1950, when segregation and disenfranchisement of minorities was legal; than 1900, when women were not guaranteed the right to vote; and most of the 1800s when slavery was legal.   There has been real progress that is not seriously threatened, but our standards are higher so things look worse.
This is 'abnormal' from the standpoint of robust accountability, but completely normal from the standpoint of politicians' incentives. The US has a real structural problem with IGs. Accountability through this channel can only go as far as the executive desires, which is no accountability at all. However, there are other significant channels of accountability, so while important I do not think this fundamentally compromises democracy.
This ominous phrase created a problem in what was otherwise an unproblematic tweet. There is nothing wrong with a president decrying non-peaceful protests. Protests with either violence or intentional property damage are not peaceful. However, the threat to shoot is a problem, and it struck directly at individuals' right to assemble, which is important.
Everyone seems fine with constant, dense protests for BLM, and Democratic politicians promote and participate in them. If this is ok, it cannot be wrong for Republicans to promote public expression by allied groups.   Part of the objection to protests of social distancing is that it goes against recommendations of scientists. But there is nothing democratic about delegating complete control over policy to scientists. Even when scientists advocate for a position, there are tradeoffs, and the irrational feelings of ordinary people matter in a democracy too.
Twitter is not a neutral fact checker. If social media platforms choose to stand between politicians and the public, especially when the politicians say things that the platform's employees tend to disagree with, it is not clear that the platform neutrally in the public interest, and therefore it may be appropriate to change how it is regulated.
This was a temporary response to a public health crisis under limited information. An open or permeable border is not in my view an important aspect of democracy. The president acted within the law in this case, and arguably within a reasonable interpretation of the public interest. It is not an interpretation that his opponents share, but that does not in itself mean he did anything wrong.
We have decided that political assemblies are acceptable, pandemic and CDC guidelines notwithstanding. It is a threat to democracy if the ideology of the assembled party is part of the justification to assemble.
This is crass and debases the symbolism of the president's physical space. Plenty of presidents have given special places for products of their supporters in the oval office, but Trump is more brazen about it. However, it doesn't have any obvious effect on policy, and it does not change a norm simply because one president violates it. I doubt this will change how the oval office is used or appears.
The Trump administration's use of executive orders often borders on governing by fiat. (I meant today's score to be 60.) That was less likely to be the case in 2015.
We have a lawless president, abetted by a Senate full of cowards, sycophants, and collaborators, an administrative state increasingly devoid of experts and staffed by incompetent hacks - if at all, and a political party moving toward outright fascism. Most ominously we have GOP governors and state legislatures and judiciaries actively working to suppress the vote and disenfranchise fellow citizens.
He retweets inane content regularly - so it’s not abnormal for the period Jan 2017-...  He’s a racist, supported by racists, so the content is unsurprising
Protest and civil unrest (even rioting) isn’t abnormal in a democracy during difficult political times. The pathetic spectacle of this president* and his overtly corrupt stooge of an AG using unnecessary force against protesters for a photo-op is a sad episode for this country.
Unfortunately railing against institutions that the US created, supported, and largely benefitted from over time has become somewhat normal GOP unilateralist behavior. Actually defunding and pulling out is self-defeating, stupid and petulant behavior that is beyond what we’ve seen before...
Approaching 160,000 dead American citizens - this underscores the complete, total, epic failure of political leadership of this moronic buffoon and his lackeys. The lack of national leadership or a competent policy response if terrible; the active undermining of governors who were trying to do the right thing and save lives is beyond reprehensible. It should be grounds for removal, but that would require a GOP that wasn’t made up of unpatriotic cowards.
His bullying is all to normal in this period. It is not normal for a president to threaten media in this way but sadly par for the course.  Social media is incredibly destructive however and should be regulated!
Honestly, it’s hard to care... but most likely responsible for one prominent death....
Even with this disgrace of a “president,” the US has been fortunate that Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Mnuchin could work together to quickly provide emergency relief in response to the pandemic. Fed Chair Powell deserves credit as well.
This is just an example of the rank, self-defeating stupidity of this circus of an administration. Even the automakers saw little use/value in this. Debates/fights about regulation are normal - this is just a foolish move to “own the kind.”
Just another ridiculous, short-sighted, self-defeating attempt at policy meant to somehow stoke the racist, anti-intellectual base of the GOP during a national public health crisis. Shameful - but “normal” for this shambolic failure of a government.
More fascist imagery and stoking of the troglodyte base...
1. Continued rise in inequality in society and the role of big money in politics,  2. The addition of the massive breakdown of the checks and balances on an ever more authoritarian presidency  3. The growing likelihood that with a politically corrupt president and a rising pandemic the fairness of the 2020 elections will be significantly damaged.
This is simply another example of the administration's successful politicization of the DOJ. Their willingness (and ability) to reward friends and punish enemies is deeply damaging to the rule of law and will not be easily remedied.
Part of this administrations widespread use of administrative and/or legal authorities to punish its perceived political enemies. This is a dangerous extension of presidential influence into military administration akin to Trump's use of pardons to interfere with military discipline. This is an attempt to politicize the military.
Unfortunately, the excessive use of force by law enforcement to disperse civil rights protests is all too common in American history. What distinguishes this use is its blatantly political nature.
These acts have caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands of Americans now and I fear hundreds of thousands in the future.  This is a truly catastrophic action.
Only importance is its indication of more serious personality flaws in the president.
Becomes more important if any actions are taken to weaken financially these institutions.
The importance of this event may grow if significant legal actions without due cause are taken against members of the Obama administration.
This was critically important to deal with the impact of the pandemic. It was abnormal in the sense that the President took little role in this vital emergency legislation and the size of the bill was also unprecedented.
Part of a broader racist campaign against immigrants which also greatly harms both academic institutions and the American economy.
Presidency, Public Policy, & Race Politics
Fedderal govt should not intervene in states unless there is an invitation from state government
chemical agents should not be used in peaceful demos
President is not using power of office to protect citizens but rather to enhance his politicaql standing
President's should not promote businesses
Chain of command should not prevent taking control in a crisis
During covid it is critical to help those who have lost jobs or economy will go under
mathematical modeling of international crises
I am assuming that the question is trying to capture possible negative effects of the Trump presidency and democracy in the United States. I am a strong opponent of Trump, but my concerns with Trump are less about his negative effects on whether the United States is a democracy and more on his temperament and how he has acted while in office. I do not share the concern that he is any more a threat to democracy than other presidents, particularly given that both he and other presidents face constraints on their actions by other actors and institutions.
This is unusual, but I am ambivalent about whether this is appropriate or inappropriate.
This is within the president's prerogatives, but it is a petty and mean-spirited action that brings disrepute to the presidency and, specifically, to the Trump presidency.
This kind of language is divisive and has the effect of throwing gasoline on a fire. I support the rights of peaceful protesters and am greatly alarmed by how some peaceful protests have morphed into violent confrontations, and I am supportive of action to bring an end to the violence. The very first step to be taken by most presidents in this situation is to try to calm the waters, so to speak, and use more confrontational language only after it becomes clear that strong action is necessary. President Trump skipped that lesson in rhetoric school.
This is crazy. Social distancing restrictions are quite reasonable, under the circumstances, and to have a sitting president go against the actions of state governors relating to social distancing is irresponsible.
It is crazy for a president to have taken these actions in the midst of a pandemic, and it shows terribly poor judgment.
This is the action of a disturbed narcissist with low self-esteem. This action is an embarrassment to the country.
This action goes against the grain in terms of where we are headed on environmental policy, but this kind of action fits into the anti-regulatory approach that Trump has taken, both in his campaign and in his administration.
This is a gross overreach that, fortunately, has been rescinded. How any reasonable person could have come up with this idea in the first place is beyond me.
This is what presidents do. What may be unusual is the divisive tone of his Mt. Rushmore speech, but in the current political era I have come to expect divisive speeches by the president, members of Congress, and other elected officials.
Political behavior (elections, public opinion), legislative politics, public policy
2015: widespread abuse of civil rights, especially of black and other minority citizens, by police and in criminal justice system; pervasive corruption in relations between powerful corporate interests and government; severe abuses of apportionment of congressional districts; extremism on the part of main part of Republican Party (eg prompting Senate majority leader to refuse to consider presidential appointment for Supreme Court in early 2016)  2020: far greater defiance of basic rule of law principles, rules of fair play in elections, presidential encouragement of right-wing extremism, abuse of presidential powers in numerous arena, gross corruption on the part of members of the Cabinet and presidential entourage
The president has the authority to deploy federal law enforcement personnel when there is a full breakdown of public order.  In this case, he used the federal troops improperly, not only defending a federal building, but advancing much farther to suppress protests.  It is significant because it is a foretaste of the possible use of federal paramilitary forces to suppress protests in the event that Trump refuses to leave office following the November election.
It is a political threat.  It is certainly improper, but it is probably mostly theatrical.
Inspectors-general are one of the mechanisms for ensuring a measure of accountability to the public in executive agencies.  Oversight by Congress having been undermined by Republican extremism and devotion to the president, the inspectors general role is that much more important.  The systematic suppression of mechanisms of oversight and accountability is a very dangerous trend that leads toward autocratic government.
Is yet another indication of the pattern of Justice Department support for Trump's personal and political agenda under William Barr.  Abrogation of the principle of independence of the Justice Department poses a serious threat to the rule of law in the US.
As with several other incidents when the president interfered with the normal course of military decisions, this is an improper action.  It is important because it relates directly to the constitutional procedure of impeachment.
The president has given explicit and tacit encouragement to use of excessive force by law enforcement against protesters.
By the standards of Trump's conduct, this is a relatively minor incident, although it certainly violates norms of propriety for a president.
I believe it is another of Trump's wild and irresponsible tweets, many of which he leaves without following through.
Is consistent with dangerous and reckless statements by the president.  Their cumulative effect is to debase civic norms.
Is normal and appropriate for president and Congress to agree on an emergency relief bill; scale of the relief makes it important.
Presidents pardon friends all the time (see Mark Rich). A few pardons to well connected friends smell bad but don't materially affect the rights or wellbeing of the public at large.
The firing was within the president's discretion and thus lawful. The "whistleblower" complaint was procedurally irregular and ought not to have been brought forward. The subsequent impeachment was undisguisedly partisan and itself far more troubling than the firing of the IG.
The army is in the executive branch, which answers to the president. Try getting your college president fired and then ask the president's office for a promotion or other resources within its discretion. What do you think will happen?
How to regulate social media companies is an important political issue. I think the president's tweets are best understood (if they are not ignored altogether) as trial balloons, to test the political waters to see what real legislation/regulation there might be actual political support for.
Our immigration laws delegate huge amounts of discretionary authority to the president (unwisely, in my view). But the legal authority here was plain. Most countries similarly restricted travel/immigration in light of the pandemic. I rate it mostly important on the grounds that it is a policy decision (albeit temporary) that materially affects the lives of large numbers of people.
Getting liability release waivers is as American as apple pie, unfortunately. Holding the rally indoors, when it was advised against on medical grounds was not wise. Its importance to my mind, though, is entirely political: do more people appreciate the president's seeming courage or willingness to defy the medical "establishment", or does do more to turn swing voters off, persuading them that he's reckless and irresponsible? Apart from its effect on the election, I would have said unimportant.
Displeasing one's superiors in a bureaucratic organization (where the superiors have a large say in who gets retained/promoted) is a good way of getting fired. All the more so, if one embarrasses them into the bargain -- especially if, as appears here, they richly deserved it.
Otherwise serious people spend way too much time obsessing over what the president writes on Twitter. Is it troubling to me that, whoever wins the election, we'll be ruled by a septuagenarian of dubious mental acuity? Absolutely.
It's pretty much what any Republican president would have done. The regulation changes will be undone by the next Democrat to occupy the Oval Office. Their main effect probably will be to add regulatory uncertainty.
Presidents hold press conferences with foreign leaders all the time. They are for show.
I think I made this comment on an earlier round, but I really think it would have been better to have disaggregated rule-of-law concerns from issues of electoral competition (which seems more narrowly "democratic"). But it is theoretically possible to have strong rule-of-law without much elector competition/accountability (though very rare in practice) and possible to have electoral responsiveness, with degrading rule-of-law/commitment to constitutional forms/procedures. The latter seems to be what the survey mostly worries about.
Since 2015 we have seen a number of dynamics that indicate deterioration of democracy. To name a few: willingness by the executive to call into question independent and non-bipartisan government institutions (portions of the executive branch itself such as the intelligence community institutions, but also the CDC, to name a few); the use of the Attorney General for political ends that have little to do with his official job (physical enforcement of local or federal law and deployment of Homeland Security agents in highly ambiguous and questionable ways); consistent mixing of personal financial benefits/interests with government interests to an extent not previously seen under another administration; willingness to use the Presidential pardon for highly political ends that ultimately reduce trust in institutions on a wide scale; lack of a national response to the Covid 19 crises. To be clear, many of these dynamics were made possible by actions of former administrations, and they are not completely new in kind, but definitely in degree.
This is highly dangerous for democratic voting.
This is the behavior of authoritarian regimes.
This type of dog-whistling happens more often than many will admit but it is VERY problematic.
This shows the habits of the administration
I think this is important, but simply because it confirms other dynamics that indicate that we need a more accurate method of vetting presidential candidates and determining health while in office.
I don't think this has happened before. It is in line with the undermining of institutions as impartial and democratically reliable.
Aid needs to be distributed in this context
This is in line with the administration's goals on immigration generally, although using the Covid context to facilitate them.
transitional justice, us foreign policy, middle east politics
organization/instututional theories, social science methodologies, U.S. executives
Justice Department and enforcement of civil rights; the politiciziation of the Trump administration; the deepening role of dark money.
US score lowered by: increasing reliance on emergency powers & executive decree by US President; media intimidation through lawsuits; erosion of checks and balances in national govt; voter suppression.
voter suppression, disenfranchisement, decreased polling places during a pandemic, decreased ability to efficaciously vote by mail The bottom line is that everything, including the regular conduct of the electoral process and procedure has become polarized and political.  The "rules" of the election and democractic process are not agreed upon by both sides.
This is an act of voter suppression and an effort to delimit state's rights to conduct an election.  It is turning federal allocations into personal political funds.
It violates Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly for a publicity stunt.  It is an overt act of retaliatory repression.
This is chilling - he is threatening dissent and control of the truth - it is an assault on free speech and an attempt to control opposition mobilization and informaiton dissemination.
Use of public platform for private gain.
It is telling that his behavior is sufficiently volitile that he completed a test and appears to mis understand it.  This is not as important as his financial or other health information as it relays very little actual information
It fails to allow political opposition, integral to democracy, to exist.  No specific action is given other than identity and party affiliation. It equates patriotism with Trumpism.
It is not surprising from this adminiatration.  It is important in terms of climate, and likely represents an overreach of fedaeral authority.
It is a policy intended for political gain and to punish political opponents, not in response to an actual threat associated with international students.
It wouldn't be that huge of a deal outside the COVID-19 pandemic and BLM protests.  However, in light of these events, it is a signalling event that puts personal prestige over public saftey.
It is a normal action for the chief executive.
Development, political violence, subnational politics
Because today we have an executive and legislative branches that engage in very non-democratic practices.
too complicated to sort that out year by year-- I think most respondents will not give this deep thought so would not think you will have very useful data for the year-by-year ratings
The Obama administration both set the tone at the national level and abided by the advisory, investigative, and disciplinary actions of Congress and SCOTUS. Agencies were run by serious, competent administrators and served their missions: protecting voting rights, equal opportunity for housing and employment, and economic justice. There was no evidence of government interference in journalism or suppression of public protests. In 2020 we have an executive that claims extraordinary immunity from investigation, refuses to comply with subpoenas and judicial decisions; has politicized every agency, and in many cases favored economic elites; and the fundamental rights of citizens, including voting, free expression, and the right to protest peacefully, are under attack.
Flynn pled guilty to two felonies, and was sentenced for them. For DoJ now to suggest that he was unfairly prosecuted is ludicrous on its face, and crosses a bright line (yes, yes) in the healthy function of democracy - independence of the three branches. I am quite confident that Flynn had a substantial role in the Trump campaign's attempts to benefit from Russian interference in the 2016 election, and that Trump influenced Barr to protect Flynn to keep information secret.
This action not only unforgivably politicized public health policy, it contributed directly to the explosion of cases. Trump is personally responsible for the second spike.
This action is not only crass and tasteless, in reducing the storied Resolute Desk to a QVC display table, but it openly suggests that the executive is willing to trade commercial plugs for political support. It is both shameful and dangerous.
Plenty of politicians have attacked universities for spreading bad values, but threatening their tax status both weaponizes one political stance (liberal institutions bad) and threatens punishment for institutions that don't conform to that stance. The only reason I rate this "mostly" instead of fully important is that the Trump administration is too incompetent - and politically isolated - to carry through on the threat.
By itself this action would have been extraordinary and scandalous. In the midst of Trump's many appalling and unprecedented actions, it looks sadly predictable
Previous administrations have frozen or rolled back environmental regulations. This is important because the evidence of global warming is so obvious, and it is so important for the US (as a wealthy economy and a major carbon emitter) to help lead the global response, that Trump's proposal is both symbolically pernicious and practically harmful. I take solace in knowing it will be reversed soon.
I'd be surprised if any academics responding to this survey are not alarmed and appalled. There is absolutely no rationale on national security grounds, and so this reads as a gratuitous double attack on universities: on their mission to welcome and educate students from around the world, and on the aspirations of international students to learn. Given the well-known decline in state support for state universities, and the increasing dependence of many institutions on international students' full-price tuition payments, it will strike a death blow to already marginal institutions and cripple even healthy ones.
two distinct fields: nationalism, and urban planning
I'm glad that the survey continues. It has riled me up in two ways, first by reminding me of specific dangerous and egregious Trump Administration actions and second by revealing to me that that administration has dangerously compromised the function of our democracy on several important dimensions. I'll be eager to see the collected results.
There was less effort at voter suppression in 2015. I am answering based on all countries, not just all democracies.
Trump is meddling in the judicial process to help his friends.
It goes against the role of an inspector general and injects politics into what is supposed to be an impartial process.
This sort of meddling can have a chilling effect on others.
The US has withdrawn from or not joined international groups before but to do this in the midst of a pandemic without a sound reason is regrettable both for internal reasons and as it affects our input and standing in the eye of the world.
It might mean nothing or it might be he tip of the iceberg of the power and influence of far-right groups.
This is tampering with the freedom of speech and press.
It reflects the lack of sane presidential leadership in the midst of the pandemic.
The long-range effects are probably minimal.
Under normal circumstances this might have been normal but the situation with the pandemic was very unprecedented and I think the cast. was doing what he thought was moral.
Define the 0-100 continuum more clearly" all countries? all democracies?
Civil liberties essential to democracy were compromised by the Patriot Act, efforts at voter suppression and the lack of voting rights for ex-felons in several states in 2015. All of these impediments have continued today along with heightened voter suppression, use of force against peaceful demonstrators and efforts to undermine freedom of the press.
Sending federal troops or agents to a city that faces an unusually high and uncontrolled level of political violence has occurred and may be appropriate.I The sending of federal agents by this administration is not justified and is clearly designed for narrow political purposes, not as a legitimate effort to curb violence.
I believe this threat qualifies as autocratic in tone.
Presidents don't usually try to make violence a more likely response. It's important because it has the potential to provoke, rather than quell, violence. A president in a well-functioning democracy should use calming rhetoric to limit violence.
The WHO is the site where nation states coordinate their responses to major health challenges such as pandemics. It plays a central role in the development of vaccines (such as the annual flu vaccine). It depends on the US for funding these vitally important activities.
President Trump's statements contradict the recommendations of public health officials. They are important because his statements cause his supporters to resist sensible recommendations and create unnecessary conflict.
Generally, most people, especially elected officials, don't feel it's necessary to confirm they are cognitively functional. The level of self-referential commentary from President Trump is abnormal and concerning, especially when it comes to whether he has the mental capacity to govern. Why should this require comment from the President?
This kind of comment, typical of Trump, undermines faith in government and deepens divisions among the electorate. It's also untrue.
This decision represents a move backwards in the context of the growing climate crisis. Oil and gas have sometimes been successful in blocking policies they oppose but less so in recent years.
Latin American politics, international political economy
Various voter suppression policies (i.e. ID laws) have hindered participation.
Rewarding corrupt, personal friends AFTER being indicted is completely unacceptable.
Presidents should avoid such anti-social, racist behavior.
Using lethal and/or non-lethal methods to quell any peaceful protest (a guarantee in the US Constitution) is unacceptable and unconstitutional.
Comments like this might incite violence and give the ok to counter groups.
Presidents may choose which international organizations to which we belong/support.
Any suppression effort of access to 1st amendment rights is forbidden.
President’s possess power to protect the body politic. Public health measures often require drastic measures as this one.
Chain of command is important in organizations such as the military.
Presidential speeches are expected and mostly normal during national holidays; venues such as monuments are the norm. However, what is not normal is using such as campaign stunts and/venting of the spleen, as Trump did this year.
State and local government; interest groups
During the previous administration, there was somewhat less constraint on public policy by a rabid ideology of radical populism.  Today we have populist extremes on both side of the scale, and it places great stress on the broader middle, greater democratic population.
The establishment of a Homeland Security organizaation was a 9/11 over-reaction.  It has given rise to the president using some of that agency's staff as a national police force.  Bad idea.  Homeland Security would translate into German as Geheimsstatt Politizei.  In 2001 it seemed to me a bit too close to Gestapo.
As cited before, a paranoid narcissist who cannot deal with criticism of any sort, and who demands 'loyalty' above professional ethical standards.
Flynn was probably set up to some degree, and perhaps his sentence was just additional load on an already intensely expensive defense.  However, the courts, not the JD should have dealt with this.
There is a need for reform in various UN agencies.  However this seems to have been essentially petulance in policy play.
The myth of the rugged individualist runs contrary to good common sense in regard to community.  It mostly is an attempt to encourage distrust of science, and was inherently opportunistic.
The President should long ago have learned to shut up.  Beyond that, he has no tolerance for anything but praise.  Narcissistic and juvenile.
Constraints on travel, even among the states is a concern that needs to be addressed, not as anti-immigrant policy, but in public health context.  As always, it is hard to know what actually motivated this action.
You elect a huckster, you get that byproduct.
Corporate socialism does not appeal to me; I stand with Michael Harrington on this too long standing policy of corporate giveaways, but in the interests of getting any benefits for the greater and needy public, it was probably unavoidable.   I would favor new legislation, geared toward states and working class communities.
This seems to have been simply another DeVos inspired attempt to lean on he s  educational institutions options on safety in instruction.
Development of citizenship and community, from Rome to America.  Heavy on constitutional theories.
No, it seems balanced.  However perhaps it leans a bit too much on Trump.  DT is a symptom of something - the imperial presidency - that was not so long ago thought to have passed into history.  As Bacevich points out, DT is a symptom, not the Virus of imbalance in constitutional government in the US.
In the past four years Trump, with acquiescence of Congressional Republicans, have abandoned the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of governing in the interests of all Trump assumes he’s a ruler and that government functions to protect his private interests. The level of corruption in this administration is mind boggling but Congress, and the judiciary, are fulfilling their Constitutional duty to act as a check on Trump.
While it is rare but not strange that a president will send federal law enforcement to a state or city it is done in relation to a public policy. Trump’s use is to build support for his re-election bid and nothing else.
Another example of Trump’s corruption and lawlessness.
Under the circumstances of a pandemic this is not unusual; however, for Trump it is an excuse cut immigration and not as a public health move.
This an example of Trump ignoring expertise because it conflicts with his craving for an adoring crowd, and his willingness to use supporters as props in a dangerous environment while not being legally accountable.
This highlights why Trump’s first Sec. of State, Tillerson, called Trump “a fucking moron.”
There is no indoctrination. Trump has a problem with facts, a university habit, so if he can make it financially painful for universities maybe they will toe the Trump world vision and abandon facts.
I can’t think of any sitting president accusing a past president of treason. I would argue there are reasonable grounds to accuse Trump of treason based on his statements and policy decisions that clearly benefit Putin to the detriment of our allies and the weakening of the military.
Another example of ruling instead of governing. This action fulfills two Trump desires—one is to end immigration, and, two, it punishes universities that he feels are opponents.
It is not unusual to have joint press conferences. With Trump it is an opportunity to gloat about himself.
The US has never met the definition of an ideal democracy. In addition to issues such as gerrymandering and voter suppression, the post-9/11 enactment of the Patriot Act sacrificed citizens' rights for "security." The US has become less democratic under the Trump presidency because of his disrespect for the judicial process and his attempted use of the DOJ to interfere in legal processes. In addition, the government's violation of the human rights of asylum seekers, use of force against mostly peaceful protesters, and kidnapping of civilians off the streets of Portland, Oregon are tactics used by authoritarian governments, not democracies.
The act demonstrates that those who violate the law to shield the president will not face consequences. It demonstrates that Trump is using his presidential authority to cover his own illegal acts
It is not normal for the the president (federal government) to call on citizens to protest against state governments, particularly asking them to protest advice agreed upon by the CDC and medical experts. States have the right to set public health rules without the interference of the president.
The president is not expected to be an expert in all areas. Thus, he relies on various agencies and their expertise when making decisions. It is expected that the president has the best interests of his country and its citizens in mind. Making people sign a release demonstrates that Trump knew that attending the rally could cause attendees to get sick, which cannot be considered working in the best interest of Americans. In addition, it is abnormal for a president to take actions that risk people's health against the advice of his own agency responsible for determining risk.
He is a public servant who should not represent private interests.
His need for pageantry is unimportant in the larger picture, but his violation of the rights and wishes of Native Americans is important and problematic.
Middle East and North African politics; social movements
I didn't answer one question about the congress' ability to provide checks and balances because I think it has the ability, but the senate doesn't have the will.
Executive overreach Direct attacks on watchdog agencies and whistleblowers; lawsuits against media Weakness/partisan failure of Congress to check execute overreach Voter suppression Excessive role of money in elections and re-elections ties elected officials to special interests Excessive role of technical info and large corporations influences policy and regulation by executive agencies
Such moves strike at the core of accountability in our government.
The Justice Department should not intervene in cases of personal interest to the President.  The Justice Department should not undermined legal processes addressing misuse of official positions, and admitted violations of the law.
Peaceful and permitted protests met by violence are a hallmark of authoritarianism.  There was no pressing reason to clear the square.  A ridiculous photo op for the President does not count as a pressing concern of governance.  Finally, the use of multiple, not fully identified troops without the explicit request of the D.C. or National Park authorities is a violation of local governance and federal arrangements.
The tweet misrepresents the protests, which were mostly peaceful.  It encourages police violence and, in so doing discourages a legitimate form of expression.  Finally, the phrase is linked to a specific racist past and coded to inflame repression and violence.
Freedom of the press and media, right of citizens to know whether the statements of their elected (and non-elected) officials are based on fact.
Not only was this policy a great exaggeration and ineffective.  It served more directly the ongoing campaign by the President to cut immigration in ways that violate international law (refugee and amnesty laws) and harm U.S. interests (added strain to the food sector during the pandemic), not to mention violate individual rights.
People beyond the security, campaign, and venue staff had a choice as to whether to attend.  Why this decision was abnormal and important: we are in a pandemic and leaders should be both promoting and modelling behavior that mitigates rather than enhances infection.
Such extremism weakens faith in politicians, increases partisanship, and distracts from important issues we should be discussing.
While this policy move is stupid, it is not out of the realm of normal for a government to reverse a policy.  What makes this move so important is that we are facing an existential climate crisis with less than a decade to mitigate through cutting and offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions.
Using shows of bi-lateral diplomacy in politically opportune moments is, unfortunately, normal.  I actually feel this event was more of a threat to Mexican democracy than U.S. democracy.  The lack of masks during a pandemic was disheartening and irresponsible.
In 2015, there was acknowledgment of the importance of civil rights and the protections thereof.
The administration used excessive force to clear peaceful protestors.
Very difficult to provide a single number for how democratic the US given that there is variation in states and local governments and among groups of people in the US. Yet the 90 in 2015 is a reflection of the fact that most people could participate in US government and politics reasonably effectively and had been able to for several decades. The US today is still largely democratic but seems to have regressed in terms of adherence to basic rule of law and equality of participation.
Presidents have the power to commute sentences but generally do not use it in such a blatantly political manner.
To have the AG over rule the actions of career prosecutors and federal courts in order to help a former administration official is truly unusual and deeply problematic in terms of the basic rule of law.
Impacts of Trump administration and its control of Congress
reimplementation of voting restrictions, unwillingness to check executive power / sanction wrongdoing, corruption at state/local level
All citizens have equal constitutional and legal rights, but conditions for actuating them are seriously  compromised by political machinations (like district lines) and extreme social and economic inequalities.
Presidents can fire whom they want, but this appears to have been political retaliation for an appropriate action.
It was a symptom of Trump’s authoritarian instincts.
I frankly do not know what he meant, so I find it hard to evaluate. It is abnormal because he is abnormal and regularly speaks in confusing ways.
This one was a symptom of Trump’s disdain towards multinational institutions and his desire to pass the buck on his mishandling of the Covid crisis.
He could not shut it down, but it reflected his authoritarian mentality and fragile ego. If he could do such a thing, it would be highly important.
It is hard to rate this one, because on the one hand it makes sense to limit peoples’ entry during a pandemic, but we haven’t such a health crisis since 1918, which makes the action highly unusual. It also fits his opposition to immigration, of course. It is hard to say whether another president would have done the same.
He apparently mishandled the crisis and unwisely bypassed his superior. Relieving him sounds “military normal” to me
The act was vital but the situation was, while not unprecedented, abnormal.
Presidents do regularly differ on such issues, so in that sense it is perhaps “normal.” However, as an avid environmentalist, I regard it as important in a very negative way.
Central European politics and foreign policies plus an interest in applications of IR theory.
It is very good despite a few questions which absolutely require explanations. Without them, the answers would be ambiguous in meaning.
Trump has been trying to be an autocrat, and has been enabled in this pursuit by both the Republican Party and outside groups, both interest groups and media. That the GOP wouldn't even consider impeaching Trump is an indication that the system is fundamentally broken. We have issues of equal and fair access to the ballot and the bully pulpit. But, in 2015, we had reasonable confidence that our institutions of justice and government were even-handed with respect to political opinions (race and gender are other issues, and account for a large part of the reason why the US never got above an 80 on that scale). In 2020, we are actually fairly certain that the Department of Justice is acting as Trump's personal lawyers with no regard for constitutional or statutory limits. And we have seen that the GOP is enabling this behavior. We could improve on this scale, if the GOP recants their support for Trumpism after 2020. But, if not, we will not improve. We have a two-party system, and one of those two parties is FUNDAMENTALLY broken.
If a democracy isn't going to fairly count ballots, it cannot claim to be a democracy.
Rule of law is a foundational element of democracy. Trump has trampled all over it.
This is abnormal, because politicians would normally care how something would be received by the public and would vet things before sharing them. It's important only because Trump's clear racism poses major problems for democracy.
Goes to rule of law. It is a normal power that the Executive has, so in that sense it's normal. But, it's clearly erosive of the rule of law.
Yeah, encouraging lawlessness in states is really bad.
A free and fair press is fundamental to democracy. Twitter is a form of "the press."
Americans can't travel to almost anywhere in the world because of the terrible job we've done with COVID-19. If we're not democratic in doing this, neither is anyone else. Now, the WAY Trump did it was racist and counterproductive--but normal.
Very important, and we're significantly worsening the future. Still normal.
While odious and racist, limiting visas (and, thereby, services) to citizens is a decision democracies can reach. Democracies fundamentally owe their citizens sovereignty; offering sovereignty and services to foreign citizens is not required for a nation to be a democracy. It's awful and racist, but it does not erode democracy.
Coopting symbols of the state for use in politics is fascism 101. That said, there is ALWAYS some element of this in American politics, but Trump is using his speeches to set up classic out-group hatred.
In 2015: Congress was much more willing to serve as a check on executive power (albeit generally because of partisan differences), states had not yet as fully engaged in voter disenfranchisement following Shelby County, there was general consensus that the courts were legitimate authorities and their decisions were generally trusted.  Today: active disinformation campaigns by one of the two major political parties, a president who is already calling into question the results of an election that hasn't happened yet, massive voter disenfranchisement, particularly in states with R governors; lack of federal effort to contain foreign interference and ensure election integrity; misrepresentation of policy initiatives; active undermining of the judicial branch's decisions...the list is endless.
It's normal in that the U.S. has never allowed foreign nationals to study in the U.S. if they are enrolled in online courses.  What is not normal is the timing of the announcement and the lack of notice and comment period for changing SEVP guidance.
This is abnormal in the sense that the national Independence Day celebration typically takes place on the Capitol grounds and the Mall, but if a President wants to celebrate at another location, so be it.
Partisanship has intensified in the past 5 years, voter suppression is more prevalent, corporate influence on elections and policy making has increased, the current administration blatantly uses intimidation and profits from public policy.
Over the last four years, the US has experienced: 1) massive foreign intervention in US elections, publicly welcomed by a presidential candidate and then President 2) election of a President despite losing the popular vote 3) passage & adoption of wildly unpopular policies (e.g. corporate tax cuts, Mexico border wall, DACA repeal) with the assistance of a manufactured majority in a malapportioned Senate chamber, and a House majority (2017-18) based on geographic underrepresentation of cities. 4) multiple attempts to sanction or limit the media 5) the use of federal troops and security forces to disrupt lawful protests 6) an effort to bully Ukraine into providing a false charge against Joe Biden's son for the sake of the 2020 Trump campaign 7) use of presidential pardons and commutations to reward presidential co-conspirators who maintain a code of silence 8) an utter failure by Congress to defend its constitutional prerogatives, including collection of documents and calling witnesses.
This action followed attempts by Trump to coopt the U.S. military to act as his domestic security force. Trump appears to be seeking a federal military force that is loyal to him. This is what wannabe despots do.
"Saying the quiet part out loud" is the informal motto of the Trump administration. This fits the pattern.
The use of the federal military to disrupt a lawful protest is a huge violation of norms. Would-be authoritarians stage these sorts of public displays of "force" and fidelity to traditional religion. This is straight out of Putin's playbook.
Politicizing COVID response strategies has cost thousands of lives and will probably lead to a prolonged period of economic shutdown and government subsidies.
The Trump administration has a clear pattern of arbitrary administrative actions. That said, most administrations bend and manipulate regulations and enforcement to advance policy goals (e.g. Obama's DACA policy).
This is race-baiting, anti-university, and an attempt to bully universities to teach in-person...all done without a clear public purpose.
Legislative politics, political parties, public policy
In the Trump administration we have seen considerable erosion of norms with respect to treatment of the media, minority rights in the Senate, acceptance of foreign interference in elections, and views on public officials enriching themselves while in office. We have also seen continued problems with respect to protecting voting rights, especially in areas previously covered by the Voting Rights Act.
This would be considered abrupt and unilateral from any president.
Regulations like this one are under executive authority...though the extent of executive authority is not always clear.
This is abnormal in that it occurred during Covid. Otherwise, not.
Civil liberties have declined under Donald Trump.
Shows danger of whistle blowing and is an example of political corruption within the Trump administration
Shows lack of independence of the Justice Department.
This shows the President's carelessness (because he said he didn't hear the "white power" part) and his disregard for black lives.
As a superpower, the US has traditionally been supportive of international organizations. To withdraw support from WHO during a pandemic is inexcusable and a sign that the US is no longer the world leader it used to be.
It is unusual for a US President to spread false information on social media. It is also unusual for a US President to threaten media organizations, especially when the organization is attempting to exercise some responsibility for verification of information on its platform. The threat to shut down Twitter is also a threat to freedom of expression for the many people who use Twitter responsibility.
The President is embarrassing himself--an occurrence that has become so commonplace with this president as to be unremarkable.
From most presidents such announcements would be alarming, with Trump we are becoming used to these types of threats--threats that he often backs down from.
Again, scary from most presidents, but normal behavior from Trump. I fear we are becoming desensitized.
This was terrible for the many international students who come to the US to study. It caused panic and made our country look inhospitable.
Unusual for this president, but otherwise not out of the ordinary.
The impact of the Trump administration, and of Republican control of the Senate, has reduced the score. There has been increased direct executive corruption (both by the president and his immediate associates), enhanced foreign influence in elections. We have also seen the failure to impeach a president who has manifestly violated the law, as well as numerous established norms, that rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. It may be that Trump  has failed to pack the Supreme Court as he would have wished for the long term  but the Attorney General's Office has become an instrument for the personal as well as the political preferences of the President. Whereas Jeff Sessions was an AG for a party faction, Barr has followed the full implications of the theory of a unified executive (with monarchical implications). The President's actions have also impaired the right to freedom of peaceful protest. It would be redundant to comment on how he has affected public conversation.
It is unclear whether proper protocols were checked with the state authorities to establish where there was a federal--level emergency.  Deploying officers without identification removes public accountability. To use federal troops would only have a a justification on grounds of necessity: no such warrant was appropriate here.
Sadly we were not fully aware--until phone-videos--of how frequently chemical irritants are used against demonstrators. This usage has become normal.  The episode also advertised the reasons why the city of Washington DC should be able to obtain statehood, even if the immediate vicinity of the White House remain within the  federal administrative district.
The WHO provides global public goods, even if imperfectly from time to time. The withdrawal of the US will not help public health in the US, or in the world--to the contrary. A petty move, motivated by an effort to blame the messenger and distract attention from the president's inept management of the pandemic.
Military discipline is tough, so his dismissal is unsurprising. He was right; he performed a noble service that may well have saved human lives, but military discipline applies to officers.  If, however, the president and his subordinates used military discipline purposefully  to violate public health or shipping regulations then the captain should be retired to his office and his superiors charged under the appropriate acts and regulations.
Normal Republican enthusiasm for deregulation
Mexico is an immediate neighbor, and its president entirely merits formal US respect, even if both presidents entertain some bizarre beliefs.
The scaling of some of the responses at the beginning is not pure Likert scaling.
Policies and behaviors of the time in 2015 reflected the opinions of the populace to a large degree.Thus, elected officials followed the direction the populace wanted it to follow.   Today, elected officials behave as despots and do what they want to further their own interests and not that of the people.
The actions suggests an individual bent of controlling anything and everything to show his power to all concerned.
The King can do no wrong. This is not normal behavior in a democracy.
This is abnormal behavior and suggests  an institution taken over and being held hostage by persons unconcerned for the laws of this country.
The message is clear that we are dealing with a racist president.
The actions taken suggests a legal system taken over by one with despotic inclinations.
The actions taken suggest the mentality of a despot.
What public interest is there?  Quick answers.  There is none.
The actions clearly shows there is no concern for the interest of the people and their health.
Another attempt to further his agenda of expelling people from the country who are different from him.
The overtly authoritarian turn under Trump Administration.
2015: There was a more independent judiciary. Congress often clashed with the executive. There was an emphasis on ethics rules. US today: Judiciary has had significant shift. It's not as willing to limit executive power. When the Supreme Court did with the DACA decision, the executive appears to be ignoring the ruling. The executive tried to add a citizenship question to census even after it became clear that courts would not authorize it. Journalists are being locked out of events. DHS reportedly started keeping a list of journalists. Police have targeted journalists and injured them during demonstrations. The DHS, and potentially other exec depts, had federal agents deployed to Portland. Activists were being detained in an extrajudicial fashion. The DOJ appears to be changing decisions to protect executive allies (e.g. dropping case against Flynn after he had pleaded guilty). Ethics violations abound (e.g. Goya endorsement, Kellyanne Conway endorsing Ivanka Trump clothing and accessories at beginning of presidential term). The president has suggested delaying the election; he has suggested that the election is rigged. These are just a few that come to mind right now. There are so many more.
This is a failure of democracy. Michael Flynn had already pleaded guilty. It is clear that this was about saving allies of the president. This is dangerous for a democracy. This means the rule of law has been threatened and isn't working.
This violates a fundamental constitutional freedom. The president put himself above the law and used government agents to do so. It was a symbol of authoritarian, state-sponsored violence.
That line is a segregationist phrase. It was meant to play into white fears of Black people and other people of color. Instead of using his position to bring people together and acknowledge racial injustices, the president further embraced racism and seemed to want to stoke higher tensions. This is terrible for democracy because it appears that not all citizens are considered equal in the eyes of the president.
This is terrible for international diplomacy. It damages the US reputation further with the rest of the world. Also, if the US leaves under one admin, but returns under another, international partners can't expect the US to maintain policy from one admin to the next. It erodes trust.
it's a clear ethics violation. The fact that he did this and similar things have been done in his admin (Kellyanne Conway and Ivanka Trump products) means that the president doesn't fear any repercussions. He and admin appear to see themselves as above the law. The loss of the rule of law as a limiting standard is highly concerning.
It's so strange that a person would widely crow about doing well on a test that of which the purpose is to tell if someone is experiencing signs of dementia or other cognitive erosion. It just makes me think that the person either doesn't understand cognitive testing or is just really unwell.
It was an authoritarian move to do that, but more difficult to carry out. The president cannot unilaterally do this because of democracy.
It's not good for climate change, but rewards his allies and industry lobbyists. It wasn't unexpected.
It was a punishment to both international students and the universities that they attend. In our death march towards reopening schools, it forced many universities have in-person classes in order to protect the students. Also, it was part of the xenophobic agenda of the administration to keep people out of the US who are coming from abroad, especially countries in the Global South and especially people of color.
While it wasn't typical, it wasn't anti-democratic by any means.
The US political system contains a large number of undemocratic elements by design, so rating the US compared to other democracies or an ideal democracy results in a low rating. The lower rating in 2020 is due to a decline in respect for key norms or democratic values, including freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and rule of law.
While the US hasn't been at the very top of the charts, these rankings reflect retrenchment away from democratic norms in the past five years, while acknowledging that the US was at the high end of democratic institutions/norms prior to the current administration.
Was condemned by a sitting senator of the President's party, which pushes this into abnormal.
Part of the questionable commitment to the rule of law, along with pardoning Roger Stone, though I think these are just more public and flaunted more than revolutionary corruption.
This a continuation of a long line of conservative criticism of elite institutions such as colleges.
In 2015, the chief executive recognized the constitutional limits on his power. He pushed to extend those limits, but recognized the authority of the courts to limit him. None of this is fully true today.
Federal law enforcement has the legitimate task of providing security for federal property; however, they went far beyond that legitimate task.
The question misses the point: these were not law enforcement officials, they were military forces.
Giving a speech is normal; what he said was not.
Environmental policy and politics; political parties
Police brutality against peaceful protesters, the deployment of federal officers to Portland, the Senate's failure to convict the president after he was impeached by the House of Representatives, and voter suppression in the southeast suggests to me that democracy has decayed substantially since 2016.
The president's tweets and commentary, in my opinion, empower white supremacists and right-wing, racist militias.
Trump's promotion of Goya seems weird and very abnormal, but in terms of importance, less threatening to democracy than many of his other actions.
Political order and violence, mostly in Africa
Today: The executive branch has broken a number of norms -- recruiting foreign governments to intervene in domestic politics, firing watchdogs, using the DOJ for nakedly political ends -- under the Trump presidency, which are significant violations of constitutional principles that were respected in 2015.   2015: The US continues to disenfranchise voters based on race and income, and in many states this is done by design, which undermines the foundations of democratic government.
The only reason that this is "mostly abnormal" is because the US has a history of politicians threatening violence against Black protestors. For a president to do it is so explicitly and in this environment is abnormal.
It isn't abnormal for the US to withdraw from an IO per se, but the abrupt nature of the declaration -- during a pandemic no less -- makes this mostly abnormal.
Presidents have the authority to regulate immigration and a pandemic provides a plausible pretext for temporarily suspending immigration -- as most countries around the world have done. The less than "normal" aspect of President Trump's action was the haphazard way in which it was executed.
This is a clear violation of the Constitution.
Donald Trump has intentionally, purposefully, massively damaged our democratic institutions and threatens to create an authoritarian system, aided by his party in the Senate and abetted by a large his plurality of Americans who appear to have no commitment to or understanding of democratic governance. Political discourse from both the left and right is intolerant and destructive of democratic discourse. Communications technology is asynchronous with democratic institutions and requirements.
Damaged accountability and disincentivize professional govt. Corrupt behavior. Unfortunately, national politics is a rough business.
Delegitimizes system and illustrates arrogant disregard for rule of law.
The president must model inclusiveness in a diverse society, and not enable/legitimize hate.
This is not entirely outside the imaginable range of possibility. But it was unilateral, had no rationale was arbitrary and compromised collective pandemic response. It also damaged US international standing.
Massive failure to led in crisis. Acting on the basis of ignorance and perceived political gain. Avoidance of accountability, Modeling disregard for law. Making problem immeasurably worse. Probably responsible for thousands of fatalities,
Idiotic, but a window into his character and incompetence
Bipartisan action in crisis is no longer the norm.
Scapegoating. Mobilizing bigotry for political reasons. Adverse to political and economic interests of the US.
Credible for a president, but problematic in intent.
Sobering to consider my current views in this manner. Thanks for doing it.
Polarization has made the legislature either gridlocked under divided government, or unable to check executive abuses of power under unified government. There has been significant backsliding in states like WI and NC. Supreme court rulings have eroded voting rights in former VRA states.
In the past five years, voter suppression efforts and electoral misinformation campaigns have increased, increasing the difficulty of effective voter engagement.
In 2015, the main challenge to democracy was the role of money.  Since January 2017, the executive has demonstrated corrupt and autocratic tendencies, while several governors have gone great lengths to make it harder to vote.
Not surprising, but a perversion of the principle of "equal justice under the law"
Flynn is a bit player who obstructed an investigation in a relatively unimportant way.  Not too hung up on it, but it still seems corrupt, sending the message that friends of the president will get better treatment under the law than opponents.
Executive interference with 1) the military and 2) investigations against the executive itself are both signs of the perversion of democracy
Action against peaceful protestors who were not threatening even property is an abomination.
Extraordinarily bad judgment, but not a matter of constitutional concern as far as I can tell
No large contracts were at stake.  It was just stupid.
The perceived need to go outside the chain of command was probably a bigger deal than the punishment for having done so.
It's more the way that he did it than the fact that he did it.
Especially because there were no specific grounds provided for the accusation.
I have noticed an erosion in democratic governance, mostly as a consequence of the president's assault on the rule of law, the system of checks and balances, the independent press, and on the scientific boards of government agencies.
Behavior of present federal administration not respecting fundamental tenets of democracy; intrusion of foreign influence in 2016 and since.
2015 was my error; 90 would have been more accurate.
for revealing the depths of his respect for core values (say, independence of the branches of govt)
important for showing contempt for judicial process
functionally an endorsement of the slogan
I can't remember the details of this story
this is important because Donald Trump, who has no regard for democracy or the values at the core of politics in the US, also does not recognize the limits on his power.
surely it was enough heartache to observe this president.  still, anything for science.
Norm erosion, increased legislative gridlock
Spirit-violation of hatch act and military independence.
Not really democratic issue, but governance and US world leadership issue.
Przeworski model of elections suggests peaceful elections are proxy contests for this kind of show of force demonstrations. Actual demonstrations of violent capacity (w/o equal per cap weight) inhibit basic democratic functioning.
Would be normal absent previous efforts at immigration restriction
In 2015, No corruption or executive overreach, there was legislative oversight, less vote suppression, less use of militias and police for intimidating citizens, and a president who told the truth and allowed neutral agents and agencies to do their work without interference for private or political gain by the president. And an attorney general (Holder) who protected citizens’ universal rights against government and the police vs allowing the president to violate the constitution, as under Barr.
Threatening the right to vote without risk of infection or death.
Trump is a modern day racist, George Wallace.
Our attendees like Herman Cain at risk for presidential photo ops.
Demonstrates the president is an idiot who brags he can identify an elephant as evidence he is a genius.
No evidence for indoctrination. Undermining public faith in science and higher ed.
Automakers had already agreed to limits.
I’m not aware of what was said at the news conference.
Public opinion and political psychology.
Good survey. Well crafted and a very important topic.
The Trump administration embodies the President: they think they are above the law and the Supreme Court defers too often to their claims.
the president is showing he has little regard for the law.
just another indication of his insecurity
He is locked into the 1950s and we will suffer
It is normal to give a speech, but his language was that of a demagogue.  Very disturbing.
For the most part the US is democratic. Elections were free and fair. Sub-nationally, however, there is a lot of variation. This is a year in which gerrymandering and fake-news were pervasive.   Most of the variation in the quality, freedom, and fairness of elections remains. Although not alone, nor the first, red states have been particularly visible in limiting the ability of people who may oppose them to vote. What I think make things worse today is the fact that there is no federal authority to counterbalance that. The federal government has touted, condoned and endorsed these irregularities. It has also openly de legitimized democratic institutions, vilify opponents, and undermine freedom of the press. The president has sought the help of foreign governments to undermine their opponents (thus the fairness of the presidential election). He has also openly use the authority of the president to undermine the right to protest using tactics akin to those used in dictatorships in Latin America.
It is not the fact that the federal government deployed officers to Portland. Is the fact that these officers have used tactics that stiffly dissent, and threaten individual's civil rights.
I dislike the policy, but I don't think it is in it of itself authoritarian.
In 2015 the coming election looked like it would be fought mostly fairly. It looked like the two parties could agree on the outcome. In 2020, if trump loses, I don’t expect he’ll accept the outcome. He has degraded democracy in 1000 ways and undone norms it will take a generation to reestablish.  So has Mitch McConell and republican lawmakers and that preceded trumps presidency. Polarization in 2015 was pretty bad but I think Democrat’s would have impeached or used the 25th amendment on Obama if he’d done any number of things Trump has done.
A cabinet of party regulars instead of flunkies would have used the 25th amendment for that in regular times. Or impeachment.
Again, idiotic but not a constitutional crisis.
And maybe infected and killed Herman Cain that night. Important in demonstrating trumps stupidity, not a constitutional crisis.
Batshit stupid but not a constitutional crisis.
I think it will take 20-30 years for the US to recover fro the present Republican Party. It’s rotten to the core and has been getting there for 30 years. This stuff is important to me. I did actually move to Canada a year ago!
The executive branch continues to undermine the rule of law, with the help of its Department of Justice and, specifically, the Attorney General. While the Courts have mostly held, they are under constant stress. The Senate has undermined the rule of law with its tolerance of illegal and unethical behavior by the chief executive. The president's use of the powers of the office for his own personal and financial gain has reached a level unprecedented since Watergate or even earlier. The continued expansion of voter suppression tactics is deeply problematic. The undoing of regulations to benefit campaign donors has worsened since 2017. The full effects of Citizens United and gerrymandering have also become clearer since 2015. The use of repressive tactics against protesters, and the stationing of federal troops in cities against the wishes of state and local governments resembles an early-stage police state. Attacks from the president on media who are doing their job to question the actions of the federal government create danger not only to a free press but also to the safety of journalists. Finally, the possibility that the president will lose the election and refuse to step down has never been higher in the history of the country. There is a very real possibility of a full-blown constitutional crisis that will weaken the legitimacy of American democracy.
This act can be viewed in many ways. The scariest is that it is a dry run for sending troops into the streets on November 4th before election results are finalized.
This looks like a huge political favor for an ally who refused to cooperate with an investigation of the president and committed illegal acts in the process. In the area of undermining the rule of law, it is not even in the top 20 for this administration. But that does not make it good.
This is a direct attack on the electoral process and on the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
This is part of a growing list of acts by Attorney General Barr to undermine the rule of law at the federal level.
Most presidents before him would have likely done something similar.
This was a terrible idea but one that is not, on its face, a direct attack on democracy. As a result, it is important -- particularly from a public health standpoint -- but not likely to alter the survival of American democracy.
This was bizarre, but it also shows his willingness to use the office to return favors to supporters. It is not in the top 20 of odd and corrupt actions for this president.
It is unclear if there is any intention to act on these comments, but it does feed more intentionally inflammatory rhetoric to his base about the educational system.
Both the nature of and the penalty associated with treason makes this a particularly dangerous claim. It is also one without any degree of objective merit.
Again, this is important from a public health standpoint, and it does point to the president putting his own interests above the safety of the American people. But, like the Tulsa rally, this is not a direct attack on democracy.
As a comparativist, the actions by President Trump have eerie parallels to attempts at creeping authoritarianism in other countries.
For 2015, because of the Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today because of President Trump's attack on the press, on President Trump not being held legally accountable for his illegal actions as president, for his sending US officials in military-like uniforms and detaining US citizens in the USA, use of military aircraft to disperse peaceful protestors from Lafayette Square, for President Trump suggesting that the November 2020 elections be postponed.
It is normal since it is Congress appropriating money to help people because of an act of God. It is important because this is the worst pandemic since the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919.
The Donald Trump administration has been a disaster for American democracy, and continues to be with every passing day.
Terrible misuse of power on for his own benefit.
More important and unusual now than in the forties or fifties.
Consequences have included loss of thousands of lives.
It would be reasonable for a national leader to stop immigration to thwart a pandemic. In Trump's case it is done with a troubled anti-immigrant history.
Sad commentary on his awareness of what he is doing.
Shows dictatorial approach, just one example.
I can imagine conditions under which a normal leader might take such actions. Consequences, though, are terrible for future of the planet.
South Asia (Comparative and International); Administrative Ethics; Political Theory
Thank you. We live in interesting times. Best wishes.
The major issue is corporate power. Obama capitulated to them. Trump sold us out. It goes back before then, but that’s a limitation of this survey
par for the course. if you are a certain level of power and influence, the law no longer matters. the sovereign decides on the exception.
a dog whistle but absolutely reprehensible because it is clearly racist and fascist
he could have taken a different picture. but the use of chemical irritants on civilians exercising their democracy rights is just plain authoritarian
under threats of national security Trump could do that.
he is using the WH to promote a private company’s product. what’s next a golden arch in the roof?
catering to the base. higher ed institutions do not indoctrinate. it is a subversion of democracy when the free exchange of ideas is circumvented in any way
because there is a climate crisis and this goes against protecting the citizenry
he should not ban INTR students but at the rate in which COVID-19 is spreading, who would want to come back?
we should have meetings with our neighbors and allies
bit long. average voter would not like this. i wrote an article on Trump in New Political Science. check it out. i need a real job
Campaign finance corruption after Citizens United decision and rise of influence of social media and misinformation in US politics.
So corrupt. It undermines the courts and the justice system.
Really stupid at a time of a pandemic and vindictive, again playing to his anti-UN base.
His reasons were not for public health; rather, it was intended for his (and Stephen Miller's) anti-immigrant policies to please his base.
Was there a competative bidding proces for his endorsement? No, it was completely political and played to his extremist base.
It demonstrates he is psychologically unfit for office.
Abuse of executive power to play to his base.
US Foreign Policy and Inter-American Relations; also Women & Gender Politics
Good luck with your study. I look forward to hearing about the results.
The Trump Administration's campaign to limit voting.
It is not an easy justification in the least  but presidential leadership in 2015 conveyed inclusion and defense of human rights. Today that is much less the case.  The chief executive  today promotes division and exclusion but there is a greater consciousness in many sectors of our society today  who are  much  more conscious of the human rights issues and why they matter than they were in 2015.
we would  like a  president  not to commute the sentence for it promote a double standard
The president's action is predictable for it  reduces the opportunity for officers in the future  to raise  issues of concern but is not what we need. from our soldiers today
I should  disclose that I am an Episcopalian and I fully endorse the Bishop's criticism of the president's actions that evening. I think  it caused  harm to people  and as a campaign  move it failed.
So the question really  is--is  it abnormal for this president  to say what he said and it is not. Would  coming out with a statement that looting harms  a protest organized to  advance human rights  be a what we would like an inclusive  president  to say yes of course.
The nations that have largely contained the virus have done so by imposing uniform constraints on   their respective populations or at least in the regions where there are major spikes in infections.  The president's actions have contributed to placing peoples' health  at risk. This is a failure of leadership and moral responsibility.
It is not uncommon in epidemics and in pandemics to close borders to many people.  What makes  Trump's suspension important  is less about the virus  and much about keeping people out that he believes will have a political pay off in the coming election.
I  think the captain tried to call attention to the plight of his sailors but his superiors  reacted badly for his apparent violation of the chain of command. I think the well being of the crew should be  paramount.
I remain opposed to indoctrination and the president runs a political risk for his statement is harmful to students who select a faith based education but who would resent seeing it as indoctrination.
It is harmful to the students and was not needed by any measure and speaks very badly for the current administration
comparative health  policy in North America and Europe
so I am glad that you undertake these surveys. I am not totally sure the use of abnormal  best serves what you are seeking to uncover. But I may be alone in that judgment
My baseline view is that the U.S. is mostly democratic, but Trump has eroded it somewhat -- but only somewhat.  We'll see in the November election whether this view is too optimistic.
I've read a lot about this case, and on both sides.  The arguments are technical/legal and I do not feel confident in my ability to judge which side is right.
The recent rise of extremism, greater intolerance for unpopular opinions, a much weaker legislature, and the decline of good journalism.
Using the law for political purposes, to reward friends and punish enemies, is anathema to democracy.
President Trump reminds me of something out of a Goya painting.
It's abnormal in the sense that Congress actually passed important legislation in a reasonable time frame.
The actions of the current administration openly flout democratic norms and restraints, although the US remains more democratic than many countries. Previous administrations had already increased use of executive orders/actions to accomplish goals w/o consent of Congress, but this situation has increased under the Trump administration.
Imperious president unwilling to recognize the rule of law and the boundaries of the constitution, constrained only by Congress (HR) and, recently, the Supreme Court, as well as state governors.  Fortunately the president, grasping for authoritarian rule, is mostly ineffective and incompetent. Woe on us, if the U.S. had elected a competent striving dictator, an Orban rather than a Trump!
The Obama years generally saw an expansion of democracy in the United States, perhaps to its greatest extent. The Trump years have seen a massive reversal of these gains.
weaponizing the federal gov to break up lawful protest is... something we expect to see in Venezuela and Uganda, not the USA
commuting the sentence of a felon who lied to congress to protect the president is impeachable abuse of power. so yes - important.
retribution against people speaking truth to power is bad for democracy.
Trump undermines parts of the post WW-2 order that are necessary for cooperation between nations.
politicizing public health during global pandemic is ... important
being pathetic is a sad joke but mostly inconsequential.
The president is expected to give a speech on 4th of July.
minimize open ended questions. you rely on good will, and you lose it when you ask too much from busy people.
The United States in 2015 suffered from substantial felon disenfranchisement and a variety of barriers to voting in addition, more substantially, to a skewed system of representation in the Senate and the Electoral College.  Now, Donald Trump's a uthoritarianism has substantially eroded the rule of law.
The comment may or may not have been jocular, but the president's retweeting it and not profusely apologizing was a very bad sign.
Within the Prez's emergency powers, I suppose; mostly irrelevant.
Trump's rally sent a bad signal to his supporters, but it was not an infraction against the rule of law.
Not an infraction of democratic norms, but, good Lord, a colossal embarrassment for the nation.
I don't know much about the legality of the measure, and it was certainly beyond boneheaded on policy grounds, but I'm not sure it was a violation of norms of governance.
Stupid and unnecessary. Illegal? I know it was struck down in court; perhaps in different circumstances, it could have been justified.
The circumstances and the content of the speech were dreadful, but giving a speech at Mt. Rushmore is not a no-no per se.
Routine and appropriate presidential activity
Increased partisan polarization and ideological divides. An executive branch intent on diminishing governmental capacity and engaged in disseminating misinformation. Congress unable to check the executive branch. An electoral system on the brink of a legitimation crisis.
Trump administration really undermines the democratic system in the U.S.
Political parties, elected officials, and voters care more about controlling public office than they do about conducting and respecting the results of free and fair elections, and respecting limitations on power. The current President is questioning whether we should have an election in November. He should have been removed from office by the Senate but because Republicans control the Senate, that was not going to happen. Party over country.
Many countries in the world took similar actions. There is a lot of research right now on this topic, so you can compare the US's responses to other countries.
Not sure what you mean by far right as that term increasingly means any non Leftist.
Quarantine works, but we should accept people from abroad?
Isn’t trump constantly accused of just about every imaginable crime?
So everything Democrat’s do is normal? Surveys like this is why people don’t like academics. Politics is a mess and the blame is evenly spread between the two major parties.
The government was doing a lot more to safeguard rights and promote equity in society.
There are so many dimensions to measure that a single aggregate rating is difficult to provide. Certainly, the Electoral College is a major anti-democratic factor when considering presidential elections. Also, the US government has become increasingly captured by wealthy campaign contributors and lobbyists and many states have rules that impede or discourage voring. And this is all separate from the erosion of democratic norms and the increase in corruption under the Trump administration. Actually, if I had done the historical rating first, I likely would have provided a lower score for the US today.
This is highly disturbing and completely unacceptable. I hope it will not have a permanent impact.
Terrible precedent. We need major reform so that the fox cannot guard the hen house.
Appalling and shameful, but fortunately, Minnesota has enlightened leadership and the response to the riots did not involve shooting. Generally speaking, I worry modestly less about Trump's tweets than about his actions and orders.
Self defeating and dangerous, but hopefully reversible under the next president.
This is the opposite of intelligent and effective leadership. It has caused the pandemic to spiral out of control nationally, causing tens of thousands of deaths and making it impossible for the country to resume normal activity (schools and businesses).
Wish the media wouldn't spend so much time on this. It's good for a laugh, but it is really not important.
Fundamental, except that it all needs to be extended
Symbolic and offensive in context but ultimately not that important.
I missed the comparative questions this time around.
Citizen's United and other SCOTUS decisons have helped lock in undue elite influence; gerrymandering and voter suppression have become more systematic.
Perverting the US system of justice to that level endangers the rule of law and judicial legitimacy.
Racism remains a serious problem in the US, and Trump playing to it in these unsettled times increases the risk of race-related violence and rebellion.
Very bad for foreign service morale and our reputation in the world.
The current worldwide covid pandemic speaks for itself. A strong WHO is more important than ever and more important than military might and alliances.
If it wasn't for his racist use of The Wall issue, this would not be an unprecedented way to try and protect the country from more infection -- ironic as that sounds when we are probably the world's sickest country and the biggest covid offender.
He's mentally ill, and congress should probably have considered the 25th amendment a while ago.
We were already past the point of "Trump Fatigue."
Good sign that partisan polarization can at least relax during the greatest national challenge in a century.
Most people had pretty much decided what they think of Donald Trump well before that little campaign charade.
Racial Politics, Education Policy and Legal Studies.
Might be interesting to see how people's ideological self-id correlates.
The Trump administration has empowered outside actors to attack basic rights of a variety of citizens including minorities and the media. The Trump administration has tried to utilize the federal government to prevent and oppress active protests against its action. The Trump administration in general has violated and decreased the quality of government in the US over the last four years.
Ability to vote is absolutely imperative. Trump's administration has used the federal government to punish states that are anti-Trump.
The intersection between human rights and political economy.
Due to Donald Trump's and the Republican Party's onslaught on the formal and informal institutions of democracy in the United States.
Trump has challenged so many norms, and been so poorly restrained by Congress.
Increased polarization leads to less compromise and citizens more skeptical of their political opponents. More see other side as the enemy. Treatment of Trump overly critical in many respects
Hard to judge some events that are COVID specific. By definition wouldn't those be 'abnormal' as a global pandemic is uncharted territory for officials.
There's been a significant increase in attempts by the executive and legislative branches to permanently change laws in their favor, disrespect for laws and procedures that do not favor them, and intimidation of actors with opposing viewpoints. Also concerned about inciting actors/groups to commit violence against political opponents - increase since 2015 but they were evident then, too. This is deeply concerning. At the same time, I see an increase in attempts to remove or alter laws limiting felons' rights to vote, increase participation and voting among minorities and marginalized groups and to address gerrymandering.
It's less about their deployment, than about how they behaved once they got there!
This is important because of the big picture and the larger context of disrespect for "undesirable" outcomes
Disrespect for and retaliation against those who criticize this administration has become its hallmark. It's become deeply troubling, largely because of the cumulation of incidents.
The President's relationship with white nationalists, neo-Nazis, the Klan, other hate groups is deeply troubling.
As with the other events, this is symbolic of larger issue in the administration. Crowd control, and rather violent methods, are pretty standard, if we're being honest with ourselves. But it matters, and it is particularly egregious when it's just for a photo op
Ongoing xenophobia of the administration - but many (most?) states are closing borders right now. So it's hard to really know whether this is actually common-sense public health or whether they're just using COVID as an excuse to advance longer-term goals!
Republican administrations - normal. But hugely important!
This is important and unusual in the context of other xenophobic actions, and in the context of the extraordinary pandemic circumstances. But I think if we take the long view of US policy, it's not that unusual. I'm concerned about it on MORAL grounds (I think it's fundamentally wrong!) but I don't know that it signifies a fundamental erosion of democracy.
Presidential disdain for constitutional principles and GOP unified servility to president and party base
Over reaction to the circumstances   Political ploy to fabricate a war against supposedly evil threat to the nation
Personal vengeance displacing normal and proper routine
Justifies overaction in the form of deadly force
Personal ignorance and vengeance over science and health and safety
Role model again.      Do we unite or divide
Former felons are not allowed to vote in many elections. There have been a number of efforts to suppress voter turnout throughout the last 10 years and people are often disenfranchised without being aware that there votes are not being counted. The electoral college and gerrymandering make our elections less representative than we would like them to be.   I give us a C on Democracy.   Things are getting worse between 2015 and today because of the the failure of the legislature to hold the President accountable and the failure of the justice department to effectively investigate the President. Donald Trump has also publicly, and aggressively, enriched himself through his role in office. Thus, the C is lower today.
Foreign Policy and International Political Economy
In 2015, the executive branch respected its limits. Elections were more free of foreign influence. Voting rights were better protected, prior to the SCOTUS gutting of the Voting Rights Act. All of these--constitutional limits on the executive branch, foreign interference, and voting rights--have moved not only in the wrong direction in the past few years, but dangerously so.
The politicization of the administration of justice, and of the Attorney General office in particular, is one of the most harmful aspects of the Trump presidency.
This was the normal course of events for US military, but sometimes normal isn't right.
This is abnormal, but in a good way. The government made directly supported the income of its citizens in an economic crisis.
The context is important. Absent a pandemic, this would probably be fairly normal.
public opinion on foreign policy, international cooperation, IPE
Mostly efforts to limit electoral participation.  Also efforts to control  and manipulate information and an even greater importance of money in politics.
Social policy in the developed countries
troops in cities, debunking of science, attempt to end voting for many, etc.
part of an attempt to destroy the foundations of our democracy
attempt to 'decrease judicial power' over his friends
totally beyond the norm of the US succession traditions.
We have lost the norms that led to respect for separation of competing powers. Laws that have allowed for what I'd call legal corruption are exploited now more that earlier. The attacks on the press and suppression of information has gotten worse Voter suppression efforts were bad in 2015 and worse today A tendency toward an imperial presidency has turned worse.
The problem with these survey questions is that there are 50 state government and thousands of local government in the US.  Any conscientious answer has to take all government into account.  If your are referring to the national government, answers could be significantly different.  I am VERY critical of the Trump administration in private and in my scholarly writing, but your not specifying WHICH government you refer to moderated my ansers.
Another abuse of the pardon power.  (I have testified before the House Judiciary Committee on this.
This sets a bad precedent for politicizing the military, which Trump is doing in many ways.
This is a problem of congressional delegation of discretion to the president. Once a little discretion is delegated, the only way to take it back is through passing a law that the president can veto (Chadah 1983).  Trump is taking advantage of this, and the Senate is cowed.
This question is much different from the previous quesitions.
This survey is so biased that it is not very useful.  I agree with the biases of the survey, and have written scholarly articles about the issues raised in the survey.  But the value of the survey is undermined by its obvious bias.  It is like an internal partisan poll designed to get respondents to agree with its biases.  It is fine to be critical of Trump, but this survey is not useful for purposes of getting nuanced judgments on the state of American constitutional democracy
Increases in efforts to restrict the franchise; unwillingness of Trump Administration to comply with Congressional requests for information; federal law enforcement deployments to cities; Trump rhetoric about free speech, voting, judiciary; corruption among Trump administration officials; misinformation disseminated by conservative media outlets
Politics over science, at the cost of lives.
Performative cruelty. As far as I know, the administration didn't even bother to offer a rationale.
Failure of parties and congress to constrain the president.
The has been some backsliding in the rule of law since the 2016 election (a recent example being non-uniformed officers apprehending individuals while driving unmarked vans in Portland and elsewhere). Systemic inequality was still a serious problem for democratic health in the United States in 2015.
Increased polarization, intolerance for differing views on both left and right.
Necessary to redress corruption of the outgoing previous administration.
Higher education has made itself vulnerable to this and has become a "political football" because of increasing lack of intellectual/ideological diversity.
Emergency measure that will explode the national debt and may not be very well targeted to the problem.
Gerrymandering; interference in free speech/association; interference in voting rights; corruption and dark money; interference in voting processes/polls; weaknesses of political party coherence; impunity at highest political levels (exec pardoning and/or failure to prosecute political corruption); judicial appointments based on ideology rather than skills/competence; breakdown of unions; underfunding of schools; expansion of prison-industrial complex, etc.
It is classic dictator behavior. Crushing citizens to generate certain image
It is the suspension of rule of law. Gives police/national guard carte blanche to act with impunity.
Executive overreach and irrational and deleterious to world order and US leadership role in world
This is a complex issue - in this instance it is a sign of authoritarianism. But - there are valid arguments for great government regulation of social media. Its problematic role in undermining democracy could be addressed through great government regulation.
There are complex legal considerations in changing immigration laws, example of executive overreach
Important in that trying to merge party and state into one - sign of authoritarian state.
African politics and comparative judicial politics
Undermining of many basic norms by the executive; inability of congress to act as a check on the executive; politicization of justice department in investigations.
The impact of Trump and of money in politics and government.
Democratic institutions have been systematically attacked by the current presidential administration along with active and tacit consent throughout the Republican party. The Republican Party in particular has also strayed significantly further from established factual observations about the world.
President Obama did not respect human rights all that much (Guantanamo, Prism, relatively high levels of deportations of immigrants). He was a very strong executive who thoroughly paved the way for Trump's tyranny, though he was certainly more beneficent, smart and fair than Trump, without a doubt. And Obama was a corporate lap dog, including having taken more donations from the FIRE sector than any other presidential candidate in US history. Inequality widened under Obama, poverty increased, so did food insecurity and housing insecurity. The middle class got gutted by the Great Recession and Obama just gave money away to corporations via TARP, etc. And it was the Fed under Obama that embarked on so many new rounds of QE, bringing us to today's QE Infinity. This is not all that different from what we're seeing under Trump, Obama was just more cosmopolitan about it, more diplomatic, a smarter and better politician and a more decent human being.
This is just crazy. And very very dangerous. I've seen this episode in history before and it usually doesn't go well from here.
Blatant executive endorsement of violent extremist groups of any kind is not ok. Full stop. This goes beyond stoking the culture wars for electoral points, and actually amounts to outright condoning of white supremacist organizations and ideology.
I see Trump here as trying to purge his administration and the military of those he suspects as being disloyal. The loyalty of the military to the executive, rather than the people, is an important variable for thinking about the potential for a coup or other undemocratic seizure of power.
Presidents and governments in the US have long tried to control their public image and manipulate the information that the public has access to. I think it's important to try and control for technological change in thinking about questions like these. How has social media, for example, impacted the strategies that politicians deploy to protect their image and control the narrative?
It's normal because breaking the chain of command is a serious offense, and most militaries look unfavorably upon civil disobedience (I don't personally like this, but this is how the world usually works). I say its important because it points to the utter failure of the USG's coronavirus response, and also highlighted how weakened our forces may be owing to the virus.
Trump is a narcissist and an idiot. This is highly abnormal, at least the latter, for a chief executive. But it's not that important, as its hard to take him seriously on stuff like this. He's obviously trying to bait the Biden camp, and double down on his assertions/allegations about Biden's cognitive problems.
This is Trump doubling down on the culture wars to try to get reelected, which is an important divide and conquer dynamic that is good to keep an eye on. This is a typical strategy for American politicians, including the use of culturally coded language that touches on the politics of race. Reagan was great at that, so was Nixon. Of course, political polarization is much higher today, so that makes this dynamic potentially more important and impactful than it may have been in past times. That said, the USG often uses the power of the purse to make moral and cultural change, for example depriving states of federal transportation funding to enforce higher drinking ages in the US states.
Definitely abnormal. Not sure if its important yet. I can't yet tell if Trump is a wannabe dictator, or if he is just a petulant child screaming for attention. If its the former, than I worry that he's setting things up to purge disloyalists (paving a path to, e.g., try Obama for treason in some messed up kangaroo court in three years). But, if he's just a petulant child, and he loses in November, he'll leave in tears and go hang out with people who like him more. Is it a set up or is it political theater? Million dollar question...
I say borderline normal because this is just a more overt version of what lots of President's do, i.e. give generous gifts to favored companies, sectors and industries. Both parties have been deregulating for a long time, even if not always on the environmental front.
I think this is a typical Presidential activity. It is semi-important because I recall this press conference having to do with coronavirus cooperation and economic ties. Interesting to see which countries Trump is abandoning and which he holds close. It seems rather haphazard to me, perhaps reflecting all the turnover in his administration...
mofre authority couched in fewer places. The excutive branch makes unilateral decision, coportate interests are increasingly tailored to and clientalistic practices are more overt. Systematic attempts to limit free and fair elections are being made by the government (e.g. making voter harder for many through id laws, threatening mail in ballots). Weakening of constraints on the executive branch. FBI over influence on 2016 election. Electoral college played a role in a decisively, non-democratic victory in 2016, but not in 2015
It effectively destroyed the short term economy and unnecessarily polarized the government against its own policies.
some of the most vulnerable became unnecessarily closer to the survival line.
Increasing abuse of presidential power. Congress increasingly unable to protect well-being of citizens & residents. Increasing erosion of civility and basic democratic rights.
The combination of polarization, sorting, & gerrymandering has undermined democracy.
Where was the NRA to protect against armed federal troops invading a municipality?
Again, highlights the personalization of conflict over governance.
Shows primacy of partisan politics over governance. If I were Herman Cain I would rate this as more important.
Serves to reveal Pres. Trump's insecurities and lack of scientific understanding.
President is using the "bully pulpit" to undermine legitimate discourse. While this is a dangerous tendency, any president who does this has undermined his legitimacy.
This would be normal symbolic politics except for the pandemic and the contested nature of the venue.
1) Increased institutional bias towards electoral minorities (GOP control of Senate and Electoral College victory for Trump, plus Supreme Court majority nominated by two presidents without popular vote wins).   2) Increased levels of politically motivated violence by private actors.   3) Expanded use of federal "police force" (DHS, CBP) against immigrants and peaceful protestors against the wishes of state and local authorities.
Democratic norms and practices are severely threatened by the Trump Administration. I'm particularly concerned about threats to the rule of law from the Department of Justice under the AG Barr. I'm concerned about federal agents acting violently towards protesters in American cities. I'm also worried about the polarization of Congress and state legislatures, fueled in part by increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering, which creates "safe" districts (especially for Republicans), making real electoral competition less likely. I'm also worried about voter suppression, especially in the South, after the rollback of many Voting Rights Act protections. I fear that, especially during the pandemic, voter suppression will influence the outcome of elections and undermine the legitimacy of our democracy even further.
International Political Economy, Migration, and Human Security
Put simply, economic and racial inequality still severely limit political equality. Our country was built on a racial and economic caste system, which has been altered and chipped away at over the years, but still fundamentally affects every aspect of our politics. The Trump administration has worsened these trends, in addition to attacking democratic norms and institutions, but he is merely a heightened version of politicians in his party that came before him.
The Trump presidency has moderately eroded the quality of American democracy, particularly through the actions of the Justice Department.
The country has gone backwards in terms of voting rights, particularly because of the 2013 Supreme Court decision that hurt the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Inspectors general are critical watchdogs who presidents should not be able to fire.
This attacks a central need of a Democracy - safe protests of governmental actions. Hard to believe its 2020.
Voting rights and freedom of expression have been severely undermined.
I believe democracy is under threat with the current administration.
Recently democratic norms and institutional parameters have been severely challenged and limited by the current administration.
Diminishes the role and activities of the justice system.
Administration claiming authority that it does not have.
Disrupting a peaceful protest for no clear governmental reason is anti-democratic.
to have to claim cognitive ability only leads a person to question that capability. Can he remember six words in a row?
Congress has an important responsibility during times of economic crisis.
essentially democratic, yet we are a republic
he's an idiot and we should just recognize that fact
Since World War II, civil society has strengthened, respect for civil liberties has increased, inequities in political participation have declined sharply, and most governments have become more competent in respecting law and serving the public. While many problems remain, even a presidency that is incompetent and encourages undemocratic behavior can cause only a small downward fluctuation.
If this use of federal "police" is just an aberration, it is not too important outside of Portland, but if it continues, it is a dangerous precedent for presidents to use what looks like a publicly paid private militia to usurp local police powers when they have not been requested by the local authorities..
Retaliation is common, and this event does not have a major national effect, but it is symptomatic of a general approach that is beyond what we expect of a president and has larger consequences.
Saying this is bad but not uncommon.  The followup actions are abnormal and important.
We have a network of international cooperation and exchange that, for all its problems, serves us well.  To disengage, particularly with little vetting, serves us poorly.  It makes even less sense in the middle of a world-wide pandemic.
For other presidents, this would be abnormal.  It seems normal for Trump. Since he doesn't follow up on most of his threats against the media, this could be seen as unimportant.  However, it is part of a long standing pattern that denigrates and tries to intimidate the media.
We have become inured to his childish personal behavior.  When he takes public actions based on his childishness, it becomes important.
Civility is something most presidents know or learn to practice, with this one exception.  He has been so uncivil for so long, few take him seriously when he talks like a teenage bully.
We gain a great deal from the presence of international students here (and our own students abroad).  In addition, our scientific and medical community would be in serious trouble if we didn't have so many foreign-born who stay after receiving degrees.
Both sides gain from being seen meeting, even when the motives may be less public regarding.
It depends on the definition of democracy.  This survey seems to define it as majoritarian democracy, which I find very dangerous.  I prefer a definition where those capable of self government are given more political freedom.  In that respect, the U.S. was more democratic 100 years ago than it is today, when women and minorities often prize security over freedom and a stronger government than society.  They want a government that looks out for the majority-- a disastrous formula.  The construct of the survey makes it impossible for me to express my real opinions.  Therefore, the above numbers I entered are useless.
I do not study American politics but I suspect many Presidents have tried comparable political maneuvers.  The Democrats dramatically increased the concentration of power in national government and the executive branch and now they are forced to deal with some of the consequences.  If this were about withholding funds from states that perceived to have racist policies, there would be less of an outcry about it.
Again, the roots of this problem run deep.  The Constitution and U.S. institutions have been so eroded by a push for an increasingly majoritarian democracy and welfare state, that it should not surprise anyone that those who fight back, elect someone who will not respect the corrupted institutions. As many Trump supporters have told me: "We want a wrecking ball." Faced with an opposition dead set on impeaching him, who can blame Trump for doing anything he can to guarantee his survival.  NORMAL and sane!  I am not sure how important it will end up being.
Again, regimes worldwide engage in these practices, including democracies. Political networks matter and the abuse of power never disappears.  The alternative is a tyranny of the majority.  Overusing these informal privileges could erode rule of law, but most of the Progressive changes have already done that.
These are blatant political maneuvers that have been taking place in all countries, including democracies, for as long as there have been governments.  There is nothing abnormal about political vendettas and using one's power to crush any opponent and exact revenge.  It is not entirely unimportant, however, as it detracts from rule of law.  No President would be able to pass domestic rule of law standards, though, as international relations always involves illegal moves that would not hold up in a domestic court.  A witness against the President is assuming a risk.  I do not like what Trump did, but it is perfectly normal.  An impeachment trial is abnormal, as is the election of someone like Trump, which again, is the product of the actions of the Progressives.
Every time the U.S. joins an international organization it does not control, it suffers an erosion of sovereignty.  The WHO has become a "social justice" global institution that has adopted Progressive values-- it does not practice its scientific studies in the absence of an ideological backdrop and does not always reinforce U.S. interests.  I know people who work there and there is much wrong with the WHO.  Despite its weaknesses, one would think the timing is not good for abandoning this organization but I certainly can understand why a President would withdraw U.S. adhesion to the WHO-- it consumes many U.S. dollars without reinforcing U.S. interests commensurate to that investment.  I doubt there will be serious consequences as a Democrat victory could easily reverse the move and if Trump is reelected, he could be persuaded to reverse course, if it were a wiser move.  It happened in the international students issue.  It is mostly unimportant.
Most politicians care about their own political survival.  The protesters are mostly against a Nanny-state.  The Covid pandemic is still not understood-- it is very hard to know whether wearing masks and suppressing all economic activity is going to lead to a better outcome than higher death counts due to the impossibility to contain the virus within a very active economy.  Many pandemics in History have resulted in the deaths of millions.  Why should this one be any different and who gets to decide what is best for individuals? By leaving it to the people, Trump is resisting controlling the national response.  The U.S. also has more school shootings and crime than many other countries-- it is the consequence of greater freedom.
This tweet is abnormal, as no one in the past has intervened to stop the race to the bottom in higher education.  It is important because indoctrination has become the norm in the social sciences, in most of the campuses I know.  This is also true in the Humanities and even some of the Natural Sciences.  It would be wonderful if conditions could be put on funding to stop some of the nonsense.  It is fueling massive spending on needless administrators and wasteful programs and detracting from investment in the basics that truly comprise an education.  With our luck, it will never happen.  Instead, a President Biden or someone else will condition financial assistance on Social Justice indoctrination.
Over-regulation can be very bad for the economy-- some of Trump's base wanted a rollback of invasive regulation as the market often does better at addressing some of the issues the environmentalists are obsessed with. Therefore, there is nothing abnormal about freezing regulations.  Certainly no more so than going back on centuries of precedent as Obama did and joining international treaties none of his predecessors would have considered.  It is semi-important in that reducing regulation is important, although I have no feel for the impact of this specific policy move.
It was not a smart move and it was easily reversed.  The system worked.  If Progressives are going to corrupt democratic institutions by removing all the checks against majoritarian democracy, they are going to have to face the consequences of a passionate base fighting back by electing someone at war with the entire political game.  Trump would have been unelectable in the era before the corruption of American institutions.
As a Mexican national, I am biased on this one.  Whenever Mexico gets a joint press conference with an American President, it is pretty important, at least to Mexico. AMLO is a nightmare as a president but despite his fierce nationalist roots, he know a good relationship with the U.S. is always vital for the Mexican economy, regardless of the political cost.
I think it is biased.  I believe its entire purpose is to gather some "scientific" support to the contention that the Trump Administration is damaging American democracy. I do not believe the questions capture any matters I would categorize as important.  It seems hung up on highlighting his abuse of power, abandonment of forums for international cooperation, making changes that will exacerbate climate change, etc. etc.-- all of the Liberal, Left wing priorities.  Not a single question gave me an option that corresponded to what I thought the consequences were of the matter involved.  They never even defined democracy.  To me, a democracy does not have to be majoritarian-- even one where the franchise includes only a small minority could fit my definition of democracy.
In 2015 you have some laws that prevent voting (e.g., voter ID laws), but you also have the expansion of early voting and other activities. In 2020, the prevention of voting has increased as compared to the expansion.   In general, the U.S. has a large amount of "democracy." The people control the nominations of candidates, the people vote in general elections, there are multiple parties that can be supported, there are numerous sources of information, there is the ability to freely protest the government, and more. The United States is not a perfect democracy, and there have been some increases in anti-democratic policies. But the main slide is due to the increasing of executive power. This increase existed under both parties, but was done in a manner where the party of the president in Congress generally supported the use of executive action to achieve legislative goals. Now that party of the president is not fully supportive of the actions of the president, we see the growth of executive power in a different manner.
Modern political theory; mass political participation
Today, there are still some limits, not necessarily bad, that are placed on democracy in the United States.  There are still disadvantaged groups and those who do not have equal access to the polity.  It was about the same in 2015, maybe a little worse.  There have been some improvements with allowing felons to vote since then.
It's not abnormal enough to change the face of government in the country, but this is much more abnormal than the tweets which comprise some of the other examples.  This is also important, although it's not like they are being sent there to put down some rebellion.  It's important because there are such large problems in these cities that federal agents have to go there and create even bigger problems.
The federal government threatens to withhold funding all the time for all sorts of reasons, and this was just the president.  There was no action taken so it's mostly normal and unimportant.
This is abnormal.  Normally this does not occur, and it is important since, depending on how someone interprets the situation, the Justice Department is exercising its power over a judge who was out of line and correcting for large mistakes that were made in the case, or it's some political conspiracy.  Either way it's relatively important for the Justice Department to assert authority over powers given to it.
Despite events over the past couple of years, this is still not normal from the president.  He should probably watch the whole video before retweeting it, or maybe he did and agrees with the person.  There isn't any way to tell.  It's relatively unimportant as far as democracy is concerned compared to any type of official action.
It isn't right for the administration to block the promotion of someone, but people get promotions blocked for far less than testifying in front of congress.  The officer isn't stupid and knew that would be the end of his career.  The most abnormal thing about the situation is the coverage it got in the media.  It's not an unexpected reaction from the military and overall, not that important regarding the functioning of the country.
It's not the most normal thing for the police to use irritants on crowds.  Doing it for a photo opportunity is the only thing that makes it borderline.  It's not particularly important, like most of the examples in the survey, because it has no long term effect.  There are also large abuses of police power that need to be taken care of, so I think incidents like this detract from the overall recognition of the problem with systemic police violence.
It's mostly normal.  It's not completely normal because presidents do not normally discuss shooting citizens, but beyond that nothing special.  What the president posts on twitter is unimportant as it has no short or long term effects on various situations.
Regulating the press (which one could argue Twitter has become) because of legitimate activities such as fact checking, even if biased, is abnormal.  One should not shut down a service or threaten to do that.  It's not important however, because it doesn't affect anything.
I'm not sure why this is even an issue worth mentioning.  It's definitely not important, and while most people do not do this, there's nothing special about the statements.
This is normal behavior.  Holding a press conference with the Mexican president is relatively normal, and not particularly important.
Criminology  - Terrorism and low-intensity conflict
I think you should take a look at the scale regarding normal/abnormal events.  The events probably wouldn't be in the news if they were completely normal, so the responses might end up being skewed.  That could be what you want though given the examples.
The executive branch which has been gaining power and has theoretically had fewer limits has begun to exercise its authority within that increased oversight; the government for the most part still protects free protest and speech but is increasingly and more relentlessly opposed rhetorically not only to opposition speech but to the right to that speech; the presence of individual corruption has increased slightly, with drastic reduction in the implied norms against such behavior.
President Trump has weakened American democracy in a series of ways.
In the past five years, there has been an accelerating trend toward voter suppression, particularly of minorities. In addition, the president and attorney general have so politicized the judicial branch that its legitimacy is in question.
We have peaceful protesters being teargassed by a President who refuses to say that he will leave office if he loses in 2020, all while lying and saying that there is rampant voter fraud as an excuse to delegitimize elections.  House and Senate Republicans have ensured that there are few if any checks or balances left on executive power, and the President lies so constantly that civic dialog is now all but impossible.  The DoJ has been weaponized... how long should I go on here?  Essentially, forecasting models say that there is a high likelihood of a Democratic victory, but Trump is unlikely to concede.  This is going to get very ugly, but if the President won't step down in the face of an electoral loss, turning the country upside-down, that's going to bring down the score of the country, by my numerical estimate.
This one is easier to answer because it is abnormal internationally.
I don't know how to rate the normality of a response to a unique event.
It is difficult to estimate how "democratic" the country is when I am projecting forward the mess of 2020, yet cannot ignore that likely mess.  The fact that Trump will not recognize the legitimacy of a loss is something we cannot ignore, yet it is both a point for the future, and something conditional.  This is very difficult to evaluate, yet very important, and we cannot consider this a functional democracy with a President who won't recognize the legitimacy of a loss.  This is going to get very ugly.
The current president has frequently tested the limits of executive privilege and authority, and allies in Congress have prevented meaningful consequences. Citizens expressing dissent and mostly protesting peacefully have been violently opposed by law enforcement and even military forces in a few instances. The current president has deliberately eroded norms of forbearance, bipartisan cooperation, and press credibility.
This appeared to be mostly an empty threat, but it is both anti-democratic and its motivation -- even politically -- without empirical basis.
Presidential pardons are fairly common at the end of terms, but the Justice Dept. has typically been more neutral in criminal prosecution involving the President's allies.
This seemed petty but probably not super consequential. Par for Pres. Trump's course.
While anti-riot control occurs in many locales and was especially common decades ago, the rationale for this action seemed much less justified and the use of federal personnel, particularly the military, appeared quite unusual. This does seem an erosion of democratic norms, as attested by senior Defense Dept. personnel apologizing for their involvement.
This seems especially unwise, especially in the midst of a once-in-a-century global health crisis. And the U.S. was a key architect of the WHO, which generally has been a fairly effective international organization. However, Republican withdrawal from IOs has periodically occurred, especially in the last few decades.
He appeared to be motivated largely by protecting his sailors, so his removal seemed particularly vindictive.
Erosion of forbearance norms. But my sense is that most Americans dismiss such noise as more bluster from the blowhard president.
The Trump environmental regulation seems similar to past Republican administrations, but limiting carbon emissions to combat climate change is among the more important policy priorities globally.
International political economy of development
Well designed and challenging (in a good way) for the participant.
Less respect for democratic values like judicial independence, free press, free elections, especially from the president.
Out of the ordinary and signals retaliation, which is disturbing
Seems retaliatory, but he was reinstated
Weird personal quirk, doesn't really matter
Major deterioration of decorum and respect
Everything is abnormal in COVID, they walked this back
tightening of voter registration and voting requirements; increasing influence of dark money in elections; increased polarization driven in part by district gerrymandering.
Federal intervention without request from local authorities is a breach of federalism.
Trump demonstrates a blatant disregard for the law.  This commutation is a good example of Trump's lack of concern for the law, and primary concern for his own interests and protection of his cronies.
Unprecedented politicization of the function of the DOJ.
A president dog-whistling support for racist white supremacists in abnormal relative to preceding presidents, and hopefully will not be seen again after 2020.
Trump ignores anything that gets in the way of his self promotion, be it scientific facts, public health recommendations, the law, the Lord, etc...
The spirit of Bill Bennett lives on in the continuous attacks on higher education by conservative Republicans.
true sign of the depth of the crisis that this president and the Republican-controlled Senate would agree to add $2 trillion to the federal debt to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic effects.
This is a bit more severe, but in line with the effort to roll back environmental regulations by previous Republican administrations, especially Bush 43 and Reagan.
elections, state and local politics, public policy
The two numbers are virtually the same. I don't think that there has been a change.
The democratic institutions in 2015 were generally strong, though democracy was hurt by polarization and a lack of compromise between the parties. These problems have only become worse, and on top of that there are worrying signs about public trust in elections, the neutrality of government experts, and the ability of the parties to agree on basic facts.
The President is threatening to take unconstitutional actions in order to manipulate elections
It is reversing the trend on norms towards full political and social equality for all people.
The comments themselves are unlikely to have much effect, though they do highlight an intolerance for freedom of speech and assembly
The president is seeking to create division rather than unity as the country deals with a public health emergency. He ceded responsibility to the states, then worked to undermine the actions of the states.
It is normal and important for the parties to be able to agree to act in the face of a crisis.
Sliding scales aren't very accurate.  There isn't much difference over the last 5 years.
Washington generally does not pay for state elections. It would be unusual to do so.  In this case, the failure to help is important because elections are a key to democracy.
This behavior is rare, but has precedent (e.g., Sat night massacre).  Firing official watch dogs is a threat to democracy.
Political interference in the Justice Dept is rare, but has precedent.  The Flynn case is not particularly important in the big picture.
The president's Twitter behavior is unprecedented and bizarre.  In the post-civil rights years (1960s),  taking racist stands is uncommon.  Presidents Nixon and Reagan clearly signaled their views on race.  Trump is doing it with a new medium and he is more brazen about it.
Presidents have often threatened protesters.  Threats to respond violently to free speech are serious.
Withdrawing from international organizations is rare and in this case is likely to harm US citizens.
Threats to free speech are rare.  The threat wasn't likely to be implemented.
I don't recall presidents doing this like this, but the issue doesn't have any substantial effect on US politics.
This seems to follow normal military behavior and the case is not harmful to the US
Congress and the president routinely act in times of economic crisis.
Public opinion, elections, environmental politics
We are seeing discernible efforts to use institutional rules and authority to prevent partisan opponents from casting their votes (e.g., vote by mail in the pandemic).  Although this has arguably been the case from the beginning of the union, it appears that we are now recognizing that as fact and adopting it as a visible partisan strategy that is somehow legitimate.  Before this period, we at least maintained a fig leaf about political participation.  In addition to that change, erosion of separation of powers that are supplemental to democratic processes clearly are under attack.  This is particularly the case for congressional oversight and the judiciary has not adequately policed this boundary.
It is a clear message to whistle-blowers and there has not been any consequence to this behavior.
Reduction in common fact base across political spectrum.  More blatant use of office by president for personal financial gain.  Direct attacks by president on press.  More blatant efforts by Republican party to limit voter access.
Not first time Republicans have tried to limit ballot access.
Not illegal, but certainly outside of norms.
In a pandemic, can imagine other presidents doing this.
He is a weird-o.  Other presidents have indirectly promoted economic interests in the White House.  He is just more vulgar about it.
Another tweet that won't become policy, but is an attempt to bully that will undoubtedly fail.
Hyper-polarization and partisanship.  Threatens peaceful transfer of power when one party accuses the other of treason.
Important for universities but not more generally; has a bureaucratic logic to it though not appropriate given the circumstances.
This was a difficult decision to make.  Given the institutional character of the United States Constitutional system as a representative federal system, it is not designed to be particularly democratic.  As Madison says in Federalist #10, "Pure Democracy...can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction."  Between now and 5 years ago, the features of American political culture have shifted markedly away from efforts to maximize participation.  By 2015 this erosion of both participation and dissent was already well advanced, and I almost rated 2015 at 25 and 2020 at 18.  In 2014 Gilens and Page provided convincing evidence that the Median Voter Hypothesis, despite election campaigns' efforts to tailor their messages according to its claims, had no statistically significant impact on the character of public policy; only elite domination did.  This is not a democracy, and may never have been in the first place. As it stands, in 2015, conscious efforts to limit ballot access and electoral participation were just beginning to take hold; today these obstacles are firmly in place.
Deployment of federal law enforcement officers to protect federal facilities, assets and personnel is at times warranted, especially in times of public danger, or when local, state, or tribal authorities request federal intervention.  However, to deploy such forces in city streets demonstrates either ignorance of or contempt for the implicit reserved power of states and municipalities to exercise police power, as well as a profound misunderstanding of the principle of shared power which is an essential component of a federal system.
Although the President does have to power to issue pardons and reprieves for offenses committed against the United States, commuting the sentence of Roger Stone, who was convicted of seven felonies for obstructing a congressional investigation into Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, demonstrates a contempt for the will of Congress, contempt for the system of criminal tribunals  and contempt for the Rule of Law.  This was an unambiguous case of the President using the pardon and reprieve power explicitly to reward a loyal ally for protecting him personally, and constitutes an abuse of the office.  That this temptation exists with the pardon and reprieve power is not new; indeed, action's like the incumbent President's are anticipated by Alexander Hamilton, whose proposal at the Constitutional Convention called for this power to be checked by the Senate, and then checked in turn by a separate Impeachment Court consisting of the Chief Justices of Supreme Courts.
Threatening to withhold funds from any state for their use of mail-in ballots in primaries in any case is a punitive action whose effect is not only to silence regulatory dissent, but also to undermine the constitutional mandate that states determine the character of their respective election codes.  Using the threat of withholding federal funds already allocated through ordinary categorical grant-in-aid process authorized by Congress also contradicts their determination that funds be made available, in direct conflict with Congress' "power of the purse," constitutes a form of impoundment and compromises both the regular distribution of power into distinct departments, an perhaps even the Rule of Law itself.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 enabled the establishment of independent auditors charged with the prevention and detection of waste, fraud and abuse within the executive branch. Past Inspectors General have been under fire from Congress to whom they report, either for failing sufficiently to protect whistle-blowers or else for inadequately evaluating and investigating waste, fraud and abuse.  They are appointed by the President, after all, whose interests may clash with those of Congress.  However, IGs report to Congress, and dismissing an IG for raising concerns about either waste, fraud or abuse--in other words, for fully and faithfully discharging his duties--constitutes a retaliatory action and demonstrates contempt for Congress and an abuse of the appointment power.
The phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" has a singular and notorious history in the United States as both a "justification" and a threat of the use of lethal force against rioters, violent criminals, and collaterally, demonstrators and protesters.  Generally attributed to Miami Police Chief Walter Headley in response to wave of violent crime attendant to the Civil Rights movement, it may actually have originated with notorious Birmingham Alabama Public Safety Commisssioner "Bull" Connor.  Concordant with this phrase is an accusation that "young hoodlums, from 15 to 21" were taking advantage of a social movement to engage in violent crime, leading Headley to assert that police "don't mind being accused of police brutality."  This phrase was also used and subsequently scrutinized by the US Congress in 1968 in Washington DC and Chicago, as well as 1980 in Miami, FL.   For the President of the United States to use this phrase broadcasts his position as a would-be strongman with respect neither for the federal system, nor for more effective efforts to de-escalate confrontation.
This is an attempt at imposing either a prior restraint of the press or else impose a prior compulsion of the press by an executive office, specifically to dictate private sector editorial policies, preventing them from making the choice not to publish the President's communications.  It is also an attempt to punish such private sector agencies for contradicting the President, for no other reason than their decision to retract messages that fail to meet their editorial guidelines.  If we are to consider social media posts as equivalent to press releases or press bulletins, it must be noted that press agencies are under no obligation to run those press releases or press bulletins, especially if such publication fails to meet the criteria for their release, whether those include perceived audience interest, advertising revenue, or the media outlet's own reputation or obligation to their audience.
In the event of an epidemic or a pandemic, it is not unusual for on nation-state to limit immigration from other nations-states with the highest infection rates.  What is mostly abnormal about President Trump temporarily suspending all immigration to the United States in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is that the US already has the highest number of infections in the world.  Hence, the rest of the world has a responsibility to prevent emigration from the United States. Hence, the measure is entirely backwards.
No public official may use public funds or resources to advertise a product.  This is a violation of 5 CFR § 2635.702, concerning Use of Public Office for Private Gain.  In fact, this is not the first time the incumbent administration has done this.  From the very beginning the administration, we have routinely borne witness to these violations, beginning with a brief use of the White House website to advertise Ivanka Trump's "fashion" line.
Although the chain of command is a necessary part of regimental discipline in a professional military, that chain of command must also allow for the administrative discretion of the officer who violates the chain of command, and provide an opportunity through a procedural inquest to determine whether the breach was justified.  During this inquest, provisional or temporary relief from duty, or temporary reassignment, is customary under normal operations.  Whether or not this process was followed has not been fully determined.
Joint press conferences with visiting heads of state are routine, and ought to be viewed as such.  Sufficient interest in the substance of their communications exists in both the host nation-state and the visiting leader's nation-state to warrant such action.  This is perfectly normal.
Foundations of Political Theory, the Language of Political Expression of Ideological Preference, Indigenous American Politics
This survey is especially useful for taking stock of our current political environment, and in my estimation stands as a fitting exercise for those of us in the discipline who must think critically about the state of participatory government and the rule of law in the United States. For those who have not taken this survey before, I imagine it is a "wake-up" call.
American political institutions already had a lot of vulnerabilities in 2015, and the country was already experiencing asymmetric polarization. The USA polity also has had restricted suffrage for most of its history, with the period between ~1965 and ~2015 probably being the one in which the largest share of adult citizens could vote. However, key decision-makers weren't exploiting those vulnerabilities to block horizontal and vertical accountability at that time as much as in 2015.   Since 2015, those institutions have been further and deliberately undermined such that the national executive disregards court judgements and legislative subpoenas and lame-duck conservative state elected legislators and judges formally disempower less conservative state governors.   The national executive also has purged the civil service and forced out inspector generals and other actors meant to serve as independent monitors.   The national executive also has targeted political actors (in state and federal government and in civil society) and journalists who criticize the executive, express different political ideologies, or ask difficult questions and has encouraged private actors to attack the media, marginalized people (Black, Latinx, Indigenous, women, LGBTQ+, Muslims, immigrants).   The national executive and co-partisans in state government also seem intent on undermining the integrity of the November elections. The strategies employed so far closely resemble election tactics used by heads of state and their supporters in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian contexts elsewhere in the world and are very troubling.
The national executive usually shows some respect for "state's rights," which is why it was so hard to get federal intervention to implement civil rights and end Jim Crow.
State-society relations and political economy in Afirca
The structure was basically the same.  The only difference was that the current administration had no problem taking advantage of the structure to enhance its power and promote its objectives.
Required response to extraordinary crisis
There have been no significant institutional changes in that time, or other changes, that merit dramatically different ratings.  The United States was fairly democratic in both time periods.  I chose a marginally higher score for 2015 to reflect the fact that growing political instability and fractiousness has made democracy weaker.
The president sent uniformed federal agents to protect federal property and to respond to violent groups.  This seems to be fairly in line with historical policy.  The lack of clear individual identification is the only aspect that is unusual.
Presidents tend not to tolerate adversarial people they have the capacity to fire.  However, in this case, there is a clear connection to an interest of the president's that it is highly questionable.
This question highlights a conceptual flaw in this series.  President Trump's COVID travel ban is a normal response (as evidenced by most other countries doing the same thing) to a very abnormal situation.  I selected "normal" by focusing on what America did, but the situation overall is quite abnormal, due to the nature of the pandemic..
Presidents have fired rogue officers for the entire history of the country.  Sometimes those officers are right and sometimes they're wrong, but the nature of the military is that going outside of the chain of command is not tolerated.
This is another question where this is a fairly normal response to a very abnormal situation - which is important?
Compromised by ginned up polarization; attempts by "deep state" to sabotage legitimate authority of elected functionaries; expansion of judicial power into areas properly the matter for  legislation.
The mail-in ballots are obvious attempts to control the outcome of elections, but it is the states that have the power to determine the manner of election, and it is probably improper to withhold funds that have been allocated for specific purposes not having to do with the manner of elections.
The Inspector General is a political appointment and serves at the pleasure of the President.
The President, like anyone else, has the right to move around safely and unmolested by mobs.
As statement of fact? Or a threat? Or a warning? The phrasing may piss people off, but the government has the responsibility to protect the lives and property those subject to it.
Wise or not, an exercise of legitimate executive authority.
Don't know who these "far-right groups" are, but they have the right to express their opinion. And the President has the right (and duty) to express his opinion on public policy.
I don't know if he has the power to do that, and it would probably require legislation. The other side of this is that the social media exercise irresponsible power in an overtly one-sided manner.
Not sure when, or whether, he did this. Trump indulges in hyperbole and sarcasm, and is not always to be taken literally--which, indeed, no one did (if he actually said this).
A matter of policy choice. Wise or not, a matter for political decision, with the political decision reflecting (ultimately) electoral outcomes.
How come all the questions refer to what Trump is doing, and none focus on what his opponents (who also hold positions of power, in many cases greater effective power than Trump has) are up to?
I believe the US has been and largely remains a plutocracy, which is why I gave it a C prior to Trump taking office. Since Trump became president, the score has gone down because he has added the following to the already flawed system: trying to interfere with the free press; allowing government officials to act with impunity and/or pardoning them after the fact; allowing and/or encouraging foreign powers to interfere with our elections.
Trump isn't much of an outlier when it comes to the US' abysmal environmental policies.
2015:  American politics is bought by large economic interests.  Those with great wealth have a disproportionate ability to shape politics.  But the rule of law prevails.  2020:  Still the same, but the rule of law is fraying and government is increasingly corrupt.
Where to start?  1) It violates the Tenth Amendment and the inherent grant of police power to the states.  2) It has no justification but a political one.  3) These are extrajudicial uses of federal power. 4) The unmarked "police" are like a paramilitary force.
The Constitution vests the power to conduct elections in the hands of the states.
It is vindictive, not an appropriate response from a government of rules.
The USA has led the international consensus towards international responses to crises since WW2.  This new isolationism takes American foreign policy back a century.
Impunity and shunting responsibility to others are the signs of a tyrant.  There are still controls in place, but they do not seem to stop him.
Treason is a specific crime defined in the Constitution.  Throwing the term around debases political language and reduces legitimacy.
The Executive branch has the power to control visas unless Congress specifically passes legislation.  However, it represents a continuing attack on higher education as an arena to be punished. (Revenue from foreign tuition is vital for most state universities now.)  The overall assault of the Trump administration (and Republican party) on institutions of higher education and the debasing of the coinage through the elevation of phony schools is part of a long run strategy to dumb-down the public.
In light of all of the rest of the damage that Trump has done, this unusual venue for a speech is no big deal.  That he lies continuously and with impunity is much more concerning.
Even if USA met most of the conditions that the survey asks about, institutional structures like bicameralism, two-partyism, single-member districts, and (rampant) judicial review would still be used by oligarchs to defeat policy threats to their domination of American society. It would still be one of the world's most oligarchic democracies.
Democratic theory and democratic constitutions
Executive is increasingly uncontrolled; executive malfeasance and corruption is not punished.
Very little Trump tweets seems to matter in the long run.
The effects of extreme gerrymandering and the trump administration
Allowing those with connections to the President to be above the law.  He is not the only president to do this, but one of the more blatant
Allies of the president should not be above the law
Global pandemics require a global response and global coordination.  I also believe that is was motivated by the fact that the WHO did not let him get his way.
Aside from the personal risk of the attendees.  It had little impact on the state of government since we are desensitized to these kinds of media stunts.
International Political Economy and Global Civil Society
"Positive": The judiciary is largely independent, as is the central bank. The legislature can largely exercise checks on the executive. The media is relatively free. "Negative": The executive attacks the loyalty and patriotism of political opponents. The executive is willing to exploit undue foreign influence to help his electoral fortunes. The Republican party engages in overt/covert voter suppression.
In 2015, despite many inadequacies, the U.S. political system was clearly democratic. The Trump presidency has dangerously increased these inadequacies.
Continued erosion of voting rights and campaign finance transparency The Senate failing to convict President of impeachment charges which included election interference. Demonstrated voting failures in key elections - including the Governor of Georgia Republican Party, especially in the Senate, failing to stand-up for vote-by-mail or protecting the 2020 elections White House attacks on voting infrastructure President encouraging foreign election interference
Elected Republican officials, to an even greater extent than in 2015, have abandoned many basic principles of democracy. Voting access and gerrymandering were already large concerns in 2015, plus attacks on the basic patriotism and loyalty of their opponents. Repeated actions by President Donald Trump, facilitated by the widespread acquiescence of other Republican officials to his illegal actions, have compromised core features of democracy (such as the ones identified at the beginning of this survey).
This one is clearly bad policy, but it has less to do directly with democratic rules and norms
The United States is generally pretty democratic, and its institutions are generally fairly robust. Until this summer, I had confidence that President Trump's attacks on the system would not have lasting impact. The United States has been through periods in history with similar threats to the democratic aspects of the system, and the country has bounced back. But in the summer of 2020, President Trump got more serious about using the military and, especially, non-military federal law enforcement (connected to DHS) to threaten opposition. If the president has his own paramilitary force, that is a threat that is hard to check. The president has also systematically undermined the press, judicial independence, and the ability of independent experts (especially the civil service) to publish basic research and statistics. These are weakening the underpinnings of American democracy. Public polarization is increasing, too -- something we have had in the past but something that "feels different" when it's your own time and place. I'm not sure how to rate the threat to democracy in the United States of the increase in Americans seeing their political adversaries as "unAmerican."
If it's just deploying federal law enforcement officers to cities, that's normal and fine. The problem is what they did in Portland. Their definition of "protecting federal property" was nuts -- way too expansive -- and their failure to wear proper identification and their practice of grabbing people off the street without probable cause and interrogating them without usual due process protections is very disturbing.
Presidents commute sentences of their cronies.  Fine. But commuting the sentence of someone convicted of illegally intervening in the political process to benefit the person who is doing the commuting is way out of bounds.
Doing it for a photo op is what makes it unimportant. People get to protest in Lafayette Park.  They have for years. Using teargas to make them leave is strange and totally inappropriate.
That quote especially came to public attention because the words had been used before by a racist politician. So the quote is not unusual. But it is offensive -- and the implication that he was willing to use federal troops to shoot Americans (not even just arrest them) is unusual and is important.
Presidents often take their policy views to the public, but calling specifically on "far-right groups" is pretty unusual. (I'm not entirely sure the president has done this, but it's specified in the question, and if I take it as given, then it's "mostly abnormal.")
I think the campaign rally was dumb, but it's hardly abnormal for a president to hold campaign rallies in an election year, What is strange is the release.
The government in the United States does not promote specific products to consumers. It's bad for our economic system. It is mostly a threat to something else besides democracy.
It's strange to have a president who Tweets. Most Tweets are not followed up by much action.
Presidents say a lot of dumb things that have little impact. But treason is a big word.
I care about this issue personally, but it is not a huge threat to democracy. Of course it would be better to change policy by proposing legislation, but we have a long-term pattern of the executive branch regulating by fiat. The regulations being pulled back have a significant level of executive branch fiat in them, too, so changing them through the executive branch is not so bad or so unusual. But Congress did have a role in the fuel-efficiency standards in particular, so scaling them back by fiat seems not quite fully normal and not quite fully unimportant for democracy.
Political polarization, demonization of the opposition, and inability of the two parties to come to any sorts of compromises were present in 2015, but are worse today.  The capitulation of the Republican Party to Trump's ignorance, incompetence, and anti-democratic tendencies have made things worse.
I consider US democracy to be historically flawed due to questions of ballot access, voter participation, and the role of private finance in campaigning. These warning signs about American democracy were evident in 2015. Under Trump they have gotten worse, with increasing encroachment on freedom of expression and equal access to the ballot.
The Republican party and Supreme Court have steadily eroded Democratic institutions.
judicial, legislative branches are overly politicized and dysfunctional.  The executive increasingly legislative functions while stacking the judicial branch with biased judges functions
erodes our institutions and democracy;  abrogates oversight regs
does not demonstrate leadership and is irresponsible
suggests that something is wrong with his current level of functioning  perhaps dementia
problem rests in definition of indoctrination
interesting  I wish government officials and legislators would review the survey results
the power of political parties and special interest groups is growing, and partisanship is driving citizens and politicians to the fringes.
Presidential power in meddling with an (supposed) independent judiciary
President using state apparatus to further personal political agenda, protecting his own free speech, by violating free speech of others!!
withdrawing from the WHO doesn't mean the US won't cooperate on health issues with other countries. So, abnormal, but not that important.
important because he's politicizing an issue that shouldn't be political, AND encouraging extreme partisanship.
anything trying to regulate free speech should be viewed as important.
the circumstances are so unprecedented that it's hard to say whether this is normal or not. It's important because, I believe, political expediency was a larger factor is his being ignored by his superiors rather than what was right for the security of the United States.
most people, outside of Trump's established base, quickly disregard any comment from him. Also, not sure this will sway voters in November.
abnormal because presidents usually play nice in public. not important because Trump's public comments are, more or less, disregarded. It's is policies, rather than his comments, that are important.
only abnormal and important because it was during COVID-19.
Executive branch questions independence of judicial branch.  Executive branch tries to undermine operations of many different parts of government for political gain.  Executive branch attempts to take actions reserved for legislative branch.  Legislative branch has failed to act as a check and balance against executive branch.
Abnormal - this is not what a democracy does.  It's important as the evidence suggests the presence of federal law enforcement in Portland escalated the violence.
This is abnormal because it's rare for the executive branch to interfere with this kind of military promotion.  It's important because it will have a negative effective on other individuals and has cause a leading expert to leave government services.
It's abnormal because the US doesn't have a history of withdrawing from international bodies until this administration - in fact, the US generally dominates them.  It's important because the WHO does important work around the world that ultimately reduces the likelihood of diseases making it from other countries to our shores.
It's abnormal because democratic government's shouldn't be in the business of restricting free speech and threatening private industry without a legitimate governmental interest.  It's important because it represents an attempt by the government to regulate free speech and to interfere with a private company in a way that hasn't been done before, absent extreme circumstances like war.
Politicians doing things against expert advice isn't that abnormal.  But holding an indoor rally isn't that unusual, but not having proper protections (masks, social distancing) is.  The legal release is not abnormal either, as many event tickets carry some kind of release on them - but those releases, like this one, are rarely legally enforceable.  It's important because it sends the wrong message and leads to potential harm for attendees.
It's abnormal because tax exempt status are determined by the IRS, not random executive action.  It's important because it makes the executive seem week and it decreases the executive's standing when trying to make public announcements on important issues.
Abonormal - we don't see this in democracies.  It's important because it's a) not based in fact, b) divides the country, and c) creates distrust in our government.
While it's an abnormal time, the action itself is normal as government's often provide relief during times of national crisis.  It's important because of the pandemic and it's attempt to address some of the impact.  The contents of the act itself are a different question.
It's mostly abnormal because very few people and industries want this, including the auto industry who already had plans for the new standards.  So it seems the administration is the only major player that wants this.  It's important because it has the potential to increase pollution which has negative health outcomes and increase reliance on fossil fuels which will run out at some point, sooner or later.  I should note this could end up being less important if the auto makers ignore the freeze and continue to increase standards in response to consumer demand.
Holding press conference with foreign leaders, particularly from countries which are our allies, is standard.  Whether the conferences are important or unimportant depends upon what is announced at them.  Often they're not important because they're just photo-ops, but sometimes major deals are announced and then they become more important.
As far as I know, this is an unprecedented action.
I don't have as good of a comparison with many of the other years, so I am commenting on current conditions.
The U.S. political system routinely violates basic democratic standards:  majority rule, equal voting power, accountability, responsiveness to the public, etc.
Undermines rule of law and the ability to hold executives accountable.  Seriously undemocratic.
Promoting white nationalism is totally unacceptable.
Wrong is so many ways. President should not be encouraging police violence.
The president has the right to push his agenda -- but in this case, it will increase sickness and death.
Threatening the media undermines the free press.
2015: coming out of recession; competent, democratic administration  Today: severe restrictions, attacks on press, opponents, voting
The Trump administration has clearly moved the country in a less democratic direction. At the same time, I don't think this shift should be overstated, as a lot of it has been in the realm of rhetoric or actions that have been blocked by the courts or others. An example is Trump's attacks on demonstrators in Lafayette Square. This was of course very undemocratic; at the same time there was a strong counterreaction that evoked the depth of American democracy. So I downgraded the score from 70 to 65 for this, but I didn't want to overreact.
Again, not a technical abuse of power but also not typical
The whole Twitter presidency is abnormal. It's hard to distinguish between sloppiness and deliberate action
Another stunt. If this lasts beyond the Trump presidency it would be important, but I doubt it will
A lot of Trump's rhetoric should basically be ignored; this is abnormal, unfortunately, but less important than other things
Not sure how to rate this question. Clearly a $2 Trillion appropriation is abnormal, because the crisis is abnormal. But it was the normal functioning of the system
Unusual because these actions deviate from a long-accepted standard on environmental protection, but not abnormal in the sense that it was (more or less) within the framework of administrative discretion
Not really abnormal except for the content of the speech and the fact that it was in the middle of a pandemic. But if another president had given a typical 4th of July speech at Mt. Rushmore it would be perfectly ok
American constitutional law and politics
Some of the questions were ambiguous. The whole Trump presidency is clearly abnormal. I'm not really sure what "mostly abnormal" means in terms of things like the Goya sales pitch. I had trouble answering these questions.
The current president of the US flaunts democratic norms by challenging media, physically punishing protestors and profiting from his position of power.
Trump has partly destroyed the rule of law in the United States, aided and abetted by a completely corrupted Republican Party
Overall, the electoral college, the Senate, the role of money, and state disenfranchisement of black and poor voters makes the U.S. less democratic than many other democratic counties.  Today, Trump's attacks on courts, judges, the civil service and, voting, among many other subjects, lessens the democratic nature of the U.S.
these are the actions of a fascist state!
mostly abnormal because presidents threaten to cut off funds not infrequently.  Important because it's an attack on democratic system.
the politicization of the Dept. of Justice
free speech and all that.  It's semi-important because it may encourage racism and violence against minorities
free speech guarantees and the right to criticize the president.
Since the CEO of Goya is a Trump donor this creates the appearance, if not the admission, of corruption.
It's one think to criticize a former president but to accuse him of treason passes over a line.
The U.S. has a terrible history of discrimination against immigrants but the U.S. has encouraged foreign students to study here.  Attracting the best and the brightest foreign students is in America's interest, whether they stay in the U.S. or return home and carry American values with them.
We are witnessing an unprecedented attack on the democratic political system.  If it wasn't for Covid-19, Trump and his Republican helpers might so weaken the democratic system as to make it autocratic.  Time will tell whether a commitment to democratic norms and procedures can be restored.
Both periods -- high income and racial inequality; low voter turn-outs; disproportionate representation (electoral college; Senate; gerrymandering; money in politics)  Today add:  Voter suppression; attacks on media and political opponents; infringement of peaceful protest; high polarization; inability of parties to compromise; presidential and foreign interference in elections; executive enrichment from being in office; executive branch (DOJ, presidential pardon and firings) favoring president's friends and punishing critics.
2015: Many reasons.  Here is one: Republican efforts to suppress the vote accelerate.  Today: Again, many reasons.  Here is one: Pres. Trump is attempting to steal the 2020  presidential election, much like we see in autocratic countries such as Belarus.
American Presidency; U.S. Foreign Policy
Although the rhetoric has changed, the reality has changed little.  Some minor improvements, some minor reversals.
This is a (poor) assertion of executive power.  That is normal.  This seems like a poor choice and poor timing.  Just because we disagree with a issue position or a policy directive does not make it abnormal.  The US has had periodic claims of difficulties and capture of multinational organizations.
It is difficult to imagine any policy regarding the pandemic as "normal" or "abnormal".  Similar restrictions were placed in 1918, although that was also  wartime, and considered for SARS/MERS (I think implemented for some countries for SARS).  The extent is unprecedented...as is the pandemic.
Tweets are or were abnormal.  I fear that such communications are the new normal.
The question wording seems odd.  In this unusual era, anything could be considered normal or abnormal.  We may be at a realignment or tipping point at which many things change.