A historian from Oxford University predicts exactly how much time the United States has to save its democracy, the American publication "Huffington Post" reported, quoted by BTA.
Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European studies at the university, which is among the most respected and best higher education institutions in Britain, especially in history and political science, writes in a new essay that the politics of the Democrats in the United States "is a mess", and their current leadership "is in chaos". According to the British scholar, Americans have only 400 days to save their democracy.
All "Democrats, regardless of party or ideology, should hope that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives" in the 2026 US midterm elections, "not because of Democratic politics, which is a mess, or because of their current leadership, which is in chaos", but because the Congress, currently controlled by the Republican Party, needs to "start doing its job again" and keep the White House under control, the British historian points out.
Any economic damage caused by Trump's controversial policies could be offset, Ash argues, by the possibility of the president "handing out money to voters before the vote, perhaps in the form of compensation for "temporary hardship" in the transition to the economics of the "Make America Great Again" - MAGA movement (MAGA - Make America Great Again)".
Democrats must ruthlessly "remind voters of these economic costs", and not just "talk about defending democracy, however important that may be, let alone engaging in the so-called culture wars", the British historian notes.
"I return to Europe from the US with a clear conclusion: Democrats (with a lowercase "d") in the country have 400 days to start saving American democracy", Timothy Garton Ash commented to the British newspaper "The Guardian". If next fall’s midterm elections produce a Congress that begins to rein in Donald Trump, then Americans will have another 700 days to prepare for a peaceful transfer of executive power, which in itself would secure the country’s future. Operation "Save American Democracy" – Phases 1 and 2, writes the Oxford University historian.
Hysterical hyperbole? I would like to think so, Ash argues. But during the seven weeks I spent in the United States this summer, I was struck every day by the speed and brutality with which President Trump attacked what seemed to be the established norms of American democracy, and by the desperate weakness of the resistance to that attack. A growing body of international evidence suggests that once liberal democracy is undermined, it is very difficult to restore. Tearing down is much easier than building up, the British scholar notes.
That’s why all Democrats, regardless of party or ideology, should hope that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections on November 3, 2026. Not because of the politics of the Democratic Party, which is a mess, or because of the current party leadership, which has fallen into chaos, but simply because American democracy needs the US Congress, the lever of the primary check on presidential power provided for in the US Constitution, to start doing its job again. That will not happen as long as Republicans, dominated and intimidated by Trump, control both houses of Congress.
There is much talk of comparisons with other cases of authoritarian power grabs, from Europe in the 1930s to Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, but what strikes me most is the distinctive features of the US case. I will mention just four: excessive executive power, chronic electoral manipulation, endemic violence, and the way a would-be authoritarian leader could exploit the intense capitalist competition that permeates every aspect of American life, Ash told the Guardian.
The danger of overreaching executive power has existed in the United States since its inception. Revolutionary war hero Patrick Henry ("give me liberty or give me death") voted against the constitution at the Virginia ratification convention in 1788 precisely because he believed it would give a criminal president the opportunity to "rush boldly to the American throne." Throughout the 20th century, presidents of both parties have expanded the powers of the "executive branch", which are so vague in Article 2 of that constitution. The conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly upheld the single executive doctrine, developed by right-wing legal theorists, which provides the broadest interpretation of presidential power. And now the Trump administration — well-prepared, unlike in 2017 — is exploiting every inch and every nook and cranny of the existing executive branch, as well as simply breaking the law and defying the courts to stop it.
Tom Ginsburg, a leading American constitutional scholar, argues that the biggest flaw in the unreformed U.S. Constitution is that it gives state legislatures the power to set electoral boundaries. Gerrymandering (the practice of deliberately manipulating electoral district boundaries to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group - editor's note) was invented as far back as 1812. In recent times, partisan redistricting has become more extreme as U.S. politics has become more polarized. And in 2019, the US Supreme Court declared that it cannot correct even the most blatant partisan gerrymandering (only that based on racial criteria). So now, at Trump’s direct request, the state of Texas has taken to changing the boundaries of electoral districts to win 5 additional seats for Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections, after which the state of California has announced that it will do a counter-gerrymandering to win 5 additional seats for Democrats. There is no longer even an attempt to maintain the apparent impartiality regarding the most basic procedure of democracy, the British historian notes for the newspaper "The Guardian".
No European society can compare to the US in terms of the pervasiveness of violence, Ash told the newspaper. Hardly a day has passed this summer without the evening news reporting at least one act of violence, including yet another horrific school shooting. The United States has more guns than people.
France loves its pseudo-revolutionary political theater, but in the United States, on January 6, 2021, there was an attack on the Capitol by an angry mob. Now, right-wing activist Charlie Kirk has been shot. Before the identity of the killer was revealed, Elon Musk declared that “the left is the party of murder,” and Trump blamed it on the “hate speech” of the “radical left.” It will be a miracle if the United States avoids a downward spiral of political violence last seen in the 1960s. This, in turn, could be a pretext for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, send more troops onto the streets of the United States, and further exploit the possibility of a supposed state of emergency, the British historian points out.
Meanwhile, universities, business leaders, law firms, media platforms, and tech giants have utterly failed in their attempts to take collective action in response. They have either remained silent, or agreed to humiliating settlements, like Columbia University and the law firm "Paul, Weiss", or have cajoled the president, like Mark Zuckerberg. Why? Because they all follow the logic of fierce competition in the free market and fear targeted repression. "I never imagined I would see fear spreading so quickly and so widely in the US," Ash told the Guardian.
Add to that the attempts to disqualify or intimidate voters, as well as Trump's threat to ban mail-in voting, and there is real doubt about whether the November 2026 midterm elections will be completely free and fair. The job of Democrats of all parties is to ensure that they are as free and fair as possible. The job of Democrats (with a capital "D") is to win next year's midterm elections despite all these obstacles.
The key to this will likely continue to be questions related to the daily needs of Americans. Here, in the economy, lies this paradoxical hope, the British researcher points out. We are already starting to see how Trump's tariffs are reflected in higher prices. The number of jobs is declining. Trump's "big beautiful law" will increase the already staggering national debt of $ 37 trillion even more. In fiscal year 2024, servicing this debt will cost more than the entire defense budget of $ 850 billion. But until the debt crisis hits, such macroeconomic risks remain distant and abstract for most American voters, much like the forecasts of lower gross domestic product growth that did not have much of an impact on the debate over the Brexit referendum in Britain.
So the big question is whether the negative economic consequences of Trump’s policies will be felt by ordinary US voters before the midterm elections, Ash told the Guardian. The British historian notes that an astute political observer suggested to him that Trump, flush with revenue from the new tariffs, could hand out money to voters before the vote, perhaps as compensation for the “temporary difficulties” of the transition to a MAGA economy. That would be a classic populist move.
So the most important thing for Democrats in the next 400 days is to present these economic costs in a compelling way to American voters, he told the newspaper. Democrats will not win by simply talking about defending democracy, as important as that is, not to mention engaging in the culture wars. They must follow the advice of former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville (a longtime Democratic strategist who became famous for his line "The economy, stupid," suggesting that economic issues will ultimately decide the vote - editor's note), and focus uncompromisingly on the problems of ordinary Americans. In this way, they will show that they really care about the ordinary representatives of the working and middle classes, whose support they have lost over the past 30 years.
Then comes stage 2 - the presidential election in 2028. But for now, the challenges of the day are enough. Despite all the serious threats to democracy itself in the US, for now the first rule of democratic politics still applies - just win the next election, concludes Ash in his analysis for the "Guardian" newspaper.
Trump has exploded in a rage against journalists after a shocking sociological survey revealed his key weakness, the American magazine "New Republic" points out in a commentary.
While Trump's anger at the media is boiling on many fronts, Trump's weakening ability to persuade is revealing major cracks in his authoritarian project, the magazine points out.
President Trump seems even angrier at the media than usual, writes the "New Republic" magazine. His lawyers have just filed a completely insane lawsuit against the New York Times, which is literally filled with ridiculous tirades that defenders of the First Amendment to the US Constitution have dismissed as an absolute joke. But the lawsuit is filled with angry outbursts that seem to be dictated by Trump himself. And he announced it in a lengthy outburst on his social media platform "Truth Social", in which he was seething with rage.
Meanwhile, Trump himself addressed journalists directly in a strange way, issuing an unusual threat to one of them and engaging in a paradoxical show of dominance over another. This comes after a new sociological study by the British magazine "The Economist" revealed shockingly low support for Trump among independent American voters, a key indicator of political strength — or weakness, the New Republic magazine notes.
On his podcast "The Daily Blast", host Greg Sargent pointed out two instances this week when Trump spoke harshly to reporters in a way that seems odd even by his standards, adding: "Is Trump angry because his magical political powers are failing him?"
Let's start with some audio from Trump, Sargent continued. A reporter asked him on Tuesday whether it was appropriate for him to be involved in so many business ventures while in office. Trump replied that his children run the businesses, but then suddenly asked the reporter his nationality, and he said he was Australian. Then the following happened.
Trump (voiceover): "I think you're doing a lot of damage to Australia right now. And they want to get along with me. You know, your leader is coming to meet with me very soon. I'm going to tell them about you. You're giving off a very bad impression."
So Trump actually threatened to tell the Australian prime minister about this journalist's impudent question, the Daily Blast host commented. But what struck me was that according to Trump, his personal business dealings are not up for discussion and the US president simply believes that this journalist should actually fear reprisals from the Australian leader, Sargent said, asking: "What do you think about this strange threat?"
Here's another really strange statement from Trump, Sargent continued. A journalist working for the American television station "ABC News" asked about Attorney General Pam Bondi, who recently threatened to sue people for using hate speech, which is a stupid threat. Then Trump said the following.
Trump (voiceover): "She should probably prosecute people like you, because you treat me so unfairly. That's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they'll go after "ABC News" . Well, ABC recently paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for that form of hate speech, so maybe they'll have to go after you".
That's the funny thing about Trump's authoritarian presidency, Sargent noted. He can win these symbolic victories, maybe get a big company to pay him extortionate amounts, but Trump can't really control things. And that's what makes him mad. He knows that his control is futile, that it's mostly a facade. I find this an amazingly revealing moment in that sense.
Now a new sociological study by the British magazine "The Economist" has come out that underscores that fact even more, the host of the "Daily Blast" podcast continued. According to the poll, 39% of Americans approve of Donald Trump's job performance as president, while 57% disapprove. Among independent voters, the ratio is absolutely disastrous, 28% approval to 64% disapproval. And on the economy, his approval among Americans as a whole is 35% to 57%. On inflation and prices, it's 30% to 64%. This is actually really terrible for him. And I think that goes to the point that his magical powers are actually failing him, Sargent concluded in his commentary on the "New Republic" podcast.