Popular fiction romanticizes the medieval era as a time of noble knights, wise kings and chivalry. The unromantic truth is that it was a bloody and brutal age, marked by perpetual war and conflict. Monarchy bears the blame for that.

It’s not just that individual kings were cruel, arrogant and power-hungry, although they were. Rather, it’s that monarchy has a built-in incentive for violence.

Monarchy is a might-makes-right system with no rules, no laws, no checks or balances. Whoever could seize the throne by force became the next absolute ruler. This means that, whenever a king died, there was a succession crisis. Unless there was an heir ready to take over (and sometimes even then), a violent free-for-all ensued. Every powerful person who coveted the throne battled it out to decide who’d be the next king. For centuries, these wars of succession were an almost constant feature of life.

Democracy has a better solution to the problem of succession. When the previous leader’s term is over, the country holds an election to choose the next one, and – in theory – everyone respects the outcome.

However, democracy has an inherent weakness. It depends on the consent of the people, so it can only survive if each generation values it and makes a choice to renew it. If the people no longer care about democracy, it can degenerate into autocracy, and once it’s gone, it’s very hard to get back.

That’s the situation we’re in.

In 2024, Americans had a choice between two candidates for president. One was an ordinary, decent, well-qualified politician who would have continued the mostly progressive policies of the Biden administration. The other was the Platonic ideal of an unfit candidate: a convicted felon, a sexual predator, a tax cheat, a lover of dictators, a friend to conspiracy theorists, openly racist and misogynist, intentionally cruel, wildly ignorant and profoundly incompetent. Worst of all, when he lost the last election, he tried to steal it and then, when that failed, triggered a violent insurrection against the rightful government. It was a disgraceful first in American history, a true example of an enemy within.

We know who the voters chose.

And it was the voters’ choice, loath as I am to admit it. If he had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college (again) – or, worse, if he’d lost the election but had it stolen for him by red-state legislators or his judicial toadies – that would be one thing. That scenario would have been another illustration of the dysfunctional, broken-as-designed American system, which allows candidates to win with only a minority of the total votes cast. It would be an occasion for rage and despair, to be sure, but it wouldn’t say anything about the actual views of the public.

But, like I said, that’s not what happened. The fact that he won the popular vote is a different scenario altogether. This time, unlike in 2016, it can’t be blamed on the founding fathers’ mistakes. The American people saw him for who he is and freely handed power back to him.

What should we do when voters democratically elect an enemy of democracy?

Your response to this question should depend on your theory about why this happened. Was it out of ignorance – votes cast by people who somehow didn’t know or didn’t understand the threat he poses, or were unaware of what his policies actually were? Or was it out of malice – votes cast by people who know perfectly well that he stands for fascism and autocracy, and supported him because that’s what they want?

(As an important footnote, you can say that Trump didn’t win the election so much as Harris lost it. He got slightly more votes than in 2020, while she got dramatically less than Biden. Republicans voted like they usually do, while Democrats stayed home. But if you confine yourself to asking about the preferences of Democratic voters and why they didn’t show up, it’s the same core issue. Was it out of apathy and ignorance, or were they genuinely torn about which candidate was better?)

Which of these two explanations you believe will dictate your conclusion about what we should do now. If people were ignorant or deceived, that means our situation is fixable. It’s discouraging, to be sure, but it means the American republic isn’t beyond saving. With better education, with a stronger ecosystem of progressive media, and with more of an effort to get the word out, there’s still a chance of turning the ship around.

On the other hand, if people have given up on democracy and want a strongman to rule them and punish their enemies… that would be a more dire scenario. That’s not a mistaken impression of facts, but a deep dissonance of values. If that’s what happened, then the American experiment may truly have run its course and is now drawing to an end.

When he was asked what the Constitutional Convention had created, Benjamin Franklin famously said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Those words have never been so bleakly relevant. If we ultimately can’t keep it, it won’t be because we were conquered or overthrown by an external enemy. It will be because we did it to ourselves.