Introduction
July 4th 2026 will mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. In that time the United States has seen 45 Presidents, 50 Vice Presidents, 589 cabinet secretaries, 2,018 Senators and 11,262 members of the House of Representatives. In a quarter millennium the US has expanded from the Atlantic to the Pacific, fought a civil war, invented the aeroplane, split the atom and landed on the moon. Few nations have compressed so much upheaval, aspiration and transformation into such a short history, yet the Great American Experiment remains incomplete.
In the 1830s political observer Alexis de Tocqueville described the United States as a grand democratic experiment. He acknowledged the unprecedented attempt to build a stable republic not on the back of a monarchy but rather based solely on the sovereignty of its citizens. This, at the time, radical experiment was encapsulated by the opening 3 words of the US constitution: “We the People”. 250 years later the question is no longer whether the American experiment will succeed but what role it now plays in the world it has created around itself.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s Great Experiment has become synonymous with the American state, being referenced by the likes of Abreham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. The concept itself refers to the historically unprecedented governance of a large nation by its people where citizens are, nominally, equal. Tocqueville argued that key factors including local self-government, civil society, free religion and a less rigid class structure contributed to creating a strong government and nation state. However Tocqueville warned that the experiment could fail, he cites the tyranny of the majority and the exclusion of minorities as a key feature that could cause the collapse of the US before it had established itself.
The Architecture of the experiment
The constitution of the United States was first drafted by a constitutional convention during the summer of 1787. The constitution acts as the central, supreme document in United States law. This is known as the supremacy of the constitution, where the constitution acts as a superior to any law passed by either state or federal legislature. Further no law passed in the US may violate the articles of the constitution. Any law that is deemed to be in violation of the constitution can be struck down by any level of court.
The separation of power became a core tenet of this document. The executive branch, consisting of the president and their cabinet, can not formally sponsor legislation, declare war or pass legislation by itself. These are all responsibilities of the legislature: congress and the Senate. These bodies are directly elected by the citizens of the United States and therefore best represent the views and opinions of everyday Americans. Theoretically by giving each branch of government a clear set role internal power struggles can be limited to extreme cases. In practice, especially as we approach the semi-quincentennial this separation has been called into question, and the core of the experiment is under threat.
“We the people”, the opening words of the constitution, are central to the second core component of American democracy. That being popular sovereignty, this acts as a source of legitimacy for any local, state or federal government. Authority is derived not from above, as in a monarchy, but below, from the people.
The United States uses a system of representative democracy with 435 congressional seats. In each of these constituencies a majority vote is taken where the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, this often leaves a significant proportion of the district feeling unrepresented, growing discontent. There is a growing divide growing between electors and elected, with the two party status-quo in place voters are forced to decide between Republican or Democrat with no alternative option. This forces voters in many cases to pick the lesser of two evils, voting with the party which it agrees with most.
Popular sovereignty is theoretically absolutely guaranteed by the US constitution, practically however it is constrained by systematic imperfections. Discrimination, violence and inequality between the peoples of the US draws into question this so-called equality guaranteed in the constitution, and more poignantly raises the question: Who are “the people” in practice. Historically participation in elections has been limited, closed off to or impractical for many voters, contributing to an uneven and unrepresentative legislative body.
American democracy, from its outset, has been fundamentally unevenly applied. Through 250 years slavery, disenfranchisement, segregation, voter suppression and unequal participation have all been indicative of the fundamental flaws in American democracy. Slavery, perhaps the most egregious violation of a person’s fundamental right to humanity stoked, enshrined and promoted racial discrimination nationally. It took 89 years for the United States to formally abolish slavery, during this time millions of men, women and children were denied the rights that were promised to them in the nations most supreme document. Even after the 13th amendment was ratified it took a further 100 years to create full, ostencable, equality with the voting rights act.
This is to say that even while equal rights are formally guaranteed it is often the case that local groups and national governments implement systems designed to make it harder for certain demographics to vote. Two hundred and fifty years after “We the People”, the boundaries of political inclusion in the United States remain contested rather than settled.
These tensions are no longer limited to the historical development of the United States, instead they have emerged in new forms through growing political polarisation, declining institutional trust and increasingly contested interpretations of what constitutes democratic legitimacy. In theory the US guarantees universal suffrage, structure and political disputes surrounding representation continue to exemplify deeper anxieties about who exercises power within the state.
The American political system is designed to, purposefully or not, contribute to many of these tensions. Institutions originally intended to prevent tyranny from an ill meaning president instead increasingly prevent the proper functioning of government under conditions of extreme partisanship. The Electoral College is a system where each state gets a number of votes equivalent to its congressional delegation in presidential elections. In this system the disproportionality in the Senate and partisan gerrymandering have all contributed to growing understandings and perceptions that electoral outcomes do not, in all cases, represent the majority opinion. In this sense the crisis facing America is not only ideology but equally institutional.
250 years later the structural flaws highlighted above increasingly shape not only American national policy but also its broader position in the international system.
Crisis of Representation and Institutional disfunction
In the following section we will examine how different political institutions function under scenarios of extreme political polarisation and discuss the effect this has on the legitimacy of American democracy.
The Electoral College is the system that is used in presidential elections in the United States, votes are assigned in proportion to each state’s congressional delegation. This means the sum of the number of house representatives and senators. The smallest delegations come from the Dakotas and Wyoming with each state respectively having one house representative and two senators summing to 3. The largest delegation comes from California with 52 house representatives and two senators summing to 54 total votes. This system can produce presidents that have not won a majority of the popular vote as populations of smaller states are over represented. In 2016 Donald Trump won the electoral college 304-227 against his adversary Hillary Clinton. With such a large winning margin it would be fair to assume that Trump had won a significant majority of the popular vote, this was however not the case Clinton won an overwhelming 2.87 million more votes that Trump. This highlights questions about whether democratic legitimacy derives from voters equally or from states as constitutional units.
Part of the aforementioned problems with the Electoral College arise from how the US splits representation between states. Article one, section three of the US constitution stipulates that each state must be represented by two senators and a number of house representatives in proportion with a state’s population. This was a demand of the less populous southern states during the writing of the constitution to ensure they would always have a voice to be heard in the federal government without being outvoted by the more populous north. As a consequence of this each senator representing California represents about 20 million people whereas in Wyoming each senator represents about 300,000 people. This is a massive disparity which leads many to the understanding that a vote in California is less important that a vote in Wyoming. This inequality between states translates to the Electoral College. In Wyoming its 3 Electoral college votes represent about 200,000 people each compared to California where each vote represents about 733,000 people. The result is a system in which constitutional federalism increasingly conflicts with modern democratic expectations of political equality.
Gerrymandering has also risen to the forefront of discourse around the health of American democracy. It is true that gerrymandering can be used to ensure that people of certain ethnicities also get representation in government, as is the case with the Illinois 4th district. In recent times however gerrymandering has become increasingly political, with both parties cutting up districts to maximize the number of seats they can gain in each state. Movements like REDMAP and Prop 50 allow parties to capture disproportionate representation in state and federal legislatures. Gerrymandering undermines electoral competitiveness and weakens the link between votes cast and the representation that is achieved. Ultimately this can lead to politicians and the elite to shape who is elected and the electorate rather than the people it is ostensibly designed to represent.
Increasing levels of polarisation and political radicalism have contributed to several significant government shutdowns in the past 18 years. Government shutdowns occur when congress and the president fail to reach agreement on funding legislation. During shutdowns funding for most federal institutions is halted pending the approval of the budget. Some of the longest shutdowns in American history have occurred in the past 10 years. In 2018/19 the government was shut down due to clashes around the border wall construction. In December 2025 the government shut down because the budget didn’t include continued subsidies for the affordable care act (Obamacare). The longest government shutdown in history occurred between February 14th and April 30th this year where democrats refused to approve the budget due to its inclusion of continued funding of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Increasing frequency of government shutdowns illustrate how partisan conflict increasingly overrides the basic functioning of the state. Instead of acting as a mechanism of compromise political institutions increasingly become arenas of strategic obstruction, leading to declining confidence in the federal government.
Finally we come to the politicalisation of the judicial branch of the federal government. Appointments to the supreme courts have, by nature, always been politically charged as justices serve terms for life and are appointed by the president pending the approval of the congress. Because of the long term nature of an appointment to the supreme court political parties prefer it significantly if they can appoint a justice who has a history of ruling in favour of policies more closely aligned with their own policy. Justices are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law but the nature of the cases presented to them make most decisions automatically political. Merrick Garland’s nomination to the supreme court was blocked in 2016 by the Senate who wanted to wait to approve a judge nominated by Trump. A result of this is that the court has become increasingly political and continues to move away from its neutral stance. As judicial appointments become extensions of political conflict the Supreme Court risks being viewed as less independent than it should be.
Ultimately as a consequence of growing political polarisation the strength of American democracy has been called into question as the institutions designed to support the great American experiment bend and collapse under the pressures of modern political polarisation.
The world America has built
After the Second World War, the United States was instrumental in constructing institutions that embedded American power with a rules based world order. What became known as the Liberal World Order (LWO) was perhaps the greatest coup in American foreign policy of the 20th century. The US created financial, social and military systems in which it was the core element, securing its place as head of the LWO. This order reduced the likelihood of another global war between major powers as it became more beneficial to remain at peace, accelerated global trade integration and expanded liberal democratic influence. Whilst also entrenching American leadership and privileging the American economy over other states.
The Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 saw the formation of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These organisations made it so the US dollar would be the base of all other currencies and made the dollar the currency from which international trade stemmed, supporting American banks disproportionately. While it is true this system stabilised international trade and encouraged reconstruction in the post war era it also enormously increased the influence of Washington in the international monetary system. Even today 58% of global foreign exchange reserves are held in American dollars. In short, the Bretton Woods Conference institutionalised a global economic order with America at its centre.
The United Nations, a term first coined by US President Franklin D. Rosevelt, formed into a major international institution from which the winners of the Second World War could project their power under the guise of maintaining global peace. The permanent five members of the UN security council, United States, China, Russia, United Kingdom and France, hold the ability to veto any resolutions that are placed before the security council. A powerful mechanism used by all members to secure their own national interests under the legitimacy of a renowned international organisation. In its position in the security council the US is able to preserve its authority over the outcomes of the UN, using its veto most commonly in defence of Israel, demonstrating how the United States is able to single handedly steer the authority of the UN.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), was formed as a military alliance to protect western Europe from the perceived Soviet threat during the Cold War. Since then it has morphed into a mechanism of American dominance over Europe. While it is true in the past 10 years Europe has tried to move away from the US in terms of military dependency it remains highly reliant on the US and its military authority globally. As Europe remains dependent on the US for defence it strengthens the United States authority to dictate policy to Europe generally. NATO simultaneously functioned as a defensive alliance and as a mechanism through which American military influence became permanently embedded within the Western alliance system.
The post war LWO helped the US gain unprecedented economic integration, relative stability between world powers and the global spread of western liberal norms. Yet these institutions also embedded American strategic, military and monetary dominance within purpose built international institutions. Consequently support for the LWO is dependent on America’s perception on the world stage, something that has been somewhat strained in the past year and a half.
The new world order
With the rise of China and the decline in American legitimacy on the world stage the question remains, what remains of the international liberal order. There is no doubt that the unipolar moment of the early century has come to a close with the rise of a new world power, China. China offers competition in technology, trade and AI while also increasing its own rhetoric about the absorption of Taiwan. This rivalry is about competing visions of political and economic orders.
The rise of China has been compounded by the internal division present in America. Domestic instability undermines foreign policy consistencies with different administrations taking wildly different stances on major global issues. Since January 2025 questions have arisen about US commitment to its allies overseas with electoral driven foreign policy becoming prevalent.
What survives at 250?
250 years after July fourth 1776 the United States remains one of the most powerful states in human history. Its military reach spans the globe, its currency remains central to the global economy and institutions it helped to form after 1945 remain the centre of the modern global order. Yet beneath this extraordinary continuity lies a growing sense of political division and systematic exhaustion. The core challenge the United States faces is no longer survival against foreign advisories but rather the cohesion of the republic.
The problems that America faced at its founding remain unresolved, the tension between liberty and exclusion, democracy and federalism, representation and stability continues to define American political life. Institutions originally designed to develop compromise increasingly produce political paralysis under conditions of extreme polarisation. Compounding this is the declining trust in the electoral systems, judiciary and media has weakened confidence in the democracy process itself. In this sense the crisis facing the USA is not simply political but rather fundamentally institutional.
International the US remains deeply influential but is now contested by other rising powers. The liberal world order persists despite fractured American politics and a rising scepticism about American leadership on the world stage. As China continues to rise a more multipolar world emerges and the question remains how the US will handle this.
Predictions of American collapse have repeatedly been proved premature. The US has survived a civil war, several economic depressions and conflict on a scale previously unseen. What makes the present distinct is that many of the challenges now confronting the republic come from within the democratic system itself.
This is what survives at 250: not a certainty of the American experiment but the continued struggle over what it means, who it represents and how institutions remain capable of governing the world’s foremost democracy.
Photo via https://pixabay.com/photos/oklahoma-children-flags-for-children-109034/
