In November 2024, the American people made their choice. After years of investigations, impeachments, criminal convictions, controversies, and a first presidency that ended in chaos, they looked at Donald Trump and decided they wanted another four years.
That is democracy.
But democracy also carries another responsibility: the willingness to examine the consequences of their choices.
So, America, how is that turning out?
Were you hoping for a calmer nation? A more united people? A government focused on solving problems rather than settling scores? An administration committed to lowering the temperature instead of raising it?
Or have you watched, month after month, as political opponents are vilified, institutions are tested, allies are unsettled, and the public mood descends even further into bitterness?
Trump promised strength.
Has America become stronger?
He promised prosperity.
Are ordinary Americans genuinely better off, or are they simply being told they are?
He promised to put America first.
Yet America First has often looked remarkably like Trump First and America Alone, straining relationships with longstanding allies while embracing leaders whose commitment to democracy is, at best, questionable.
Perhaps you voted for him because you believed the swamp needs more draining.
Instead, Washington seems no less consumed by political warfare than it was before. If anything, the conflict has become the defining feature of American government.
Perhaps you admired his confidence.
Confidence can be admirable. But confidence without humility can become recklessness. Leadership is not measured by how loudly one proclaims greatness, but by whether people’s lives genuinely improve.
Perhaps you believed only Trump could restore respect for America.
Ask yourself honestly: has America’s standing in the world risen, or has it become increasingly unpredictable? Do allies feel reassured? Do adversaries feel deterred? Or does the world simply wait to see what tomorrow’s headline will bring?
Supporters will point to economic indicators, border policies, deregulation, and judicial appointments. Those achievements deserve to be debated fairly.
But democracy is about more than statistics.
It is about trust.
Trust in elections.
Trust in the courts.
Trust in the public service.
Trust that governments exist to serve the people rather than reward loyalty or punish dissent.
When those foundations begin to crack, every citizen – left, right, and centre – should become concerned.
History offers countless examples of democracies that did not collapse overnight. They weakened gradually as citizens accepted behaviour they once would have condemned because it came from “their side.”
Every generation believes democracy is permanent.
History says otherwise.
None of this means Trump supporters are foolish or malicious. Millions voted for him for reasons they considered entirely legitimate: frustration with inflation, immigration, economic insecurity, distrust of political elites, or disappointment with the alternatives.
Those concerns deserve respect.
But elections are not judged by campaign rallies.
They are judged by what follows.
Years from now, historians won’t ask how many red MAGA hats were sold, how many slogans were chanted, or how many social media posts went viral.
They will ask whether this period strengthened American democracy or weakened it.
Whether the presidency expanded opportunity or division.
Whether political victory became more important than constitutional restraint.
Whether truth became less important than loyalty.
The answers won’t come from political commentators.
They will come from history itself.
America has overcome civil war, depression, world wars, terrorism, and countless political crises because its institutions ultimately proved stronger than its personalities.
The question today is whether those institutions remain strong enough to withstand another era in which politics revolves around one man.
The world is watching.
But more importantly, so are future generations of Americans.
One day they will ask a simple question.
“You elected Donald Trump. How did that work out?”
History, not politics, will provide the answer.
See also:
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
A very good summary thanks.
Such considerations also apply here in Oz, as we know from our own electoral ups and downs.
History will likely not provide any set answer to these sketches. The USA, not one sixth of “America”, has such a poor, patchy, inflated, distorted record, it runs too strongly on self deception, denial and refusal, flabby vanity and so, a Trump was always likely. Delusion will thrive, excuses will manifest themselves, righteousness will again surge, so save confederate money, or buy Trump’s toy money…I have all the old USA government official publications, and, the lying vanity is there, ignoring fact, science, indigenous, slavery, honour and law. Perhaps history would laugh at itself, yet again.
@ Roswell: An excellent article!! Definitely a matter of ”Trump First and America Alone”. The parallels with the PHONeys ”Pawlein First and the workers can go to bggry” are too stark to overlook.
However, you are naughty ….. implying that the Thing has no clothes (Oops!! Apologies Hans Christian Anderson).
ALL of TACO Trumpery’s greatest achievements have generated personal wealth; all of the consequences of his ill-considered policies have diminished the lives of American citizens. Just a few examples with Canada et al;
1) The loss of first preference purchasing of aluminium for the automobile industry;
2) The lost access to Canadian fishing grounds in Canadian waters on both coasts and the lake system;
3) The exclusion of the USA from the Canada-European Trade Circle establishing fresh supply lines for raw and partially processed materials into Europe;
4) The movement of trading nations away from the Swift international financial transfer system that made the $US the international currency once handling over 90% of international transfers, to be replaced by the BRICS system that makes payments in the currency of purchaser countries currency;
5) Shutting US oil corporations out of first preference status for Canadian petroleum, so requiring not only spot market trading by US oil corporations but also re-jigging the West Coast oil refineries to handle the new oil supply.
@uncletimrob: Agreed.
@ Phil Pryor: The current USA (Undemocratic Sewer of Apartheid) situation demonstrates the fragility of democracy, just as the election of various Ancient Roman Emperors seems to be the latent model now.
Trump promised strength.
Weakness and tantrums.
Has America become stronger?
Much, much weaker.
He promised prosperity.
He’s followed through on that promise, the .1% are raking the cash in.
Are ordinary Americans genuinely better off, or are they simply being told they are?
Straight-faced lies, no sympathy and doesn’t give a shit except when he’s grifting them.
He promised to put America first.
Waayy down the list of what Donnie cares about.
Are there any positive economic indicators other than the stock market?
Trump, who appears to be heading up the peace process with Iran called the Iranian leaders scum and “vicious, violent people” and “sick people led by sick people.”
It sounds a bit like a Monty Python sketch with the expected response : I fart in your general direction you infidel dog
Can we go back to the good old days when international friction was addressed by United Nations’ skilled negotiators who didn’t see name calling as part of the Art of the Deal.
Thanks Roswell,
it’s a pertinent question, but surely if left on its own, paints only part of the picture.
Since the US system of voting is non-compulsory, to add to the picture should we not also ask, how did not voting Kamala Harris work out? For me as an outside observer, an even more important question was, how did voting Democrat or Republican in the Congress (house of reps + Senate) work out? And the most important question of all – how well is the US system of democracy serving the people?
In the ’24 presidential election US voters were faced with a terrible dilemma. Imo, the Biden government had been a bad government, it had been just more of the same – governing for the oligarchs, corporate USA and Israel – its foreign affairs record disastrous, its much vaunted ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ insufficient as it was gutted by their own. Yes, Trump, at the time, was going to be an even worse alternative. So, was there a third choice?
As an outside observer who felt that way about the Biden administration, the answer was to vote for Jill Stein. What I hadn’t considered at the time was what would a Jill Stein government be allowed to be like given a corporate-backing, AIPAC-supported Congress? Looking at it now, she’d have been a lame duck President throughout her entire Presidency. As if the likes of Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries would have worked with her – when her policies would have been to tax the corporate elite and end the support of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.
There is no use fixing the problematical choice of President unless US citizens have chosen a Congress that serves them.
At that point, my ignorance of how the US system with its primaries and the like work limits my ability to comment with any real credence. I’m still don’t understand why a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (Zohran Mamdani) needs to run as a Democrat nominee in order to win a mayoral race.
That I believe leads to the questioning of the system as a whole – is it truly working in the interests of the people?
For me, an imperative lesson for Australians is the disastrous consequences of perpetuating a duopoly in Australian politics. If the Coalition and Labor are working in the interests of others rather than the Australian public, as I believe they have, then they should be thrown out and never returned.
@ Thommo
I have to disagree with your belief that a political duopoly is a disaster here in Australia. This seems to imply that we can go down the same path as the USA.
Our system has many checks and balances that the US system does not – including that the president can make personal choices about the selection and employment of highly influential people – based purely on how alike their thinking is to his.
We only have to look at DOGE, RFK jnr, Gabbard, Bondi, Rubio …. and many others in almost every aspect of governance.
In addition he can make personal choices and decisions about where and how parts of the budget – like disaster aid – can be spent. This week he approved disaster aid to 6 red states and declined similar aid to 4 blue states.
While I agree that a duopoly may not be perfect, you have not outlined what an effective alternative might look like in Australia.
uncletimrob,
of course, you are free to disagree.
I would ask, do you feel well served by the duopoly when you consider 4 million Australians live in poverty? when one in three families have faced food insecurity in the past 12 months?
Has the duopoly served Australians well, if generations of Australians are faced with never owning their own home and rents rising above inflation?
Have we been served well by the duopoly when well over a hundred thousand Australians are homeless. When nothing more than circumstances leads to people sleeping rough in a wealthy nation, with little chance of altering those circumstances, has Australia been well-served?
Is turning opposition to a genocide into an act warranting being bashed, having limbs broken, having reputations and careers threatened serving Australians well?
When Australians can’t afford specialist medical treatment, our hospitals are substitutes for proper aged-care, the elderly are being charged for showers, children in child-care molested, domestic violence still rampant, our First Nations peoples incarcerated at world’s worst rates and their children still being removed from their families at disproportionate rates, have we been well served by the duopoly?
Are we being served well, when a single Australian nurse pays more in tax than that of a combination of several giant multinational companies raking in the order of a hundred billion in revenue?
How well is our environment, our record on tackling climate change doing under the duopoly?
Have we been well served in following the US into wars?
Had we been well served when the war with Iran, which the duopoly parties supported being a part of, exposed our lack of fuel security?
Have we been served well when our public school system is in crisis, when our universities are in crisis, when TAFE isn’t working as it should?
Do you see AUKUS as serving Australians well?
Have we been served well when we side with a rogue state in threatening our largest trading partner and the shipping lanes it depends on?
Have we been served well when don’t even know what Pine Gap is being used for, and whether US planes, using bases on Australian soil, are carrying nuclear weapons?
I think we need to be careful to avoid becoming smug about our own checks and balances. Wasn’t it duopoly parties that made the appointments to the NACC that seem to have failed? to the ABC board even though they’re supposed to go through an independent body? the RBA? the Anti-semitism envoy, the assessors of our universities for their actions on antisemitism, and the like in our schools? the Australian Review Tribunal?
Haven’t duopoly parties been guilty of pork barrelling in the lead up to elections (even if the Coalition turned it into an art form?)
My argument is, basically, if you keep returning bad governments, you’ll keep getting bad governance.
It is not for me to speak for all Australians in who they choose as alternatives. I believe that there are likely to be Independents in many electorates that offer a better alternative to the duopoly candidates, but that is for individuals to decide.
I argue that it would be in Australia’s interest to coalesce their votes in the Greens before any duopoly candidate. A community independent is a viable choice in any electorate where one exists. There are other minor parties (PHON is not one I would personally choose) people could chose.
A parliament full of community independents, as unlikely as it is to happen, would be better than either duopoly party in power.
Are you suggesting that in the vast majority of Australian electorates it is not possible to find a better candidate than offered by the duopoly parties?
Thommo
Well, if all our problems are due to a duopoly then, you must be pleased with the rise of One Nation and an expectation that Pauline and Barnaby are going to resolve the problems you highlight.
Looking at your complaints individually I don’t see that a duopoly is solely responsible or that inviting One Nation in will be in Australia’s interests.
Personally I have welcomed the advent of Independents like David Pocock and Andrew Wilkie in our parliament and I believe the Teals are introducing some good diversity and balance, but I have no faith whatsoever in Hanson and her flash-mob.
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal” – Emma Goldman
Trump has revealed that the law of unintended consequences is still highly applicable. He is turning out to be the ultimate green warrior. When I visit Bunnings or drive around the inner suburbs I see fewer and fewer large diesel utes with one guy in the cab and an empty tray. Who would have thought: Go Trump, Go Green.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated at one of his condolence speeches concerning the sudden death of Senator Lindsay Graham words to the effect that “…. the intention of the war against Iran is too return the freedom of navigation to the Strait of Hormuz…”
The freedom of navigation for the Strait of Hormuz existed prior to the war commencing in February 2026!! How can the American population not see that this illegal military aggression, that was prompted by Israel’s Netanyahu, caused the death and injury of thousands non-combative Iranians, the appalling assassination of the Ayatollah and his family and numerous Iranian apparatchiks, plus the major damage to the World’s economy and the enormous expenditure on US military hardware, was totally in vain. Totally in vain because Trump is intent on returning to the status of the Strait of Hormuz that existed before the war began!! So what will USA do about this? Nothing, I expect, because the media moguls are totally Trump compliant. What about the rest of the World? – nothing.
US news sources are reporting the apparent demise of Senator Mitch McConnell, but is he secretly on life support until August? If he dies before then there must be a by-election and Thomas Massie is well placed to enter the Senate and potentially provide the one vote that could see the end of Trump’s Presidency. Interesting times indeed.
Terry Mills,
to suggest that arguing that the Coalition and Labor have not served Australians well means I must be happy with the rise in popularity of One Nation is either extremely ignorant of Australian politics, or wilfully misleading.
That is just a cheap attempt at building a strawman argument. Opposing the Coalition and Labor does not mean “you must be pleased with the rise of One Nation..”
In fairness to you I need to state that I was still editing my post when you, unbeknown to me, posted yours; hence the addition of “(PHON is not one I would personally choose)” to my post that you might not have seen.
However, you should have seen “I argue that it would be in Australia’s interest to coalesce their votes in the Greens before any duopoly candidate” or an extremely close form of that.
The likelihood of someone advocating in favour of the Greens being happy with the rise of a party even further to the right of either the Coalition or Labor is tiny; certainly not a “must be happy with the rise of One Nation..”.
At the last federal election some Labor supporters were smearing anyone who was critical of Labor, by claiming that if you weren’t going to vote Labor, then you wanted a Dutton government – it appears you are trying similar shit on here, shame on you Terry.
You say: “Looking at your complaints individually I don’t see that a duopoly is solely responsible …”, what you characterize as “complaints” are facts. In doing so, you attempt to diminish their importance and relevance.
It is noted that you have chosen to add in the word ‘solely’ into that sentence. For what purpose?
When was the last time we had a government other than one formed from a Coalition party or the Labor party? a century or more? Any claim that responsibility for those things mentioned lies with some third party, whether it be in part or not, is an abrogation of the responsibility of Australian government.
Labor and the Coalition have been in power for the past 50 years and more, how is it not appropriate to hold them responsible for those ‘facts’ on the ground?
America like Oz and UK has a heaving mass of middle aged and older voters in regions who are targeted for being low info, monocultural and dominant demographically for now……
Like locally one’s concern is how educated middle class take heuristic short cuts to be misled on eg. clean energy and demography, made easier by lacking critical literacies, and avoiding expert analysis or being astroturfed, too easily.
Some American friends are similar relying on PR, old sentiments while following media that too often is astroturfed and promotes junk science, BS etc.
When asking about how critical thinking is deliveredin the, blank looks; similar locally?