.
.
.
.
The Demon-crats are the most EVIL ILLEGAL organisation on planet earth, anti-Human, Satanic.
(vii) Minnesota, under the Clintons and the State Department, has also been flooded with Somalis since the 1990s. My hometown in the UK was also flooded with Somali refugees in the 1990s. It is a cold, cold state, up North, where black Africans fare less well. It is traditionally occupied by Nordic Scandinavian people, who have built the state into what it is today. I guess this is more Jewish social engineering.
We are not asking the American Empire to come back to Afghanistan, after the Demon-crats FIXED the 175,000 Taliban back into power in Kabul in 2021. Wasting $1-2 trillion of American taxpayer money doing absolutely NOTHING posing for the cameras, AND STEALING AFGHAN NATIONAL TREASURES (3).
Academic Analysis: Democratic Party and Political
Destabilization in America
This analysis, based on extensive research from U.S. universities and academic institutions, examines scholarly perspectives on
concerns about the Democratic Party's role in American political dynamics,
drawing from over 100 academic sources and peer-reviewed studies.
Graphs showing percent decline in U.S. democracy indices
from Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, and V-Dem over the last
decade.
Academic research reveals a complex and nuanced picture rather than evidence supporting the
theory that the Democratic Party represents a singularly "dangerous and
destabilizing" force. Instead, studies demonstrate that both major political parties contribute to
democratic challenges, with institutional erosion occurring through
bipartisan mechanisms rather than unilateral party actions.[1][2][3][4][5]
Political Polarization: A Bipartisan Challenge
Research from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of
Management reveals significant partisan
differences in how parties engage with scientific evidence. While
Democratic-controlled congressional committees cite scientific research 1.8
times more frequently than Republican counterparts, and left-leaning think
tanks cite science 5 times more than right-leaning ones, scholars note this
disparity reflects different approaches
to governance rather than institutional sabotage.[1]
Yale University political scientist Ian Shapiro argues that weak political parties themselves - not
any single party - drive polarization, with both Democrats and Republicans
becoming subject to "control by unrepresentative voters on their fringes
and those who fund them".[6]
Increasing ideological polarization between Democrats and
Republicans in the U.S. Congress from 1973 to 2012, based on Pew Research
Center data.
Elite Capture and Institutional Control
Cambridge University research on elite capture demonstrates
that powerful factions across the
political spectrum can hijack democratic processes. The phenomenon affects
both progressive and conservative movements, with scholars noting that
"any policy-making public institution can be targeted by elite
capture".[7]
Studies from Princeton and other institutions reveal that Democratic elites show higher trust in
scientific institutions (96% express complete or partial trust in
scientists versus 64% of Republican elites), but this creates its own
democratic tensions around technocratic governance.[1][8]
Identity Politics and Democratic Tensions
Stanford University and London School of Economics research
explores how identity politics creates
genuine tensions with universal democratic principles. However, scholars
argue these tensions stem from structural
injustices rather than inherent anti-democratic impulses. The structural
theory of obligation suggests that identity-based claims often signal "the
failure of the liberal state to provide for all citizens the type of equal
treatment that liberal democratic justice requires".[9][10]
Illustration of people actively protesting and engaging with
symbols of the Republican Party, reflecting political division and activism in
America.
Case Studies from Academic Literature
Case Study 1: Scientific Citation and Policy-Making
Institution: Northwestern University, James Madison University
Study: 25-year analysis of U.S.
policy documents (1995-2021)
Findings: Democratic committees and
left-leaning think tanks cite peer-reviewed science more frequently, but only 5-6% of cited papers overlap between
parties. This suggests parallel but
separate evidence bases rather than one party systematically undermining
institutions.[1]
Case Study 2: Democratic Backsliding Mechanisms
Institution: Brookings Institution, V-Dem Institute
Study: Cross-national analysis of
democratic erosion
Findings: U.S. democratic decline
occurs through two primary mechanisms:
strategic election manipulation and executive aggrandizement. Critically, Republican control of state government
"dramatically reduces states' democratic performance" more than
Democratic control.[3]
Case Study 3: Economic Inequality and Democracy
Institution: University of Chicago
Study: Large cross-national
statistical analysis
Findings: Economic inequality emerges as one of the strongest predictors of
democratic erosion, affecting both wealthy and longstanding democracies. This
suggests structural economic factors
rather than party ideology drive institutional instability.[5]
Voting booth with a saw blade poised to destabilize it,
symbolizing threats to American electoral democracy.
Progressive Politics and Academic Freedom
Research from multiple universities reveals that both progressive and conservative movements
challenge academic freedom, but through different mechanisms. Florida's
"Stop WOKE Act" represents conservative restrictions, while
progressive movements sometimes create pressure for ideological conformity.[11][12]
Harvard and other institutions document that social movements can both strengthen and
destabilize democratic norms. Black Lives Matter and other progressive
movements have enhanced democratic participation for marginalized groups while
sometimes employing "transgressive politics" that challenge
established norms.[13]
Comparative International Context
Carnegie Endowment research places U.S. democratic
challenges in global comparative
perspective. The analysis finds that while the U.S. shows signs of
democratic backsliding, the pattern follows international trends affecting democracies worldwide rather than
being uniquely attributable to American progressive politics.[4]
Scatter plot showing changes in democracy and
authoritarianism scores of countries from 2000 to 2016 according to V-Dem data.
Scholarly Consensus and Limitations
1. Bipartisan
Nature of Democratic Decline:
Multiple studies confirm that democratic erosion in the U.S. involves both
parties[2][3][8]
2. Structural
Causes: Economic inequality, weak
institutions, and polarization transcend party lines[5][14]
3. Elite
Capture Risks: All political movements face
risks of elite capture and institutional manipulation[7][15]
Scholars acknowledge several limitations in studying
partisan effects on democracy:
·
Difficulty isolating party-specific impacts from broader structural changes[3]
·
Selection bias in
measuring democratic norms and their erosion[16]
·
Temporal constraints in assessing long-term institutional effects[17]
Academic research from U.S. universities does not support
the theory that the Democratic Party represents a uniquely "dangerous and
destabilizing" force in American politics. Instead, scholarly evidence
points to:
1. Systemic
challenges affecting both major parties
2. Structural
economic and social factors driving
democratic stress
3. Bipartisan
contributions to polarization and
institutional strain
4. Complex
relationships between political movements and
democratic norms
While legitimate concerns exist about certain progressive
policies and approaches, the academic consensus indicates that democratic challenges in America stem from
broader systemic issues rather than the actions of any single political
party.[3][4][5][8]
The research suggests that strengthening American democracy
requires bipartisan commitment to
institutional norms and addressing underlying structural inequalities
rather than focusing exclusively on one party's alleged destabilizing effects.[4][18][8]
(DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH UNLESS YOU'VE GOT HICCUPS)
⁂CITATIONS:
1.
https://journalistsresource.org/home/study-reveals-stark-divide-in-how-democrats-and-republicans-cite-science/
2.
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/americas-polarization-and-challenges-confronting-russia
3.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/
4.
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/08/us-democratic-backsliding-in-comparative-perspective?lang=en
5.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/economic-inequality-leads-democratic-erosion-study-finds
6.
https://news.yale.edu/2020/11/17/polarization-us-politics-starts-weak-political-parties
7.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/what-about-elite-manipulation-in-deliberative-minipublics-examining-threats-and-resilience-in-the-ostbelgien-model/BE66BB7E5A57604FB569A7E5178C562B
8.
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/a60c0af3-4267-4c62-880f-bfbe3e157fa1/download
9.
https://academic.oup.com/jope/article/59/2/354/8043285
10.
https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/news/understanding-identity-politics-strategies-party-formation-and-growth
11.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-academic-freedom-challenges-are-dangerous-for-democracy/
12.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20531680251335650
13.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041322-025033
14.
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/democracys-deficits
15.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/olufemi-o-taiwo-identity-politics-and-elite-capture/
16.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9523060/
17.
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/226173/1/Full-text-article-Gerschewski-Erosion-or-decay.pdf
18.
https://ash.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Effective-Strategies-to-Resist-Democratic-Backsliding.pdf
19.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08883254231219754
20. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/
21.
https://tnsr.org/2021/07/the-political-effects-of-social-media-platforms-on-different-regime-types/
22. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en
23. https://news.yale.edu/2020/08/11/study-americans-prize-party-loyalty-over-democratic-principles
24. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10693971231202218
25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27216740
26. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00040-x
27.
https://trentoll.github.io/files/psrm_values_05.24.23.pdf
28. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/crisis-of-political-trust-global-trends-in-institutional-trust-from-1958-to-2019/7EF4EDA709F27C691380CFC1BCECF6B8
29. https://aissr.uva.nl/content/research-groups/challenges-to-democratic-representation/challenges-to-democratic-representation.html
30. https://www.bse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/1063.pdf
31.
https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.12516
32. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/bff45e65-3967-45e9-944b-84b28f83261a/download
33. https://essay.utwente.nl/fileshare/file/97503/Strunck_MA_BMS.pdf
34. https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/the_age_of_the_state_and_sociopolitical_destabilization-_preliminary_results_of_the_quantitative_ana/
35. https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2025/03/understanding-democratic-backsliding-insights-from-leading-researchers
36. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2644386
37.
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=usw
38. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3533&context=cmc_theses
39. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/affective-polarization-and-the-destabilization-of-core-political-values/D028AE0BF885F89C3358DE9A04C310F5
40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27240865
41.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42855707
42. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2025/02/democracy-in-crisis-trust-in-democratic-institutions-declining-around-the-world.page
43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2633291
44. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1694804/pdf
45. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mstephenson/files/stephenson_-_corruption_and_democratic_institutions.pdf
46. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods/article/affective-polarization-and-democratic-erosion-evidence-from-a-context-of-weak-partisanship/1A201F28144C92FAE2A7BADAAC05F07D
47. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pa.2933
48. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00208345251348731
49. https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/article/19/1/36/7933724
50. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/Users_Working_Paper_50.pdf
51.
https://federicorossi.site/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/project_muse_71205-2468469.pdf
52. https://democratic-erosion.org/2021/02/05/democratic-erosion-in-india-a-case-study/
53. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2091&context=egcenter-discussion-paper-series
54. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13691481241287184
55.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44955189
56. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12951
57.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aps.70007
58. https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/7375
59. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/democracys-near-misses/
60. https://ash.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Crowder-Meyer-et-al-People-or-Elite-Centered-Democracy.pdf
61.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/wokeness-awful-nationalism-far-worse
62. https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/74749/1/s12286-024-00623-w.pdf
63. https://www.royalgazette.com/bermuda-youth-connect/opinion/article/20250407/the-erosion-of-democratic-norms/
64. https://researchprofiles.herts.ac.uk/files/20207458/Democratic_Leadership_revised_final_Jan2019.pdf
65. https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2025/05/19/what-woke-who-knows
66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379425000770
67. https://www.lse.ac.uk/economics/Assets/Documents/personal-pages/tim-besley/working-papers/the-rise-of-identity-politics.pdf
68. https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/good-bad-and-future-political-parties-united-states
69. https://interactives.lowyinstitute.org/features/democratic-erosion/
70. https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/bbaef226cbc0370af0203b81d9caf02707ee46c684591102d52125703fa0437a/2655693/Political
Psychology - 2024 - Monzani - Political leaders identity leadership and civic
citizenship behavior.pdf
71.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/22/democrats-woke-language-blacklist-00519421
72.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/four-things-to-know-about-democratic-erosion/