---

Americans are worried about democracy—and frustrated with it. In a recent poll, over three-quarters of Americans said democracy is under serious threat, and roughly two-thirds expressed dissatisfaction with political leadership across the board. In times like these, “defending democracy” isn’t enough, as those concerned about democracy risk defending the status quo in the face of widespread dissatisfaction.

This is not just a challenge in the United States. In a recent global survey, 58% of adults in 23 countries in Europe, North America, Asia, and Latin America said they were dissatisfied with their democracy. Populists advancing visions for “illiberal democracy” have won elections around the world, alongside global efforts to undermine trust in democracy by Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Despite some bright spots in the “super year of elections,” 2024 was judged to be the 19th year of declining democratic freedom.

Americans can learn from others who have faced challenges to their democracies—in Taiwan, Poland, the Philippines, Venezuela and many other countries. They remind us that better messaging won’t be enough. They highlight the need for building a positive vision to mobilize broad coalitions and connecting the dots of the global authoritarian playbook at work.

The Answer isn’t Better Messaging

The answer to the authoritarian challenge isn’t just better, less “wonky” messaging to explain the facts. Maria Ressa, Peter Pomerantsev, and many others working on media and information manipulation around the world have shown from hard-fought experience that facts and reason fall flat when facing the digital outrage machine.

In the 2010s, many initially believed that new technologies would be a source of liberation and that, because of the de-centralized nature of social media, the truth would prevail with the rise of armies of fact checkers against false information. Regrettably, research has shown that, while valuable in the short term, providing the facts isn’t sufficient. Research on cognition and communication shows that people seek information that confirms the frames of reference with which they make sense of the world. When confronted with contradictory facts, people discard the facts, not their frames.

An effective response requires crafting alternative narratives that can combat both the supply of and demand for false information, especially as the challenge keeps evolving. New forms of information operations tested in conflicts like Ukraine are not even trying to go viral—long the goal of digital campaigns—but are simply putting material online to feed AI algorithms. The search for trusted voices has led to efforts in Taiwan and other places to enlist social media influencers who can reach new communities, highlighting opportunities but also potential risks.

Building A Positive Vision to Mobilize Broad Coalitions

Meeting the authoritarian challenge requires not just defending democracy but building a positive vision for change to counter authoritarian narratives and address dissatisfaction. As Masha Gessen observed, writing about the work of Russian activist Alexei Navalny, “the core of Putinism is the belief that the world is rotten, everything is for sale, and anyone who says otherwise is lying, probably because they are being paid to do so.”

A vision seeking to persuade the general public on the theory that persuasion leads to votes leads to democracy isn’t fit for purpose. Research on the media and political campaigns shows how hard it is today to reach and engage audiences in a fragmented information world. Mobilizing coalitions around a positive vision has been the key to electoral victories against democratic backsliding in Brazil, Poland, and Honduras. These “big tent” coalitions united groups who differed on many issues but worked toward the goal of defeating authoritarians by forming a pragmatic consensus for action, not a thick consensus around detailed policy positions. In Brazil, for example, Lula chose as his running mate a leader whom he had run against and defeated in the 2006 presidential election.

Effective coalitions focus not only on winning hearts and minds but also on creating platforms to engage lawmakers and community leaders. Even when you reach people, they do not want to be talked at, but to have a voice and to be part of something. At the US Global Leadership Coalition, where I served as policy director for over a decade, one element of our strategy was to recruit retired three- and four-star generals and admirals as advocates for diplomacy and development. To be sure, they had a wide range of views on global security challenges, but they agreed that these challenges do not have military solutions alone, and that effective diplomacy and development can prevent conflict and make the United States more secure and more prosperous. In today’s challenging environment, USGLC continues to host events in targeted (often so-called “purple”) states, where retired flag and general officers join elected officials and other community leaders in a conversation with local audiences on America’s role in the world.

Recent developments also show that winning elections isn’t enough, especially when authoritarians remain in positions of power after the election and committed to defending themselves. In Poland, the centrist coalition that organized in opposition to the authoritarian leaning Law and Justice Party won parliamentary elections in 2023, but struggled to govern amid a legal system still populated by justices from the past government and vetoes blocking reform by the Polish president allied with them. In 2025, the coalition’s candidate for president narrowly lost the election to a candidate backed by the Law and Justice Party, setting the stage for continued battle over democratic reform.

Recognize the Global Playbook

It is all too easy to feel overwhelmed by rapid fire developments that “flood the zone,” but recognizing how events fit into broader patterns helps connect the dots. Attacks on the media, universities, and law firms, and cuts to foreign assistance and public media are not disparate, but inter-related challenges to democracy.

Identifying the global authoritarian playbook—whereby elected leaders centralize power by undermining democratic institutions, developed first in Russia, Venezuela, and Hungary, and deployed around the world in Brazil, Poland, El Salvador, the Philippines, India, Turkey—is not a matter of not liking the results of elections. Rather, it helps to clarify the challenge from efforts to undermine checks and balances that protect citizens from arbitrary rule, or, as America’s Founders put it, from tyranny. It informs a positive vision for change. Otherwise, the field is left open to blitzkrieg authoritarian efforts trying to create a sense of inevitability and demoralize citizens.

Part of the risk of American exceptionalism is thinking democracy in the United States is not vulnerable to the same headwinds other democracies have faced. We want to believe “it can’t happen here.” There is much to learn from elevating the voices of people around the world who have dealt with challenges like those we are facing today. Learning from others reminds Americans we are not alone. It sharpens our focus and creates a sense of urgency, because what we've seen in other places absolutely can—and likely will—happen here.

John K. Glenn has over 20 years of experience in the nonprofit, foundation, and academic sectors. He served until recently as senior director of the International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy. For his work at NED, he was sanctioned by the Russian Foreign Ministry and banned from travel to the country. He previously served as policy director at the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, director of foreign policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and executive director of the Council for European Studies. He currently serves as adjunct faculty at the Elliott School for International Affairs at The George Washington University.

This article was originally published on Democracy Without Expectation.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.