By Lucy Kaplan PZ ’28

On a rare Claremont rainy day, I sat down with Shervin Malezkadeh, a visiting professor in political studies at Pitzer College, to discuss a similarly gloomy topic for many: The outcome of the 2024 presidential election. Donald Trump’s return to power sparked fear for the future of democracy within myself and loved ones. I found myself yearning for some words of wisdom, to hopefully guide me somewhere productive, away from downing in a fearful frenzy. Who else is there to turn to other than Professor Malezkadeh?

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The Outback: Were you surprised by the outcome of the election?

Shervin Malezkadeh: Yes and no. I was anticipating a very slim Harris-Walz win followed by three months of chaos and imitations of violence. But, the left didn’t mobilize as they did with Trump in 2016. That, of course, speaks to the legitimacy that comes with winning the popular vote, which is less of a shock. So, I thought Harris was going to win, but I’m not surprised that Trump won. I’m also not surprised that the GOP ended or abated all the claims of stolen elections. 

OB: What do you anticipate in the next few months?

SM: I anticipate the sort of three ring circus returning. Trump’s Cabinet picks are going to be the continuation of the subservience and acceptance of authoritarian dictates. His picks are not qualified to be in their positions, which demonstrates Trump’s will and power over his peers, the Senate, and the GOP caucus. 

For the next few months, at least, I don’t expect violence. There will be protests at the inauguration, but I’m not even sure if that’s from an oppositional point of view. The right way to go about this is more subterranean action: not violence, but mobilization away from Trump’s attention and ego. 

OB: Do you think the GOP won and the Democrats lost? Was there some flaw in the Democrats’ strategy?

SM: No, I don’t. this is classic Democratic infighting: circular firing squad and all that sort of stuff. Ultimately, there were fundamental headwinds. Pretty much every single incumbent party globally lost power or lost completely as a consequence of elections this year, and that has to be tied to the effects of the pandemic. Harris was facing an uphill climb.

Also, she’s African American. She’s South Asian. She’s a woman. Shockingly, those three have been very little talked about in the commentary. 

There is also this idea of wokism, that “Trump is for you and Harris is for they/them.” I think that’s a lot of bullshit to put on the campaign. What is the Democratic party going to do? It stands for something, and defending marginalized groups like queer and BIPOC communities is a part of that. That’s the art of politics. How do you signal to your supporters that this is what you stand for, but avoid alienating the rest of the population?

The dilemma the Democrats constantly face is that if you are a Democrat getting into politics, it’s probably because you like governance, and governance is not sexy. [It’s a] cliché that messaging is a major thing the Democrats need to work on, that they need to “get real,” and that they live in siloed information atmospheres. But how do you break through to someone who only watches News Nation or Fox? It remains a case that Democrats cannot win over the white vote in the way that they need to to persist as a dominant party. And I don’t know what needs to be done about that.

OB: Do you believe that the U.S. is as polarized as people claim?

SM: I don’t buy it. The polling shows that the Harris planning or policy positions match what voters want, and yet they don’t believe that Harris would succeed, or they give Trump a pass because of COVID, or they associate those policies with Trump. 

Sure, there are differences of opinion about what role the government should play in our domestic or private lives, but I think average Americans don’t mobilize in a dramatic fashion around these sort of hot button issues. I’m a huge contrarian on this. I just don’t think people put emotional and intellectual energy into tribalism.Ultimately, I don’t think we as a country are verging on a proper Civil War or the kind of domestic turmoil you see in other places.

OB: Do you think our democracy is at stake?

SM: One hundred percent. I’ve been thinking about this since 2016. It’s a basic feature of democracy that when you lose, you accept that loss. You don’t preempt the loss either. As we’ve seen with Trump, this becomes a kind of vicious cycle. That is the primary concern I have.

The secondary concern is that democracies fall because people enter into power through democratic means, and then they change the rules of the game to lock in power. They destroy democracy legally through a sort of lawfare. Efforts are being made to change the rules of the game; the kinds of norms or practices that are technically legal, but are clearly designed to lock in wins.

I use Mitch McConnell holding the Supreme Court seat open during the Obama administration as an example. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, so they didn’t let Obama nominate Merrick Garland in 2016. That had never happened before. McConnell’s excuse was, of course, that it was an election year. And then, in 2020, Amy Coney Barrett got through. I just understand why people even indulge these practices at this point. Their intentions are so naked.

But what do we do next? Do the Democrats play the game? Jon Stewart has this “showing up for a knife fight with a New Yorker tote bag” line — it’s classic. Do Democrats need to pick up a bigger knife, or even something worse? But then are you also participating in anti-democratic behavior? 

I don’t think democracy will collapse overnight or even with another Trump term. This country’s too big and too culturally rich. But once habits and routines and taboos are broken, it becomes very hard to restore those sorts of things. 

Suggested readings from Professor Malezkadeh:

Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times — Nancy Bermeo

How Democracies Die — Daniel Ziblatt & Steven Levitsky

Democracy in America — Alexis de Tocqueville

Kate Crehan — Gramsci’s Common Sense

Toads in the Garden (essay) — Stuart Hall