Professor Bob Cropf has spent three decades teaching political science at Saint Louis University. As he prepares for retirement, he’s shifting his focus toward political journalism, aiming to confront what he sees as the gravest threat to American democracy in generations. In a recent interview, Cropf offered a sobering but measured assessment of where the United States stands today: teetering on the edge of authoritarianism, with institutions weakened and political norms dangerously frayed.
“This is by far the most critical time in American democracy in my lifetime,” Cropf said. “And I say that as someone who remembers the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Reagan era—none of it comes close to what we’re seeing now.”
Cropf, like many scholars, traces the country’s democratic backsliding to decades before Donald Trump’s presidency. He points to a through-line stretching back to the Nixon administration, when “blatant disregard of democratic norms and the rule of law” first became a serious concern. But he also credits Nixon’s downfall to something that is sorely lacking today: institutional courage.
“In the 1970s, you had a Republican Party that was willing to stand up to Nixon,” Cropf said. “What we have now isn’t a genuine political party—it’s a cult of personality. And Congress, especially the GOP, has failed in its constitutional duty to check the executive.”
Where Senator Barry Goldwater once told Richard Nixon he no longer had the support to survive in office, today’s Republican leadership—figures like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy—wavered in the face of political pressure after January 6.
“This is by far the most critical time in American democracy in my lifetime.” – Professor Bob Cropf
“That was the moment,” Cropf said. “Had McConnell stood firm, had the GOP drawn a line, we might not be here.”
Instead, Cropf argues, the institutional vacuum left by a passive Congress has allowed executive overreach to become the “new normal,” with policy increasingly shaped by executive orders rather than legislation. That dynamic, he warns, turns every election into an all-or-nothing battle—a zero-sum game that erodes the foundation of pluralistic democracy.
“We’ve reached a point where elections are about who gets to wield unchecked power,” he said. “That’s not how the system was designed to work.”
This is the argument Cropf expands in his May 7 article in The Fulcrum, entitled “Trump’s First 100 Days on Trial.” In it, he details how the judiciary—rather than Congress—has emerged as the primary check on President Trump’s agenda during his second term. Within the first three months of the new administration, over 120 court rulings have paused or overturned Trump’s executive orders. These include controversial efforts to end birthright citizenship, reclassify civil servants as at-will employees, and defund diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
But while the courts have provided an essential bulwark against abuse, Cropf warns that the judiciary alone cannot preserve democratic norms. “If oversight becomes just the lonely burden of the judiciary,” he wrote, “the system begins to tilt—slowly, but decisively—toward executive dominance.”
That imbalance is compounded by the legislative branch’s increasing reliance on continuing resolutions (CRs) rather than full appropriations bills. Without detailed spending directives, the executive branch has more discretion to redirect funds—sometimes to programs that serve its ideological agenda, and sometimes away from those it seeks to dismantle. Cropf describes this pattern as a “contemptible abdication of responsibility.”
“When the Senate refuses to rein in the president’s actions on tariffs, despite bipartisan concern, the message is clear,” he said. “There will be no meaningful resistance from Capitol Hill.”
“If oversight becomes just the lonely burden of the judiciary, the system begins to tilt slowly, but decisively, toward executive dominance.” – Professor Bob Cropf
And yet, Cropf is not entirely without hope. He sees glimmers in the judiciary’s willingness to challenge executive overreach, in the resurgence of youth-led activism, and in the emerging leadership within the Democratic Party. But his optimism is tempered by hard-earned realism.
“I’m not like some of the scholars who’ve thrown up their hands and left the country,” he said. “But I do believe we’re in dangerous waters. There’s no clear path out, and a lot of damage has already been done.”
Asked what he sees as the most significant shift from Trump’s first term to his second, Cropf points to preparation and discipline. “In 2016, I don’t think he expected to win,” he said. “This time around, he’s prepared. He has Project 2025, a playbook for how to govern from day one. He’s surrounded himself with yes-men and women. And he’s learned how to use executive power much more strategically.”
What’s more concerning, Cropf adds, is that Trump is no longer acting in isolation. “He’s the figurehead of a much larger movement,” he said. “The Tea Party evolved into MAGA, and now that’s essentially the entire Republican Party.”
Still, Cropf sees Trump’s dominance as both a strength and a weakness for the right.
“There’s no one else who can pull the strings the way Trump does,” he noted. “And once he’s gone, I believe the coalition will fracture.”
But whether or not the country can rebuild its institutions in the aftermath is another question entirely. “The long-term damage is real,” Cropf said. “When you hollow out the civil service, undermine trust in the media, and politicize the judiciary, those things don’t just snap back overnight.”
To resist this erosion, Cropf believes, civil society must step up. “Civic journalism, community organizing, public education—these are democracy’s last line of defense,” he said. “Schools, especially, need to resist ideological control and teach civic responsibility.”
At the end of the conversation, Cropf offered five takeaways that summarize both his warnings and his hope:
- Executive overreach has become normalized.
- Institutional manipulation, not violence, is the road to authoritarianism.
- Voter cynicism accelerates democratic decay.
- Culture wars are a deliberate strategy to control institutions.
- Civil society and education are democracy’s final safeguard.
As he transitions into political journalism, Cropf hopes to use his voice to reinforce the democratic values he spent his career teaching.
“This isn’t just about Trump,” he said. “It’s about whether we believe that democracy is worth fighting for. And I do.”
There were comments removed…
Comment removed for not contributing meaningfully to the discussion. Please refer to our community guidelines on relevance and civility.
Please see new guidelines: https://davisvanguard.org/2025/05/vanguard-comment-policy-updated-2025/
Some of the points could have been made without the use of certain abbreviations…
For example here is an alternative framing that complies with the rules: “ Since Trump was elected, I’ve noticed a growing tendency for some to overreact to everything he says or does. I think it’s important to stay grounded and focus on facts rather than emotions when discussing his impact.”
Context specific, but in general would prefer comments not to call people fascist or natzis.
By the way, this exchange is exactly what I want to avoid instead of talking about the article and the ideas in the article. We’re arguing over the use of a word.