We have a guide for this. The CIA keeps it. Political scientists teach it. The World Bank funds studies on it. It is a checklist for identifying failing states. We use it to determine which nations are sliding into chaos, which regimes are losing their legitimacy, and which societies are no longer functional. We apply it to Venezuela, to Sudan, to Myanmar. We use it to justify sanctions, interventions, and humanitarian aid.
We never apply it to ourselves.
If we did, the diagnosis would be undeniable. The United States is not a developing democracy. It is not a nation weathering a rough patch. By the very metrics we use to judge the rest of the world, the American republic is a failing state.
Consider the indicators of political instability. A stable nation has a peaceful transfer of power. In 2021, the United States watched an armed mob storm its Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free election. The defeated president orchestrated the scheme. In a functioning democracy, this would have been a fatal blow to the political career of the instigator. In the American republic, that leader is the nominee for a major party, and a significant portion of the population believes the election was stolen. The machinery of democracy did not hold. It bent until it snapped.
Consider the rule of law. A failing state is characterized by a judiciary that is politicized, corrupt, or both. The Supreme Court, once the gold standard of jurisprudence, now faces a crisis of legitimacy. Justices accept “gratuities” from billionaire benefactors while ruling on cases that affect those benefactors’ interests. They strip away established rights, such as the federal protection for abortion, ignoring the will of the majority. When the highest court in the land operates with the transparency of a star chamber and the partisanship of a caucus, the social contract is broken. The law is no longer a neutral arbiter. It is a weapon of the ruling faction.
Consider the security apparatus. In failing states, security forces operate with impunity, often acting as a paramilitary arm of the ruling regime. In the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operates as a shadow police force. They detain citizens and non-citizens alike in squalid facilities. But the failure goes beyond detention. People die in ICE custody from preventable causes, from medical neglect, from suicide. They are killed on American soil. The agency operates with a lack of transparency that mirrors the secret police of authoritarian regimes, targeting specific populations while the courts look the other way. When the state’s enforcement arm can detain and kill without consequence, the republic has lost its moral standing.
Consider the status of human rights. In failing states, minorities are scapegoated. Their rights are rolled back. Their existence is criminalized. In the United States, LGBTQ+ citizens face a legislative assault unprecedented in modern history. Transgender youth are denied care. Drag performances are banned. Books are pulled from shelves. The state is actively working to erase a segment of the population from public life. This is not a culture war. It is a campaign of legal erasure.
Consider the economy. A failing state is an oligarchy. The wealth gap in the United States rivals the Gilded Age. The top 1% own more wealth than the entire middle class. Wages have been stagnant for decades, while corporate profits soar. The social safety net is shredded. Food benefits are cut while billionaires pay lower effective tax rates than their secretaries. The population is not just poor. It is desperate. In a grim echo of the 19th century, states like Arkansas and Iowa have rolled back child labor laws to feed the machine. Children are now working in meatpacking plants and construction sites. A nation that cannibalizes its youth to prop up its labor market is not a developed economy. It is a desperate one.
Consider the violence. A failed state cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. In America, the state has lost its monopoly on violence. Mass shootings are a daily occurrence. Children practice “active shooter drills” as a routine part of their education. But the violence is not random. It is structural. Armed militias patrol the southern border, hunting migrants with the tacit approval of local authorities. Political violence is no longer a fringe element. It is a normalized part of the discourse. The gun homicide rate is 26 times higher than that of other high-income nations. When a nation cannot protect its children in their classrooms or its migrants in the desert, it has ceased to perform the most basic function of government.
Consider the public health. The defining statistic of a nation’s well-being is the life expectancy of its citizens. In the United States, life expectancy is falling. Not because of a war or a famine, but because of despair and a predatory healthcare system. The maternal mortality rate is the highest in the developed world, and it is rising, with Black women dying at rates comparable to nations in the Global South. Citizens avoid calling ambulances because the cost of the ride could bankrupt them. A country where the population is getting sicker, dying younger, and going broke to pay for the privilege of staying alive is not a healthy society. It is a humanitarian crisis zone.
Consider the reality gap. The final indicator of a failed state is the collapse of a shared reality. A functioning society relies on a basic consensus of facts. In the U.S., a massive segment of the population lives in an alternate information ecosystem. They believe the election was stolen, that vaccines are microchips, that weather is controlled by space lasers. This is not political disagreement. It is a psychotic break. The state has lost the ability to maintain a coherent narrative of reality.
The West loves to point fingers. We lecture the Global South on democracy. We lecture the East on human rights. We lecture the developing world on corruption. But the metrics are in. The data is clear. The patient is not healthy. The patient is in critical condition.
The United States has the symptoms of a nation in decline. A delegitimized election. An armed insurgency. A breakdown of public health. A judiciary captured by ideology. A population crushed by debt and despair. The only thing that separates us from the “failed states” we pity is the speed of the decline and the wealth that masks the rot.
We look at this country with a blind spot the size of a continent. We tell ourselves it cannot happen here. We tell ourselves we are the exception. But history does not care about American exceptionalism. It cares about metrics. And the metrics say the republic is failing.
The question is not whether the United States is a failing state. The question is whether we have the will to save it, or if we are simply watching the slow, bloody collapse of a superpower that over-believed its own hype.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“the American republic is a failing state.”
If we are a failing state then I hate to think where all the other countries in the world are headed.
Many of them are in better shape than we are with respect to freedom, equality, and democracy. Good example of a ranking system here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Ranking
Even if we were to accept this cherrypicked liberal based ranking system the United States still is ranked 16th in the world out of 195 Nations. That doesn’t even account that we are the richest and strongest nation both economically and militarily. If that is failing then I feel sorry for the rest of the world.
What do you mean by liberal based ranking?
AI Overview
The Democracy Ranking, formerly compiled by an Austria-based organization, uses a broad definition of democracy that links political systems with socioeconomic performance (gender, economy, health, environment). While designed as a non-partisan index, its focus on liberal democratic values and social performance metrics can lead to criticisms of liberal bias, similar to other global democracy indices, which often depend on subjective expert assessments.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+2
Broad Definition of Quality: The index did not just measure electoral freedom but integrated performance in areas such as gender equality, environmental health, and economic development, which often aligns with a liberal, progressive, or social-democratic framework.
Subjectivity Concerns: Like most democracy measures (e.g., Freedom House, V-Dem), the index relies on expert opinions, which can introduce subjectivity, and potentially ideological or political bias.
Systemic Bias Arguments: Some critics argue that Western-produced rankings reflect an underlying ideological bias that favors liberal democratic systems, sometimes disregarding alternative models of governance.
Contextual Focus: While focusing on “liberal democracies,” the Democracy Ranking aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of how democratic institutions function and perform, rather than just their formal structure.
Our World in Data
Our World in Data
+4
The credibility of global democracy indices is frequently debated, with accusations that they may reflect the biases of their creators rather than objective reality, particularly when comparing Western nations with developing countries.
Not particularly helpful. So let me ask you this: are indices such as income inequality, life expectancy, and poverty rate helpful or not helpful? What would be your metrics if you were designing your own indices?
#1 in school children murder! 💫
Wondering how the author would explain Donald Trump’s second win. Did that not reflect the will of the majority?
Also, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be deciding cases based on the “will of the majority” (referring to your example regarding abortion). That’s the job of Congress – to make laws – the court just interprets them.
The fact that Congress often doesn’t reflect the “will of the majority” – that’s where the problem lies. (On a related note, this is also why Davis implemented Measure J – officials who don’t represent the majority resulting in removal of their authority. It’s also the reason that Proposition 13 was enacted.)
There is no federal law guaranteeing the right to abortion. From what I can tell, the court made the “correct” decision (based on law) in overturning Roe v. Wade. (Again, not reflective of majority view or my view, however.)
If justices start implementing the “will of the majority” (despite what the law says, or in absence of a law), they’d be correctly accused of being activist judges.
“The fact that Congress often doesn’t reflect the “will of the majority” – that’s where the problem lies.”
For example, over 80% of the country want the Save Act.