Muslim World Report

Trump's Approval Rating at 47% Raises Concerns for Democracy

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 19, 2025 11:01 AM | 12 min read | 2346 words

TL;DR: Former President Donald Trump’s approval rating remains at 47%, raising concerns about the health of American democracy. This persistent figure indicates widespread disengagement among the populace and poses risks for both domestic policies and international relations. The potential for shifts in political alignment, misinformation, and engagement strategies are critical as stakeholders navigate this complex landscape.

The American Political Landscape: A Troubling Approval Rating

Former President Donald Trump’s approval rating remains stubbornly fixed at 47%, a statistic that serves as both a barometer of public sentiment and a stark reflection of the troubling realities within the American political landscape. While some interpret this figure as a testament to Trump’s enduring support, it raises critical questions about the health of democracy itself in the United States and the implications that extend far beyond its borders.

Consider this: during the Watergate scandal, President Nixon’s approval ratings plunged, ultimately leading to his resignation amidst widespread calls for accountability (Lipset, 1977). In stark contrast, Trump’s approval rating has held steady despite numerous controversies, suggesting a troubling normalization of partisan loyalty over democratic principles. This persistent rating, despite slight fluctuations, ignites fierce debate among citizens, political analysts, and international observers alike. It underscores not only a troubling level of ignorance among the electorate but also reflects a broader disengagement from crucial political discourse (Newman et al., 2020; Druckman et al., 2020). Are we witnessing a shift where loyalty to a leader overshadows the essential tenets of democratic engagement?

Alarming Implications of a 47% Approval Rating

The implications of a 47% approval rating are alarming. It suggests that a significant segment of the American populace is either indifferent or resistant to recognizing the hazards posed by Trump’s policies. These policies range from:

  • Regressive immigration practices
  • Disregard for climate change
  • Neglect of public health

For instance, Trump’s push to revive coal as a primary energy source exemplifies this denial of environmental realities, jeopardizing not only the future of America’s ecological landscape but also undermining the United States’ position as a potential global leader in environmental policy (Ilhan et al., 2020; Heiskanen, 2017). This approach can be likened to a captain steering a ship toward an iceberg, oblivious to the impending disaster; such archaic policies hint at a populace that is either disillusioned or disengaged, leaving the door ajar for the continuation of divisive and damaging governance.

Moreover, the ramifications of Trump’s approval rating ripple across borders. In Canada, the conservative political landscape is beginning to feel the aftershocks of aligning with Trump-like rhetoric. This fallout suggests a political shift that could:

  • Embolden right-wing factions
  • Alienate progressive constituents (Bennett & Livingston, 2018)

If nearly half of Americans can overlook the complexities and consequences of Trump’s actions, what does this indicate about political engagement and the future of democratic governance? Just as the butterfly effect suggests that small changes can have large consequences, the complacency of a significant portion of the electorate may reverberate through international politics for years to come.

What If Trump’s Approval Rating Increases?

Should Trump’s approval rating rise above its current 47%, the implications would be profound, both domestically and internationally. An increase in support could:

  • Embolden Trump and his allies to pursue more aggressive and polarizing policies, destabilizing an already fractious political environment. This scenario is reminiscent of how German Chancellor Adolf Hitler used rising popularity in the 1930s to dismantle democratic institutions and establish a totalitarian regime.
  • Lead to calls for expanded executive powers, threatening the delicate balance of checks and balances underpinning American democracy (Gamble, 2018; Layton et al., 2021). The implications of such a shift could be likened to a ship navigating a storm; once the captain begins to disregard the crew’s consensus, the vessel risks capsizing.

With the potential for a centralized, authoritarian governance model, the populist narrative could further entrench itself, appealing to a base characterized by troubling disengagement from critical political engagement.

Internationally, a surge in Trump’s approval rating could embolden authoritarian regimes and populist movements worldwide, resulting in a global wave of right-wing politics. Countries that have historically relied on U.S. leadership in matters of economic, environmental, or diplomatic significance may find themselves reconsidering their alliances, leading to a fragmented international community (Goldsmith et al., 2021). The potential withdrawal from global climate initiatives and a retreat from multilateral cooperation would be detrimental, not only to U.S. standing but to global progress on critical issues (Schernhammer et al., 2021). Imagine the domino effect: as the U.S. retreats, nations facing their own internal upheavals might feel less inclined to collaborate on pressing international issues, further undermining global stability.

Additionally, Trump’s rising popularity could perpetuate a culture of misinformation and political apathy within American society. As more citizens rally behind his rhetoric, dissenting voices may be marginalized, further eroding constructive political discourse (Bennett & Livingston, 2018; Flesher Fominaya, 2022). This could lead to a disengagement from democratic processes, with citizens feeling their votes are inconsequential in the face of overwhelming support for a divisive figure. In a nation where many voters remain trapped within ideological bubbles, the challenge of confronting misinformation becomes increasingly dire (Kennedy et al., 2017). Could we be witnessing a crucial moment in history where the very fabric of democracy is at stake, urging us to question the narratives we embrace and the truths we choose to ignore?

What If Trump’s Approval Rating Declines Further?

Conversely, a substantial decline in Trump’s approval rating could yield significant consequences akin to a tectonic shift in the political landscape. Just as the fall of Richard Nixon in 1974 after the Watergate scandal prompted a fundamental realignment in American politics, a drop in Trump’s approval might signal to conservative leaders and party members that their alignment with him could jeopardize their political futures, catalyzing a fracturing of the Republican Party (Gamble, 2018). This scenario could prompt moderates to distance themselves from the hardline approaches favored by more extreme factions, potentially leading to a shift toward a more centrist political approach as party members scramble to reclaim their identity in the wake of Trump’s divisive policies (Galvin, 2020).

An erosion of Trump’s approval could also galvanize his opponents, leading to more unified efforts within the Democratic Party and among progressive movements. With a weakened adversary, Democrats might capitalize on this momentum, seizing the opportunity to reclaim the presidency and reshape legislative priorities that align with forward-thinking policies on:

  • Climate change
  • Healthcare
  • Social justice

Statistics show that political engagement often surges in response to perceived threats; a decline in approval could energize grassroots movements, fostering increased voter turnout and greater political engagement, particularly among younger generations who are acutely aware of the existential threats posed by current trajectories (Abăseacă & Pleyers, 2019). After all, in the 2018 midterms, young voters turned out at the highest rate in decades, reflecting an urgent response to the political status quo.

On the global stage, a significant decline in Trump’s standing could lead to a recalibration of U.S. foreign relations. Allies who have struggled to navigate the unpredictability of Trump’s policies may find renewed hope in a more traditional and diplomatic American leadership. Countries weary of belligerent foreign policy and erratic decision-making may seek stronger alliances with more stable partners, leading to shifts in geopolitical dynamics (Levitsky & Way, 2002). Just as the aftermath of the Cold War saw a reevaluation of alliances and foreign policy, re-engagement with international institutions could facilitate renewed discussions on pressing issues like climate change, human rights, and international trade—areas that have suffered under Trump’s administration.

Strategic Maneuvers for Stakeholders

In this precarious political environment, various stakeholders—political leaders, grassroots organizers, and citizens—must adopt strategic maneuvers to navigate the complexities surrounding Trump’s approval rating. Much like chess players anticipating their opponent’s moves, these stakeholders must think several steps ahead. Historical examples abound, such as the strategic pivots made by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression when he adapted his messaging and policies to maintain public support and counter opposition (Smith, 2020). Similarly, today’s stakeholders must remain agile and responsive, using data and public sentiment to shape their approach effectively. How can they anticipate the shifts in the political landscape, and what lessons from the past can inform their strategies now?

For Political Leaders

  • Reevaluate alignment with Trump: Moderates should seek to reclaim the party’s identity by advocating for policies that reflect traditional values while disentangling from extremes. Just as the Republican Party navigated its identity through the tumultuous waters of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, today’s leaders have the opportunity to champion dialogue on climate action, economic equity, and immigration reform that resonates with an informed electorate. This reorientation not only honors the party’s historical commitment to core principles but also positions it to address contemporary challenges.

  • Prioritize rational discourse: By fostering constructive dialogue over divisive rhetoric, leaders may attract a broader base, including independents and disillusioned Democrats who seek substantive change. Consider the way in which the debates during the Lincoln-Douglas contests were marked by a focus on reasoned argument rather than personal attack—such a commitment to rational discourse could illuminate paths forward and draw in those who have felt alienated by today’s political climate. How can leaders cultivate a space that encourages diverse perspectives while remaining united in purpose?

For the Democratic Party

  • Capitalize on waning support for Trump: Engage citizens on key issues that resonate deeply with them, from healthcare to education. Just as the Democratic Party rallied support in the wake of George W. Bush’s presidency, when discontent over the Iraq War and economic downturn fueled a grassroots movement, now is a pivotal moment to harness similar sentiments against the backdrop of Trump’s declining favorability ratings.
  • Mobilize grassroots organizing: Focus on direct communication with communities, particularly marginalized groups that historically participate less in elections. Genuine connections and addressing issues affecting daily lives can generate urgency for political engagement (Schaffer & Song, 2007). Consider this: if every unregistered voter in a community that faces systemic inequities were to cast a ballot, the impact could be transformative, much like the seismic shift witnessed during the Obama campaign’s ground game in 2008, which effectively turned out millions who had previously felt unheard.

For Citizens

  • Take an active role: Challenge misinformation and engage in community discussions that promote democratic values and accountability. Just as the town criers of the past served as vital sources of information and community engagement, today’s citizens must raise their voices against falsehoods and strive to keep their communities informed and vigilant.
  • Participate in voter education initiatives: Town hall meetings and effective use of social media platforms can empower individuals to participate in elections and hold their representatives accountable (Bennett & Livingston, 2018; Cho et al., 2013). In fact, studies show that informed voters are 30% more likely to turnout at the polls, underscoring the importance of initiatives that foster education and discourse in the electorate. How can we ensure that every citizen has access to the information they need to make informed decisions?

For International Communities

  • Strengthen regional partnerships: Nations that have relied on U.S. leadership must remain vigilant and adaptive, seeking alternative avenues for collaboration that do not rely solely on American approval. This is particularly important in areas like climate action and human rights, where U.S. policy may diverge from global needs.

Consider the aftermath of World War II, when Europe was devastated, and countries had to band together to form the European Community, which eventually evolved into the European Union. This regional partnership not only rebuilt war-torn nations but also created a platform for collective action that transcended national interests. Similarly, current nations should leverage local alliances and regional agreements to tackle global issues effectively, ensuring they are not held hostage by shifting U.S. policies.

Trump’s approval rating serves as a potent indicator of the state of democracy, not only in the United States but across the globe. The choices made by political leaders, citizens, and international actors in response to this precarious situation will shape the future of democratic governance and collective action for years to come. What legacy will current leaders leave behind if they neglect the importance of collaboration and adaptability in an increasingly multipolar world?

References

Abăseacă, R., & Pleyers, G. (2019). The reconfiguration of social movements in post-2011 Romania. Social Movement Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1555030

Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317

Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608

Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2020). How affective polarization shapes Americans’ political beliefs: A study of response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Experimental Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2020.28

Galvin, D. (2020). Party domination and base mobilization: Donald Trump and Republican party building in a polarized era. The Forum. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2020-2003

Gamble, A. (2018). Taking back control: The political implications of Brexit. Journal of European Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1467952

Goldsmith, B. E., Horiuchi, Y., & Matush, K. (2021). Does public diplomacy sway foreign public opinion? Identifying the effect of high-level visits. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000393

Heiskanen, B. (2017). Meme-ing electoral participation. European Journal of American Studies. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.12158

Ilhan, E., Sautner, Z., & Vilkov, G. (2020). Carbon tail risk. Review of Financial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa071

Kennedy, C., Blumenthal, M., Clement, S. A., Clinton, J. D., Durand, C., Franklin, C., McGeeney, K., Miringoff, L., Olson, K., Rivers, D., Saad, L., Witt, G., Wlezien, C., & Durand, C. (2017). An evaluation of the 2016 election polls in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx047

Layton, M. L., Smith, A. E., Moseley, M. W., & Cohen, M. (2021). Demographic polarization and the rise of the far right: Brazil’s 2018 presidential election. Research & Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168021990204

Newman, N., Levy, D. A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2015). Reuters Institute digital news report 2015. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2619576

Schernhammer, E., Weitzer, J., Laubichler, M. D., Birmann, B. M., Bertau, M., Zenk, L., Caniglia, G., Jäger, C. C., Steiner, G., & Vallières, F. (2021). Correlates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Austria: Trust and the government. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab122

← Prev Next →