All across the country the masses are awakening. With throngs of protesters recently crowding the streets all across America, and fissures showing in the Republican party’s growing resistance to tariffs, the tide appears to be turning. Yet the president’s fork in the road agenda has set America reeling and the way forward is far from certain.

Under Trump we’re seeing “the erosion of institutions,” Palomar sociology professor Susan Miller said. “We’re teetering on collapse.”

The tipping point might come if Trump defies the Supreme Court.

Peter Bowman, professor of political science at Palomar College, has been teaching for 29 years. His teaching of American government courses has led him to develop an expertise in American politics with respect to the Presidency, Congress and the Judiciary.

“Should the Supreme Court rule against the Trump administration … the executive branch could refuse to enforce the court ruling,” Bowman said. “We would have a full-blown constitutional crisis with no enforcement mechanism coming from the executive branch. That would effectively accelerate illiberalism into a more stark kind of autocracy.”

Turning to academia can provide guidance on how to save democracy at this critical juncture.

Philosophy and critical thinking

Jeffrey Epstein is a philosophy professor at Palomar College. He mentioned that democracy depends on citizens engaging in dialogue.

“At the heart of the democratic system is that the people are the ones who are actually engaged through public discourse, making many arguments that persuades people that there is a different path forward for achieving the best kind of society,” Epstein said.

Epstein indicated the value of engaging in philosophy to learn critical thinking and the art of persuasion. Indeed, he found learning these to be indispensable to fending off harm. He esteems the virtue of critical thinking for its capacity to raise awareness along with the power of persuasion to galvanize the masses into action.

“But persuasion is dangerous because there are really great people who can persuade you who don’t have the best intentions in mind,” Epstein said. “So, you can have demagogues and tyrants and corporations who have different agendas and louder megaphones. … People can do really bad things with persuasion.”

Persuasion learned through studying philosophy can assist with logical reasoning. But there is another dimension to philosophy. It can be seen in how philosophers examine the ends of our reasoning toward which the use of persuasion is but a means.

“We are engaged in a practice of pursuing not just victory and argumentation, but truth and justice and the best conditions to organize ourselves so that we can flourish and live well,” Epstein said.

Philosophy therefore requires that citizens not simply seek to win an argument but to think carefully about the big questions, such as: What is truth? and What is justice?

“We can then formulate our arguments around not defeating our foes or asserting our own wills in certain ways. But rather, that we’re working collectively towards greater understanding and the progress that’s required of any good democratic system,” Epstein said.

Since philosophy teaches us to better understand truth and justice, one application of it is the fostering of democratic peace, but for a democracy to operate it does have requirements.

“One of the requirements for democracy is that we’re able to persuade each other of our opinions regarding what’s best for the organization of the society,” Epstein said.

Cultural anthropology and tolerance

Understanding viewpoints different than one’s own is a skill that often allows for healthy and flourishing communities. One academic discipline that understands this is cultural anthropology.

The field of cultural anthropology seeks to prevent intolerance through its study of pluralistic societies, including democracies. While democracies comprise a cultural group, there still exists a broad divergence of individual opinion. Anthropology examines this wide array of opinion within democratic cultures by viewing them from the standpoint of a fundamental principle — the practice of cultural relativism.

Holding that no particular cultural system should predominate, the principle of cultural relativism scruples against viewing one culture as superior or inferior to another.

James Eighmey is a professor of anthropology at Palomar College, where he has continued to educate future anthropologists in the value of regarding cultural systems as worthy of equal consideration.

“Moreover, each one of those systems is worth understanding and respect and should be seen as part of the larger human spectrum,” Eighmey said.

In this way, anthropology encourages open dialogue within a population even when members disagree.

“You can see a direct analogy there to understanding a democratic system, which begins with interaction to come up with a mutual solution to a problem,” Eighmey said.

One way of coming up with solutions to problems is to delve into new ways of thinking and believing.

“In anthropological studies, students who study anthropology become exposed to different ways of thinking, different beliefs, and they become aware of the roots of those thinking beliefs, and therefore are less prone to misinterpret, mischaracterize,” Eighmey said.

According to Eighmey, students of anthropology learn how to obviate the ignorance that leads to conflict. Conflict usually originates in ignorance, and resolution originates in understanding, Eighmey said.

Anthropology is centered on the understanding of different cultures and ways of thinking. As Eighmey said, “In a country like ours, which is a polyglot of all these different cultures, it’s an extremely valuable way of thinking to realize how and why and to what people’s visions and understanding of the world differ from one another.”

Such an understanding of diversity can lead to broad tolerance. However, adhering to this ideal uncritically can lead to the annihilation of tolerance. “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance,” the 20th century psychologist Karl Popper said. “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant… then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

History-informed journalism and democracy

It appears there is a conflict between what to criticize and what to tolerate in the service of defending democracy. What is the answer? It may lie in learning the lessons of history and applying them to the pursuit of describing truth as it unfolds in the world around us — precisely the practice of history-informed journalism. Matthew Estes, Palomar history professor, offers lessons of history related to the idea of a republic.

“I go all the way back to Rome, which is the idea of that which is public, ‘res publica.’ And one of the things that is supposed to be public is the law. The law is supposed to be public so it cannot be manipulated by would-be dictators,” said Estes.

Estes believes that if journalists know history as well as the law that governs the republic, it will help them inform the questions they ask when looking at a would-be dictator’s behavior.

“When you bring that to people’s attention, I think that’s the one big check that the fourth estate has on any kind of government power that might run amok,” Estes said.

In Estes’s view, asking nuanced questions requires a person to be sufficiently versed in history to recognize precedent. Similarly, Palomar history professor Kristen Marjanovic describes how knowing historical precedent can help journalists ask the right questions.

“Historical knowledge … helps to inform journalists so they can ask the right questions and can flag government actions which appear counter to historical precedent,” Marjanovic said.

The need to examine political officeholders extends to the president.

“When presidents, specifically, and often through executive action, claim legal precedent, this can be called into question by an informed citizenry, and it is journalists who help connect citizens to their government with questions and investigations in pursuance of accountability and truth,” Marjanovic said.

A chief function of newspapers in holding government accountable to the truth resides with newspaper editors.

“Editorial boards have to have the spine to continue to allow reporters to publish stories that hold the government to account,” Political science professor Bowman said. “If they fear that the administration will investigate them or put lots of pressure on them, then it doesn’t matter how well trained the reporter is. If the publisher feels sufficiently cowed by a threatening authoritarian administration, then the reporters aren’t going to be able to report and publish stories and have stories go to print.”

One way for the multitudes suppressed by an authoritarian regime to retain their freedom is through journalists informed by history having the courage to speak out. This manner of informed and non-biased journalism is emphasized in the code of ethics for The Society of Professional Journalists.

“Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless,” according to the SPJ site.

The various mediums of academia provide a forum to give the voiceless a voice, and now is the time for those voices to be heard through the megaphone of journalism, for if journalists stay on the sidelines and do not seek to hold the a presidential administration accountable, the democratic republic of the United States may itself be lost beyond hope. More specifically in the present day does this truth apply if Trump proceeds to defy the courts.

“Frankly, I don’t know what could be done if the administration just decides they can do whatever they want and not enforce court orders,” Bowman said. “I’m very skeptical about the future of the Republic and I don’t know if we survive it.”