Donald Trump has won the election in the United States. He has claimed the states core topic of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina and 23 other territories, giving him enough votes to exceed the 270 votes he requires to win the electoral high school .

In his first post-election speech on Wednesday, November 6, Trump struck a conciliatory tone, calling for healing the wounds of division. However, the United States is a more divided nation today than perhaps at any time in its recent history, and those divisions are likely to intensify further over the next four years.

The process of political polarization in the United States is already well underway and has been accelerating for more than two decades. In a sense, it is not new. In fact, the two-party system in the United States, which strongly disfavors third party candidates, is inherently polarizing.

However, recent presidential elections, including these latest ones, have intensified that phenomenon to levels not seen in generations. It is worth stepping back from detailed electoral analysis to consider what the continuing process of polarization could mean for the future of American democracy.

Uncooperative bipartisanship
While normal in a two-party political system, the subject and intensity of political polarization we have seen since the controversial election between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 is virtually unprecedented in peacetime America.

On the one hand, we observe a sharp decline in bipartisan or cross-party cooperation at congress, as indicated by the results of the Lugar Center and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy' s Bipartisanship Indexes, which rates 2023 as one of the least bipartisan years at congress in the last 30 years.

But, more significantly, we have seen the rise of forms of political speech that not only pit competing policies against each other, but tend to undermine the legitimacy of the regime as a whole. For example, in recent years, we have heard a speech that calls into question the integrity of the U.S. electoral process or treats candidates from the "other side" not just as political adversaries, but as a fundamental threat to American democracy.

This subject of delegitimizing statements, which were certainly not typical in 20th century American presidential politics, are now becoming commonplace on both sides of the political divide between Republicans and Democrats.

The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 by Trump supporters unhappy with the election of Joe Biden, although obviously carried out by a small minority of citizens, has become a symbol of the crisis of legitimacy facing the U.S. regime.

A Reuters/Ipsossurvey conducted in May 2024 found that two-thirds of Americans believed this year's election could result in violence, while only 47% of Republicans said they were confident that the results of the November election would be "accurate and legitimate."

Meanwhile, the Harris campaign has gone to great lengths to portray Trump as a serious threat to American democracy.

A delegitimizing political rhetoric
Doubts about the integrity of the electoral process or the candidates' commitment to democratic values, especially as they resonate with a large issue of citizens, are deeply significant. They point to the consolidation of a new mode of delegitimizing political rhetoric and seem to presage a growing level of public disillusionment with the democratic process.

Legitimacy is not just about whether or not elections follow the proper procedure or whether or not candidates serve the common good; it is also about whether or not elections, laws, and policies are perceived by citizens as properly proceeding and aligned with their own basic rights and interests. Thus, citizens feel they must respect political outcomes they do not like out of respect for the democratic process. To the extent that citizens cease to believe in the legitimacy of the political regime, its ability to command their allegiance erodes and the end of the regime looms on the horizon.

No president, no matter how diplomatic or skillful, can reasonably expect to solve a problem of this magnitude with either a conciliatory speech or an executive order.

Of course, a constitutional order does not usually collapse in a single day, a year or a decade. It usually erodes gradually, and the plenary session of the Executive Council significance of the changes in question may not be widely understood until the process is already well underway.

I am not suggesting that the U.S. is on the verge of regime collapse. However, to a careful political observer, a shift in tone from Public discourse into a mode of delegitimizing rhetoric is alarming and could bode ill for the regime's long-term resilience.

This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original.