Rädda demokratin - från Trump? : En realtypsanalys av Agenda 47

The United States is an exceedingly divided country. Poling confirms that republicans and democrats alike value democracy, however they do not see eye to eye as to what threatens it. There is a great divide in the view of Donald Trump's policy, republicans view it with optimism, and democrats with worry. This fact is deeply problematic. For when people who value democracy fight amongst each other to safegaurd it, they miss its real threats. Hence, the policy becomes an attractive tool for autocratic forces to replicate. So how can opinions on policy from a democratic perspective be so polarized? Prior resarch concludes that Trump's policy is problematic in a democratic sense. However, thus far a populistic framework has mainly been utilized, which is problematic in comparison to an approch grounded in democratic theory. Theoretically, populism requires la volenté generale, the general will, and not democracy, which is a theoretical requirement in normative democratic theory. Thus, it is plausible that studies with a populistic framwork can miss aspects that, were it for an approach grounded in democratic theory, would have been found. With this in mind, this bachelor thesis employs ideological analysis to explore how Agenda 47 adheres to polyarchy and agonistic pluralism, viewed as normative democratic theories. The analysis demonstrates that Agenda 47 mainly adheres to both polyarchy and agonistic pluralism, in stark conrast to prior research. Even though the purpose of Agenda 47 suggests that it is more in line with democratic values than other policy, the contrast is so profound that it seems that the entire difference cannot be explained by that fact. Also, the results suggests that people who do not view Donald Trump's policy as a democratic threat may base their opinion upon Agenda 47 to a greater extent than those that hold an opposing view.