For eight years was Barack Obama's presidency something extraordinary. Building off of the work done forty years prior, the election of president Obama was the election of the first ever African American president ever, symbolizing the profound changes happening in American politics. With the Affordable Care Act, the repealing of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the death of bin Laden, the withdrawing of all troops from Iraq, nuclear arms treaties in first term, he was already off to a great start. And in his second term, with his public support of gay marriage, the Climate Action Plan, his work to the Paris Agreement and more, Obama was set as one of the most influential candidates. Obama's chief innovation with the Affordable Care Act, controversial at the time, is now one of the most popular policies in the nation.

The dangerous, perilous, "woke left" was finally winning. How dare they take us out of deadly conflicts? How dare they allow for gay people to have control over their own bodies? How dare they help save lives through an act that slightly raised taxes to substantially improve healthcare and thus, lives? How dare they put an African American person as president?

The far right's philosophy is one of bigotry, one of hatred. They, of course, were the ones who defended slavery, who oppressed women, and who fought against gay rights. So it's no surprise when they turned to Donald Trump. His philosophy was one of hate, to expel out "illegal aliens" and the so-called "woke virus." And Trump was popular, charismatic, and anti-elitist. Trump went against the elite. There was only one problem: the Republican establishment hated him.

Democracy has always had gatekeepers no matter what form it took, as Levitsky and Way discuss in How Democracies Die. In European democracies, this is done through coalition governments. The prime minister by definition requires the approval of the majority of elected officials. What happens then if a radical populist figure with nothing but contempt for democracy gains majority support? Those elected officials are the gatekeepers who can protect democracy from them, shielding it from the demagogue... at least in theory. In practice, with Mussolini, Hitler, Chavez, Orban and etc. has that had its struggles. At the very least though, it is a protective measure against outsiders.

In the United States, there is no such "prime minister", and the nature of the two-party system prevents such effective coalitions. So, what then? The original guardrails were through the Electoral College. The obvious function of the system is widely recognized: to disproportionately provide powers to less populated states, as part of a necessary compromise. And sure, the electors themselves were supposed to accommodate for the fact that travels for long, and decisions may need to be changed.

But it was more than that, electors could, and were entitled to change their decision if the choice of President did not meet certain standards. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist no 68, "the election of the President is pretty well guarded. ... the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation ... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." Electors were the gatekeepers of democracy, protecting it from autocrats.

Of course, this didn't last for very long. The original system envisioned by figures like Washington was one without political parties. When those parties emerged, they changed the game. They took that power away from the electors in being gatekeepers, and emerged themselves as new gatekeepers. It would not be the electors with the power to override democracy (although they sort of still possessed it, but not practically.) It would be the parties.

Political parties could not choose who wins the election, but they could choose who gets nominated. When parties were introduced, nominations did not even exist. It was the party leaders, prominent senators and other officials, who decided who would get the nomination. Often, this was not at all related to who won in the primary once it existed, Harding was nominated with only 4% of the primary vote, and became elected as president due to that nomination. In secret meetings then did the elite decide who truly would be elected. The party establishment did not want to elect extremist candidates who would threaten democracy, nor bold candidates who would take it too far. They kept things safe on both ends, like moderators.

The way parties exercised this influence changed over time. At first, this was done through Congressional Caucuses. It was replaced with state and local party committees after criticism in 1830, though. The notion of presidential primaries wouldn't exist until 1901, and wouldn't become prevalent for decades after. They existed for little more than show, a way to provide the public with an outlet without any power granted to that outlet.

In 1968, the Democratic Party was split in two. On one side, the pro-Vietnam war faction which the party establishment endorsed. On the other side, the anti-war faction symbolized by their candidate of Robert F. Kennedy who had just been assassinated, a symbol of the destruction of war. This tug of war between the populace and significant anti-war faction against the establishment infuriated the people, and after protests that devolved into battles between rioters and police did the backlash force changes. Nominees became binding with 80-85% voting power in the Democratic Party, and 100% in the Republican Party (overconfident due to the success of Reagan.)

America lost its guardrails. In 2016, when Donald Trump won the Republican primary despise the violent opposition of the establishment who repeatedly admonished Trump, this was why. The establishment, despite losing their power, thought they had retained their influence. The victory in the Republican nomination of president Donald Trump was proof of the change. Populist candidates had existed before him with those like Henry Ford, but that was then. This was now.

American democracy may yet have had one other guardrail: mutual tolerance. A respect for the game to be played enough not to destroy that game for short-term benefit. Yet the Republican Party refused to condemn Trump, despite knowing how violently he would hurt democracy. They criticized him, but never gave him up, even endorsing him against Hillary Clinton. The parties were no longer adversaries, bringing the best in each other, but enemies, with the worst out for each other. The Republicans learnt this first with the rise of the Tea Party, and only now have the Democrats begun to realize with The Rise of Gavin Newsom and others.

It was this gatekeeping that protected democracy. When reform that threatened to cripple the right and bring them back to the dark days of The New Deal when they lost the right to systematically abuse workers and screw over black people was symbolized through the success of Obama, a radical reaction was needed by the far right. Even if that reaction would be catastrophic, and risk the integrity of not just the party, but democracy as a whole. A move that would be sure to backfire. The wiser, more experienced establishment saw the writing on the wall, but this time couldn't stop it. The power they had grown so comfortable with was now gone.

American democracy is now in danger, without the guardrails of parties or mutual tolerance, and with polarization leading them out for blood. The problems that arose after 1972 have only compounded with the rise of new media, and American voters have grown so entitled to what they own that they forget the price they paid to get there. Following the rules wasn't for the sake of absolute justice: it was a peace agreement. And now that the rules have been broken, the agreement has been broken. War has begun.

And no matter who fights the battles, innocents always lose.