All American with an ethical conscience ask the same political question? How did our nation get to this terrible place?

In "Who Speaks for Us?" (March 2026), Marilynne Robinson argues in The New York Review of Books that true democracy, not "populism," is the essential response to corruption and the abuse of power. She emphasizes the dignity and authority of the people, warning against the degradation caused by arrogance and avarice.

An echo essay published in New York Review of Books:

The political leaders and elected representatives of our two-party system have made it into a weapon that works against the people.

• Core Argument: Robinson contends that modern two-party politics often weaponizes systems against the people.
• The Solution: She advocates for a return to genuine democratic principles and warns that populist movements often merely reflect the "inchoate" - not yet fully developed or in the process of becoming- resentments of a subordinated class.
• Perspective: As a novelist and essayist known for her Christian, Calvinist-influenced perspective (e.g., Gilead), she often critiques contemporary political culture from a moral and intellectual standpoint.
  
  When Donald Trump was first elected to the presidency, a British friend asked me if his authoritarian tendencies were a real threat to America. No, I said, because the country had so many autonomous centers of power to constrain him—the press, the unions and professions, the universities, the courts, the states, and, of course, various types and sources of political opposition. Not all these supposed checks on his power have capitulated absolutely, but enough of them have capitulated to raise fundamental questions about the country we thought we had and the country we have now. It will always be true that we have seen the Constitution effectively brushed aside by a superannuated game show host who galvanizes his base with talk of showerheads and windmills and the demonic nastiness of the other party. All this is so strange that it is hard to imagine how history will take any lessons from it. It would seem grossly improbable that a billionaire—rich from birth and repeatedly bankrupt yet still a billionaire—could lead a movement of angry “populism.” But here we are.
  
  There are too many answers to the question “What went wrong❓I turn to the two-party system because, although it is at present its own worst enemy, there is still hope that it can allow the great public to make decisions about the course of government. It has gone wrong, too, but it can change, almost passively, if it happens to channel the decisions of an impassioned electorate. 

Insofar as it gives voters power, it is imperiled. It can thwart the intentions of very powerful interests and individuals. This is an assertion of democracy, wonderful or regrettable and benighted, but in any case essential if the historical character of the country is to be preserved.

Our elections have been based on there being two great factions that alternate in roles of power without much conflict. The problems of the system have been largely manageable. Three or more parties lead to the rule of a minority able to provide or deny the numbers necessary to produce a ruling plurality. Government by a group few people actually voted for, that can always threaten to withdraw their support if its interests are not looked after, is not an improvement. One-party government is synonymous with dictatorship.

Any free election is, in effect, a referendum. Our binary system can be taken to express either a Yes or a No. More granular interpretations are left to commentators or the opinion polls, or the parties themselves. This leaves the public voice vulnerable to being misread, or to being tendentiously misinterpreted. To the extent that this takes effect, the public has been denied its voice.

Recently there was a Democratic sweep of a series of special elections. What did this mean? In a moment as fraught as this one, it would be good to know what the people are thinking. An issue that supposedly decided these various contests was settled upon immediately—affordability❗

This six syllable word assumes that the problem is not that income has stagnated but that certain grocery items, lettuce and eggs, are too expensive. Higher wages would transform the economy. It would be a redistribution of wealth, however modest. Fiddling around with the price of a few groceries would be cheap and easy. An added, much more significant advantage, it would preempt and dismiss the possibility that the great, sovereign electorate might have anything serious, anything relevant to the well-being of their country, anything generous, on their minds.

• billfold and 
• kitchen table.

These are the two terms used to express the condescension that entraps the voting public, in the way they are addressed by politicians and campaigns, and in the way they and their views are understood and brought to bear on public life. I was instructed by a Democratic candidate for state office on the mesmeric power of the word “affordability,” recently demonstrated so effectively. So the meaningfulness of a solid No to the present regime is reduced to an issue Trump can neuter by waving his (the Treasury Department’s) checkbook.

At one time, the two-party system fit fairly nicely within the structure of our government. The U.S. House and the Senate were deliberative bodies with important constitutional authority, which meant that there were differences within the parties as well as between them. 

Then came Newt Gingrich, a Roman Catholic convert and the creation of GOP party discipline. Republicans discovered the wrongminded power that came with sticking to the party line, however this tactic disempowered individual lawmakers and their constituencies, not to mention the institution of Congress itself. Constitutional obligations lost out to partisan power. Then came the next evil inspiration. They could change the constitutional order by simply playing dead. When they controlled the House, they could refuse to govern, leaving it to the president to fill the void, to do by executive order what should be done by legislation. This strengthens the president, weakens the law by circumvention, and defeats the intentions of the Founders with consequences they insistently predicted. And, it excludes opposition influences and radically minimizes public discussion.

So, now we have a grotesquely 🤢empowered Donald Trump. 

Because of Trump's hubris, great institutions are diminished and humiliated, the House of Representatives being first. 

The No available to the people in our binary system is associated with the Democratic Party, whoever they are. 

The great issues of these days must be confronted by the people. Whatever their (our) shortcomings are, we are figures of shining integrity compared with those who now presume to govern. 

A braver press would educate us better, certainly, but we know enough to be appalled at the grave threats to freedom and justice we see in our streets.

Only consider: Donald Trump claims that many billions of dollars have come in as a result of his tariffs. He speaks of this as a sort of slush fund that he can use as he sees fit, maybe reducing taxes or just mailing out checks to the public, benevolently repairing injuries done by his government to those he thinks will vote for him. But the fact is,  Americans are paying the cost of those tariffs. 

So, it is Americans’ money💲 that is being siphoned into this vast pool, with inevitable consequences for “affordability.” They never voted for tariffs, and in the recent special elections they might well have voted against them. If all this money were collected by taxation, at least the public might have some input into the use of it, especially if they had a functioning House. If Trump extracts $10 billion from his suit against the IRS, where will that money go? This bizarre super-economy of ultra-wealth can create self-protective arrangements neither the laws nor the Founders anticipated, together with a culture of cynicism ready to exploit its worst possibilities.

Money and power corrupt. The proper response to this ancient truth is not “populism,” which expresses the inchoate resentments of a subordinated class, and which has shown itself to be helpless against gross abuses. The one thing needed is democracy. We have seen the people speak and act from a deep awareness of their uniquely legitimate authority. We have seen their humanity, their dignity, and their wisdom. At the same time we have also seen the degradations that follow from arrogance, avarice and impunity. The contrast is as stark and instructive as any moral fable.