Firefighting is not a theory of change

By Scott Warren

Editor’s note: In Democracy Notes 2025 Trends, we describe two common roles or “modes” in the U.S. democracy space: firefighters and constructions workers.

Firefighters focus on stopping urgent blazes. They protect marginalized communities facing immediate harm, prevent near-term autocratic consolidation, litigate, organize protests, and conduct rapid response.

Construction workers are building the future of U.S. democracy, now. They orient towards a longer time horizon, pluralism, institutional reform, effective governance, cultural change, and envisioning or seeding positive democratic futures.

In this piece, Scott Warren, fellow at the SNF Agora Institute, argues that firefighting alone is not a viable theory of change — that without a plan for a pluralistic reconstruction, the conditions that allowed the fire to spread will remain intact.

Read on!

---

Democracy Notes’ recently released 2025 Trends report is a comprehensive and needed tool for a sector that has grown rapidly in recent years, but still lacks a shared center of gravity. The report helpfully documents areas of emerging consensus, and perhaps more importantly, describes elements of the strategic disunity that still pervade the field.

Reading the report alongside my own experience, I was struck by a deeper uncertainty beneath the surface: not disagreement about tactics, but uncertainty about ends.

What are we trying to build toward once, and if, the immediate authoritarian threat is contained? Do we actually want to build towards a future America where we actually, somehow, co-exist, listen to one another, and genuinely engage across differences?

The report rightfully notes the balance between the firefighting and the construction working components of the field. But while the field seems aligned on the need for emergency response, it is divided on what should be built next. The imbalance matters because we have been here before. During the first Trump administration, enormous energy went into stopping the worst abuses. But when the immediate crisis ebbed, there was no widely shared plan for rebuilding democratic trust, norms, or coalitions — and the fire returned, stronger than before.

When ICE agents are gunning down civilians in the street, civil liberties may be at risk, and the federal government is taking actions to sow distrust in the idea of free and fair elections, the need for firefighting is clear: stop the authoritarian slide and rapid executive overreach. But to what end? The danger is that extinguishing the immediate threat becomes the strategy itself. The first embers may be put out, but without a plan for reconstruction, the conditions that allowed the fire to spread remain intact.

Extending the report’s metaphor further, if a city is burning, democracy futurists are gamely envisioning what the community might look like fifty years in the future: fundamentally different, inspiring, reformed. What seems far less developed is a shared vision for what happens immediately after the fire is extinguished (acknowledging, of course, that putting out the fire will be difficult enough).

Some within the field appear to believe that democracy can be restored by decisively beating back anti-democratic actors until they are forced to reform. This is not a viable theory of change given the contours of the country today. As the report notes, some interviewees described chasing a “center right that no longer exists.” If the starting assumption is that responsible conservatives are absent or irredeemable, it becomes difficult to articulate a path forward, while also suggesting a degree of insularity that continues to plague parts of the sector.

A more promising path forward combines effective blocking in the moment with a sustained commitment to pluralism on the other side of the crisis. This pluralism is not soft, nor is it naive. It is perhaps the hardest, and most important work, the pro-democracy field can undertake.

This work goes far beyond the dialogue initiatives that sometimes define pluralism efforts. It includes living alongside, governing with, and genuinely engaging with those with whom we are in fundamental disagreement, and doing so through public institutions that must function even when consensus seems impossible.

True pluralism prioritizes the art of persuasion over the sidelining of political opponents. It requires universities to pursue greater ideological diversity without dismantling their core missions. It demands that cultural institutions become more welcoming to all Americans without turning themselves into altars to any single leader. And it necessitates a far more honest and long overdue reckoning with the political consequences of the COVID-19 response— acknowledging how emergency governance, institutional overreach, and the marginalization of dissent across the ideological spectrum profoundly reshaped public trust in ways that continue today.

This work also includes a renewed focus on localism—paired with a serious commitment to ensuring that local democratic work reflects genuine ideological diversity, rather than reproducing national polarization at a smaller scale.

My worry is that beneath our tactical disagreements, parts of the pro-democracy sector no longer believe this country can be governed pluralistically in the near term—and have adjusted their strategies accordingly. That disbelief may explain the absence of a serious reconstruction agenda, the comfort with ideological narrowing, and a temptation to replace democratic persuasion with a sustained resistance.

We can continue to excel at emergency response while leaving the harder work of reconstruction undefined. Or we can commit—explicitly, unapologetically, and now—to the project of governing a divided society without illusion, without shortcuts, and without retreating from persuasion. Without that commitment, even our most successful firefighting will amount to little more than buying time—waiting, once again, for the next spark.

Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

Scott currently leads an initiative focused on exploring, researching, and convening a pro-democracy conservative agenda in the US, organizing convenings focused on bridging long-term and short-term fixes for democratic reform, and supporting cities in efforts to promote civic participation and democratic engagement.

---

Have thoughts on this piece? You can submit a pitch to Democracy Notes Perspectives here.