America at 250: Historians say democracy is an ongoing experiment

Chervinsky’s work at the George Washington Presidential Library seeks to make the founding era more relevant by highlighting the diverse people involved in the Revolution—including immigrants—and portraying the founders not as infallible figures but as young leaders experimenting with new forms of government.

Throughout the conversation, both historians challenged the notion that current political tensions are historically unique. Rigueur pointed to Frederick Douglass’s famous speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” as evidence that Americans have long debated who truly benefits from democracy. “In the aftermath of the 2016 election, people were saying, ‘This is the end of democracy. Is this the end of the guardrails?’” said Rigueur. “I said, ‘the guardrails have been off for centuries if you’ve been a certain demographic.’”

Chervinsky echoed that perspective, citing the election of 1800, the War of 1812, and the Civil War as periods when Americans seriously questioned whether their constitutional system would survive. She suggested that today’s challenges may differ in form but belong to a recurring pattern of democratic stress and renewal.  

“There have been moments when there were real questions about whether the institutions or the document answer the challenge that we are currently in,” said Chervinsky. “The challenge we’re currently in looks slightly different than 1800 or 1814 or 1861. But nonetheless, I think there are real questions about whether we can answer that challenge.”

The panelists also addressed the ongoing debates over whether the Constitution should be viewed as a living document. Chervinsky argued that treating the Constitution as untouchable is a relatively modern development that emerged during the Cold War. Earlier generations, she said, routinely amended and adapted constitutional structures to address new challenges, reflecting the founders’ expectation that democracy would continue evolving.

Both panelists said Americans should remember difficult aspects of their history without losing hope. Rigueur defended museums, archives, and public history institutions for presenting evidence-based accounts that acknowledge slavery, discrimination, and injustice while also highlighting resilience, reform, and progress. “What historians do, what archivists do, is tell unvarnished truth,” said Rigueur. “They tell our stories.”

Chervinsky added that embracing the founders’ flaws makes their accomplishments more accessible rather than diminishing them. Understanding historical figures as imperfect people, she argued, reinforces the idea that democracy is built by ordinary individuals capable of extraordinary achievements.  

“We have to tell the full story,” said Chervinsky. “That is actually a much more useful story because if deeply flawed people like George Washington or James Madison can still create and produce extraordinary things, then that means that we don’t have to look for perfection today.”

Both historians argued that strengthening civic education requires moving beyond the classroom. They encouraged historians and institutions to engage audiences through podcasts, social media, influencers, libraries, community organizations, sports, and public spaces. Rather than expecting people to seek out history, they argued, civic education must meet Americans where they are and present democratic participation as an everyday responsibility rather than an academic subject. 

And though they noted that the United States has fallen in the ranking of liberal democracies, and authoritarianism is on the rise globally, both historians see hope for the “Great American Experiment”.  

“I think that other democracies desperately want the United States to be a strong democracy,” said Chervinsky. “They desperately want us to be a model for them to aspire to because it is better for them and it is better for the world when we are acting with our democratic principles at the forefront.”