How students engage with democracy depends on the example set before them.
On February 6th, President Donald Trump posted on social media a video depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes to the song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.” At first President Donald Trump claimed he “didn’t see” that part of the video, insinuating that it was a longer video of multiple Democrats depicted as jungle animals. He told reporters he would not apologize for his actions. He declared, “I didn’t make a mistake.” Later, however, the White House removed the video and stated that an unidentified staff member posted it. This statement completely contradicted their first statement, allowing Trump to shoulder less of the blame. Putting the Obamas’ faces on apes isn’t just racist; it is an act of dehumanization. This social media post was only briefly reported on. Trump’s continuous aggressive behavior is so normalized that this moment was only fleeting. When racist behavior from leadership is normalized, students learn it’s compatible with power. This reshapes democratic engagement.
One reason as to why this behavior has become so normalized is based on the Overton Window political theory. The Overton Window is a model to understand how the shifts in social ideas cause what is politically acceptable. Trump has dramatically shifted this window through behaviors like social media posts, causing students to shift the boundary of acceptability in their minds. This includes classroom discussions becoming more polarized and racist language being framed as “edgy humor.” We have become desensitized to these actions: our emotional reactions may weaken, leading to behavior like Trump’s feeling less out of the ordinary.
The new boundary of acceptability is extremely prominent right now given Trump’s recent behavior, but one of the first real shifts occurred in the 2008 presidential election. Research has shown a decline of explicit prejudice (consciously held negative attitudes) but an increase of implicit prejudice (a negative automatic response that influences behavior unintentionally). These results represent how prejudice of many types may still continue to influence the voting process even if people don’t endorse prejudice or consider themselves to be biased. The 2008 election was one such event in which this concept played a role—racist attack advertisements against Barack Obama encouraged individuals to express blatant racism as well, believing these behaviors were acceptable. President Trump has carried on the ideology of racism at a much louder volume many times. Our future leaders may think this behavior is justifiable, but it is not.
Another possible explanation for bad behavior stems from a decreasing attention to presidential character. According to political scientist James David Barber’s book The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House, a president’s character is generalized under four sections: active-negative, active-positive, passive-negative, and passive-positive. Trump most closely represents active-negative based on the character’s description being “power-seeking,” “persistent problem in managing his aggressive feelings,” and “all-or-nothing quality.” Barber warns that we need to avoid electing an active-negative president because these leaders often bring about avoidable political tragedies. A president’s character says a lot about how our country is presented and what our values are for incoming student leaders. It is certainly important for college students since this is the time in which we are most impressionable.
Between the ages of seventeen and twenty-five, political events have the largest impact on our thoughts and behaviors, according to the term “political socialization.” Who our president is during this time can impact our level of political participation and our social and political beliefs on issues. Two Trump administrative terms during our generation’s most impressionable years have had significant influence on our lives. In Generation Z’s time, we’ve seen the progression from an Obama presidency to a Trump administration to a Biden presidency to a second Trump term with a far-right wing agenda. This timeline shows a push seemingly toward more conservative values. The cycle of conservative and liberal leadership is a whiplash of very opposite and polarizing policies. Concurrently, Gen Z is experiencing a historic gender political divide, with young adult men becoming more religious and conservative and young adult women becoming much more liberal. Of course, there are many other social and societal factors to consider, but it is undeniable that politics has shaped this trend.
As President Trump’s extreme negativity is normalized, many people from both parties may stay out of politics because it is “hateful” and “corrupt.” Students who are disengaged contribute to fewer voters and less trust in institutions, both huge factors in the 2025 presidential election. A president’s character can be just as important as their policies—young adults may start mirroring the president’s behavior. With an increase of easy access to social media and technology, children are also susceptible to these behaviors. They may start believing these racist remarks are funny jokes. Citing freedom of speech doesn’t eliminate moral accountability either. Leadership carries a different ethical burden than private speech.
If leadership is modeling what power looks like, then what version of power are we preparing the next generation to inherit—one grounded in dignity or one sustained by humiliation? We are preparing students for a political world where power excuses cruelty; whether it stays that way is up to us. Holding leaders accountable is where change begins.