As political tensions continue to rise across the country in the wake of the Trump administration’s tumultuous shake-up of the federal bureaucracy, a panel of professors from Shippensburg University’s Political Science Department sought to provide a clarifying overview of the political landscape in 2025. 

The panel was made up of four professors who offered their perspective and expertise in various areas of political science. The evening was hosted and led by political science Chair Alison Dagnes, who was joined by her colleagues Lonce Bailey, Mark Sachleben and Steven Lichtman. 

Sachleben described three trends in international politics. The first of these was the ongoing transition from a manufacturing-based economy to an information-based one. Just as the transition from agriculture to manufacturing ushered in massive social and political shifts, Sachleben argues, so too will this modern shift.

In a similar vein, he spoke about how in history, the time following pandemics and disease outbreaks were often marked by large realignments of political power and economic upheaval. According to Sachleben, in just about every pandemic there is fear, governments failing to react effectively, pushback against any reaction, misinformation and extreme political and economic upsets. 

“In the Black Plague, you had the first successful peasant revolution in 1381,” Sachleben said. During the AIDS epidemic in Africa, there was a spike in military violence and urban instability.

Sachleben also placed emphasis on the upcoming 80th anniversary of the end of World War 2. “A lot of the things that were learned from that have not been passed down to the next generation,” Sachleben said. Among those lessons are that other countries have agency, and that appeasement does not work.

Bailey, who specializes in American government and public administration, spoke about the recurring question of “Can they do that?” in reference to the Trump administration. 

“You can do as a government official whatever you want to do if nobody stops you,” Bailey said. “We’re used to a system of checks and balances. What we’re seeing right now is a scenario in which Congress is in an unprecedented position to not have responded to anything.” 

According to Bailey, the answer to ‘Can they do that?’ is “It depends, will anyone stop you?”

Some suggest that the courts could offer resistance, but Bailey and Lichtman agree that their opinions are easily ignored by a dismissive executive. 

“Courts can’t do anything,” Bailey said. “They have no money and no police. They make a decision and who carries it out? The executive branch.”

Staying on the topic of the courts, Lichtman offered a prediction he is certain of: “At some point in the next 18 months, an attempt is going to be made to impeach the Chief Justice of the United States.” The success of that attempt is not as important as the attack on judicial independence itself, according to Lichtman. 

“At some point, the Supreme Court is going to tell Donald Trump ‘No, you can’t do that,’” Lichtman said. He predicted that Chief Justice John Roberts will be in the majority and write the Court’s opinion. “When that happens, Donald Trump is not going to react to this with sober-minded, avuncular magnanimity,” Lichtman said. “He is going to go ballistic.”

“That is what is coming,” Lichtman continued. “When they tell him no and when he throws that hissy fit, he’s not going to confine himself to say John Roberts is stupid, John Roberts is crooked, John Roberts is treasonous. He’s going to say John Roberts should be impeached.”

Criticism of the Supreme Court is not unprecedented, Lichtman acknowledged. “A presidential call for retaliation against the Court or against a Justice is,” he said. “This is the first truly revanchist presidential administration in our history — it is a presidential administration built on revenge”

Continuing the evening’s somber tone, Dagnes began by saying “I’m not going to make you feel any better.” She focused on political polarization and hyperpartisanship. “The largest threat to democracy today is the perception that anything is okay, as long as your guy does it,” Dagnes said. 

When politics becomes so personalized and divisive, “people who voice disagreement become the enemy,” Dagnes said. “Violence in this case is not only acceptable, but predictable. Red lines go away when all you care about is winning.”

Messaging about an “all-out war” on “activist judges” is mainstream, and threats of violence against judges are rising, Dagnes said. “The threats are purposeful in order to quiet the one branch of government that is trying to uphold the rule of the law, but it’s also to send a message to anyone who might want to fight back.”

Dagnes referenced Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student with permanent residency who the Trump administration arrested on March 8 and is attempting to deport for his activism for Palestinian human rights. 

Transitioning into a Q&A segment, Dagnes responded to one student who asked what people can do in response. “It’s vital that everybody understands that even if we disagree with one another, those with whom we disagree are not the enemy,” Dagnes said. “Buying into that narrative that someone who voted for someone else is someone you should hate—that is taking the bait.”

Another student asked about the likelihood of the United States having a constitutional crisis. Lichtman argued that if Trump completely ignores a Supreme Court ruling, that would be a constitutional crisis. Unless the Court shows up “to the White House with zip-ties and a weapon, he’s going to do what he wants to do,” Lichtman said. 

Sachleben offered another potential crisis. He spoke about how Turkish President Recep Erdoğan ordered the arrest of his major political rival, virtually ensuring his reelection. “We can look around the world and see a lot of ways how this goes really sideways, really fast, really violent and really nasty,” Sachleben said.

Another question focused on what motivates Trump to act the way he does. 

“He promised he was going to run the government like a business,” Lichtman said. “Corporations aren’t democracies. The business model is you decide what to do and you just do it, and if someone disagrees, you kick them off the board. There’s no dissent in the business community.”

Sachleben went further, explaining a disconnect. Businesses’ reason for existing is to make profit, he argued, whereas governments exist to serve society. 

Despite the evening’s bleak outlook, some searched for hope. Marlon Aristy, a student who attended the panel, spoke about the importance of using your voice. Many people feel as though they are not in a position to speak and feel unheard. 

“While sometimes that is the case, I’m hopeful and optimistic that with time and with unity, the strength of the American people is what ultimately pulls us through,” Aristy said. 

Share