Scan barcode
Reviews
How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future by Daniel Ziblatt, Steven Levitsky
jhindman's review
4.0
I read this for one of my political science classes and I thought it was going to be non-partisan. Boy was I wrong. I am proud of being a liberal democrat and this book was exactly what I wanted to hear. I learned so much about democracy and how they (for lack of better wording) die. There are so many aspects I thought I knew about our democracy, but there are so many more I hadn't learned of. I recommend this but will give a warning that it is extremely left-winged bias.
sophiedavis's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
yevolem's review against another edition
2.0
The title is misleading and should properly be called, How American Democracy Could Die. This was apparently one of many books that were published during the Trump presidency that seem primarily to be for cashing in on his notoriety, though that may be simply be an overly cynical view from me. If I had known what this book was, I wouldn't have read it. That's my fault for not being more attentive.
While it does cover some interesting historical information about the failure of fledgling democracies, though often in a disingenuous and incurious way, it doesn't say much about how stable democracies fail, but rather how they could fail.
It does provide some examples of how some stable democracies have successfully met the challenges that could lead to the downfall of democracy. At the same time, it says the United States has failed these same challenges.
As for its political orientation, it'd say its biased in the favor of elites and the establishment regardless of affiliation. However, it also states that the failure of the elites and establishment are the greatest cause of democracy failing, far more than anything the voters could do. Gatekeepers are presented as the pinnacle of sustainable democratic society.
In this way it's certainly true to the Constitution, in that the people can't be trusted. The problem with democracy is that it becomes too democratic and subject to the vagaries of those who don't know better. While the book strenuously argues against authoritarianism, it only means the overt sort, as their ideal government would seem to be an entirely managed democracy. It's the sort that values stability above almost all else. Elections are fair and free, but change nothing, they're merely symbolic expressions of preference by the voters.
This isn't directly stated, though it is presented as just how things are in a realpolitik and pragmatic way by providing many examples of how important the elites, establishment, and especially gatekeepers are and how little the voters matter overall.
The proposed solutions at the end are as follows: The Republican party is told to give up on white nationalism and extreme free-market ideology. The Democratic party is told to focus on the material concerns of all citizens, not only minorities, and to abandon identity politics.
It was difficult for me to decide whether to rate this 2 or 3 stars, but eventually I decided on 2 stars because overall I don't recommend reading it.
Rating: 2.5/5
While it does cover some interesting historical information about the failure of fledgling democracies, though often in a disingenuous and incurious way, it doesn't say much about how stable democracies fail, but rather how they could fail.
It does provide some examples of how some stable democracies have successfully met the challenges that could lead to the downfall of democracy. At the same time, it says the United States has failed these same challenges.
As for its political orientation, it'd say its biased in the favor of elites and the establishment regardless of affiliation. However, it also states that the failure of the elites and establishment are the greatest cause of democracy failing, far more than anything the voters could do. Gatekeepers are presented as the pinnacle of sustainable democratic society.
In this way it's certainly true to the Constitution, in that the people can't be trusted. The problem with democracy is that it becomes too democratic and subject to the vagaries of those who don't know better. While the book strenuously argues against authoritarianism, it only means the overt sort, as their ideal government would seem to be an entirely managed democracy. It's the sort that values stability above almost all else. Elections are fair and free, but change nothing, they're merely symbolic expressions of preference by the voters.
This isn't directly stated, though it is presented as just how things are in a realpolitik and pragmatic way by providing many examples of how important the elites, establishment, and especially gatekeepers are and how little the voters matter overall.
The proposed solutions at the end are as follows: The Republican party is told to give up on white nationalism and extreme free-market ideology. The Democratic party is told to focus on the material concerns of all citizens, not only minorities, and to abandon identity politics.
It was difficult for me to decide whether to rate this 2 or 3 stars, but eventually I decided on 2 stars because overall I don't recommend reading it.
Rating: 2.5/5
il_principe_ignoto's review against another edition
5.0
A must-read (and some take aways): "Why Democracies Die" || Levitsky & Ziblatt.
"A central lesson of this book: When American democracy has worked, it has relied upon two norms that we often take for granted—mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance. Treating rivals as legitimate contenders for power and underutilizing one’s institutional prerogatives in the spirit of fair play are not written into the American Constitution. Yet without them, our constitutional checks and balances will not operate as we expect them to. When French thinker Baron de Montesquieu pioneered the notion of separation of powers in his 1748 work The Spirit of the Laws, he worried little about what we today call norms. Montesquieu believed the hard architecture of political institutions might be enough to constrain overreaching power—that constitutional design was not unlike an engineering problem, a challenge of crafting institutions so that ambition could be used to counteract ambition, even when political leaders were flawed. Many of our founders believed this, as well.
History quickly revealed that the founders were mistaken. Without innovations such as political parties and their accompanying norms, the Constitution they so carefully constructed in Philadelphia would not have survived. Institutions were more than just formal rules; they encompassed the shared understandings of appropriate behavior that overlay them.Montesquieu believed the hard architecture of political institutions might be enough to constrain overreaching power—that constitutional design was not unlike an engineering problem, a challenge of crafting institutions so that ambition could be used to counteract ambition, even when political leaders were flawed. Many of our founders believed this, as well.
[...]"In our view, the idea that Democrats should “fight like Republicans” is misguided. First of all, evidence from other countries suggests that such a strategy often plays directly into the hands of authoritarians."
[...]"Even if Democrats were to succeed in weakening or removing President Trump via hardball tactics, their victory would be Pyrrhic—for they would inherit a democracy stripped of its remaining protective guardrails."
[...]"This sort of escalation rarely ends well. If Democrats do not work to restore norms of mutual toleration and forbearance, their next president will likely confront an opposition willing to use any means necessary to defeat them. And if partisan rifts deepen and our unwritten rules continue to fray, Americans could eventually elect a president who is even more dangerous than Trump."
[...]"Thinking about how to resist the Trump administration’s abuses is clearly important. However, the fundamental problem facing American democracy remains extreme partisan division—one fueled not just by policy differences but by deeper sources of resentment, including racial and religious differences. America’s great polarization preceded the Trump presidency, and it is very likely to endure beyond it."
POLARIZARION in the USA, how to combat the sources:
"We think it would be more valuable to focus on two underlying forces driving American polarization: racial and religious realignment and growing economic inequality. Addressing these social foundations, we believe, requires a reshuffling of what America’s political parties stand for.
"A central lesson of this book: When American democracy has worked, it has relied upon two norms that we often take for granted—mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance. Treating rivals as legitimate contenders for power and underutilizing one’s institutional prerogatives in the spirit of fair play are not written into the American Constitution. Yet without them, our constitutional checks and balances will not operate as we expect them to. When French thinker Baron de Montesquieu pioneered the notion of separation of powers in his 1748 work The Spirit of the Laws, he worried little about what we today call norms. Montesquieu believed the hard architecture of political institutions might be enough to constrain overreaching power—that constitutional design was not unlike an engineering problem, a challenge of crafting institutions so that ambition could be used to counteract ambition, even when political leaders were flawed. Many of our founders believed this, as well.
History quickly revealed that the founders were mistaken. Without innovations such as political parties and their accompanying norms, the Constitution they so carefully constructed in Philadelphia would not have survived. Institutions were more than just formal rules; they encompassed the shared understandings of appropriate behavior that overlay them.Montesquieu believed the hard architecture of political institutions might be enough to constrain overreaching power—that constitutional design was not unlike an engineering problem, a challenge of crafting institutions so that ambition could be used to counteract ambition, even when political leaders were flawed. Many of our founders believed this, as well.
[...]"In our view, the idea that Democrats should “fight like Republicans” is misguided. First of all, evidence from other countries suggests that such a strategy often plays directly into the hands of authoritarians."
[...]"Even if Democrats were to succeed in weakening or removing President Trump via hardball tactics, their victory would be Pyrrhic—for they would inherit a democracy stripped of its remaining protective guardrails."
[...]"This sort of escalation rarely ends well. If Democrats do not work to restore norms of mutual toleration and forbearance, their next president will likely confront an opposition willing to use any means necessary to defeat them. And if partisan rifts deepen and our unwritten rules continue to fray, Americans could eventually elect a president who is even more dangerous than Trump."
[...]"Thinking about how to resist the Trump administration’s abuses is clearly important. However, the fundamental problem facing American democracy remains extreme partisan division—one fueled not just by policy differences but by deeper sources of resentment, including racial and religious differences. America’s great polarization preceded the Trump presidency, and it is very likely to endure beyond it."
POLARIZARION in the USA, how to combat the sources:
"We think it would be more valuable to focus on two underlying forces driving American polarization: racial and religious realignment and growing economic inequality. Addressing these social foundations, we believe, requires a reshuffling of what America’s political parties stand for.