Scan barcode
Reviews
How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future by Daniel Ziblatt, Steven Levitsky
rebecca76's review
4.0
The book gave a general over view of how democracies turn into dictatorships and how it is more about the un written rules then the rules themselves. The Constitution gives us the ring to argue and fight but the democratic norms should keep us from fighting dirty. They made a good point that USA has sacrificed racial equality for "democracy" the challenge is repairing the gaurd rails and continuing to move toward democracy for all. Not sure i agree with their analysis of political parties but it is food for thought.
tuckmonster's review
4.0
I imagine a certain segment of the population who could benefit from this book will see the title, assume it is an anti-Trump polemic and discard it. They would be mistaken. While the authors are certainly not fans of the current President the book only focuses in on him in the last 2 chapters. The bulk of the book is an interesting examination of how modern democracies function and how they have been undermined from within throughout the 20th century. The wide-ranging historical analysis looks at democracies that have died as well as those that have successfully fought off attempts to subvert the democratic process.
The book is an easy read and can easily be consumed in a couple of days at most. The authors use a wide range of historical examples to identify key tendencies of autocratic leaders, ways they seek to subvert democratic institutions and consolidate political power, and how they have managed to succeed (or be blocked) in the past. As I read the book, I could not help but notice similarities to our present condition in the U.S., not just since 2016 but since at least the 1990s if not earlier. Clearly, the authors intend for readers to draw these parallels, as they make plain in the last two chapters, which analyze the first year of the Trump presidency in light of the previous 3/4 of the book.
The only reason I did not give this book 5 stars is because the authors fall into a common failing in books of this nature. They believe so firmly in their thesis that they see all data points as fitting into their belief system, even if a deeper examination is warranted. An example: The authors discuss FDR's "court packing plan" from the late 1930s. They identify wide-spread bipartisan opposition to this plan as the cause of its defeat and therefore an example of how institutional norms can curb autocratic tendencies. They only briefly mention, without any real exploration, the Supreme Court's reversal of its previous position with regard to New Deal legislation, which the Court had spent the previous few years uniformly invalidating. The infamous "switch-in-time-that-saved-nine" is not really discussed other than in a throwaway sentence mentioning that the Court began upholding New Deal legislation like Social Security after the threat to pack the court. The authors do not explain why, if there was such widespread bipartisan opposition to Roosevelt's plan, the Court then felt it necessary to reverse its earlier adamant opposition to the New Deal. Perhaps FDR's threat had more credibility and more chance of being enacted than the authors give it credit for and that caused the Court to change its position, which in turn undermined the arguments in favor of FDR's scheme?
That's just one example. The authors do not dive deep into any of their historical examples, which causes me to question if their analysis would hold up under stricter scrutiny. Errors like this detract from the overall forcefulness of the authors' arguments. That said, it was still an entertaining and enlightening read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.
The book is an easy read and can easily be consumed in a couple of days at most. The authors use a wide range of historical examples to identify key tendencies of autocratic leaders, ways they seek to subvert democratic institutions and consolidate political power, and how they have managed to succeed (or be blocked) in the past. As I read the book, I could not help but notice similarities to our present condition in the U.S., not just since 2016 but since at least the 1990s if not earlier. Clearly, the authors intend for readers to draw these parallels, as they make plain in the last two chapters, which analyze the first year of the Trump presidency in light of the previous 3/4 of the book.
The only reason I did not give this book 5 stars is because the authors fall into a common failing in books of this nature. They believe so firmly in their thesis that they see all data points as fitting into their belief system, even if a deeper examination is warranted. An example: The authors discuss FDR's "court packing plan" from the late 1930s. They identify wide-spread bipartisan opposition to this plan as the cause of its defeat and therefore an example of how institutional norms can curb autocratic tendencies. They only briefly mention, without any real exploration, the Supreme Court's reversal of its previous position with regard to New Deal legislation, which the Court had spent the previous few years uniformly invalidating. The infamous "switch-in-time-that-saved-nine" is not really discussed other than in a throwaway sentence mentioning that the Court began upholding New Deal legislation like Social Security after the threat to pack the court. The authors do not explain why, if there was such widespread bipartisan opposition to Roosevelt's plan, the Court then felt it necessary to reverse its earlier adamant opposition to the New Deal. Perhaps FDR's threat had more credibility and more chance of being enacted than the authors give it credit for and that caused the Court to change its position, which in turn undermined the arguments in favor of FDR's scheme?
That's just one example. The authors do not dive deep into any of their historical examples, which causes me to question if their analysis would hold up under stricter scrutiny. Errors like this detract from the overall forcefulness of the authors' arguments. That said, it was still an entertaining and enlightening read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.
poet_cat's review
I picked up some new information in this book, but I'm concerned about how objective it was. In a book called "How Democracies Die," I'd have expected us to spend some serious time on C.I.A. intervention in foreign democracies and the rise of authoritarianism. When is the right time to have such a conversation? I'm not sure but Chapter 5, when the authors provide a review of Chilean democracy giving way to dictatorship, would have been as good a time as any. I want to have conversations wherein we analyze the past and present for patterns, but I welcome texts that allow us more space to do that work honestly.
kaytwo_'s review against another edition
4.0
How Democracies Die takes readers on an adventure of how democratic guardrails have eroded over time in various countries turning them into authoritarian regimes, and how democracy is slowly fading here at home as well. It describes how 45 is not the disease, but a symptom of the erosion. It isn’t all gloomy though, it does detail how we might move forward after Trump, as well as a few ways we may put our democratic guardrails in their place again.
I enjoyed the insight about other countries which I was unaware of. I also like how the authors detail the decline over time, not just as one large catastrophe starting in 2016. I especially enjoyed the notes about how we might move forward from here.
I enjoyed the insight about other countries which I was unaware of. I also like how the authors detail the decline over time, not just as one large catastrophe starting in 2016. I especially enjoyed the notes about how we might move forward from here.
redpoppies's review
4.0
A simple yet knowledgeable book about democracy backsliding, politics, and American politics. This book taught me a lot of things about the mechanism of American government. It also gave a very simple yet effective method to identify an authoritarian leader/regime.
This book explained about what is democracy, what happened in the last decades in all over the world, what happened in America, and what can we do to save our democracy. With a simple words and enjoyable writing, I couldn't get bored with this book.
This book explained about what is democracy, what happened in the last decades in all over the world, what happened in America, and what can we do to save our democracy. With a simple words and enjoyable writing, I couldn't get bored with this book.
sarah_richmond's review
4.0
Necessary, riveting, and smart. If there's one book on US affairs you read this year, this should be it. It IS very US based, because the US is in the throes of a democratic demise, so if you're not interested in the inner workings of American politics, you might not get much out of this. However, they offer so many examples from other countries throughout modern history who've faced similar problems, that it makes for fascinating reading.
kjcarroll's review
5.0
This should be mandatory reading for anyone who runs for public office in America.
pawact's review
3.0
Informative, prescient and wholly depressing, How Democracies Die lays out all the symptoms of a decaying democracies citing examples from all over the world including pre-Trump United States. There are some fascinating tidbits in here that are great at dinner parties. Levitsky is for certain not woke as he adds court packing as one of those particular signs and signals that two party systems inherently keeps populism (of the bad sort) in check. He specifically considers political parties important gatekeepers to keep demagogues from achieving the presidency and pointedly singles out the Republican party for failing to do the job. Interestingly, the Democrat party managed to gatekeep Bernie Sanders who, though he for sure rode a populist wave, is clearly no demagogue.
Alot of this is interesting stuff. But you just wish it wasn't quite so dry. Yeah, Levitsky is an academic and he is basically dumbing down a lot of facts and theories for the masses, but one wished he would get his gumption up and add a little flash to the proceedings.
Alot of this is interesting stuff. But you just wish it wasn't quite so dry. Yeah, Levitsky is an academic and he is basically dumbing down a lot of facts and theories for the masses, but one wished he would get his gumption up and add a little flash to the proceedings.
jadamek74's review
4.0
Really good but a little outdated due to January 6th, COVID-19, and the 2024 election cycle.