Scan barcode
A review by jasonfurman
The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It by Yascha Mounk
5.0
Yascha Mounk’s “The People vs. Democracy” is an outstanding analysis of the roots of our current political situation. It is a rare book that combines the best of the fox and hedgehog approach to organizing knowledge. The Fox is an animating thesis that Democracy (i.e., popular choice) and Liberalism (i.e., protections for minorities, freedom of expression, other rights) are two different concepts that only happen to have gone together but that either of them can also override the other. At the same time, Mounk does not offer a single explanation/solution but instead provides a thoughtful and nuanced argument for three of the major theories floating around: immigration, economics and social media. Finally, Mounk offers a range of solutions.
I cannot understate how well organized Mounk’s book is with a clear statement of its thesis, a roadmap to the chapters, and then all of them fitting together logically into different sections. In the course of this Mounk draws liberally from examples around the world, but especially from the United States and Europe, as well as from some of the political science literature.
Overall I found Mounk’s diagnosis of the problem original and compelling, his explanation of the causes of the problem sensible but not as convincing as I would have liked, his solutions also sensible but possibly not sufficient, and his predictions highly implausible. Let me take these in turn.
For the diagnosis, separating out the concepts of democracy and liberalism and describing how their coexistence has been more of a fortunate coincidence than an inevitable outcome is one way this book will change my perspective going forward, along with the ways that an excess of democracy can overcome liberalism (e.g., people voting for leaders who limit rights or even directly voting to limit rights, like Switzerland’s referendum that banned the construction of minarets). But also ways that liberalism can limit democracy, particularly through the expansion of the administrative state, judicial review, and international treaties—all of which come together in something like the European Commission. (Although I would note that Mounk talks about controversy over the Democratic legitimacy of bureaucratic rules or the Supreme Court, but it is not like everyone happily accepts the Affordable Care Act because it came to us through the democratic process.)
For explanation, I am personally sympathetic to Mounk’s argument that liberal Democracy thrived because it coincided with economic advancement, communications were limited to oligopolistic providers of news/information, and nation states were monotonic or had dominant ethnicities. The flip side of this is that economic slowdowns, social media and immigration all move the other way. But I wish that Mounk did more to prove this. He is right that you can’t just do simple data correlating presence of immigrants or income with votes, but that leaves him with less testable hypotheses. Moreover, what about earlier periods of slower growth in American history or the advent of radio which transformed communications or the different trajectories of immigration in different countries?
For cure, I liked just about all of Mounk’s ideas. But even if we adopted all of his economic prescriptions, for example, it would not radically transform growth/incomes. And some ideas might actually increase tensions, like expanding social supports which may exacerbate resentments.
Finally, on prediction, I wish Mounk would define what he means by ending liberal democracy and put a probability on it. I myself would put a probability close to zero on any of the following in the United States: the government shutting down major media publications or universities or think tanks or websites, elections being suspended and rule is continued without them, or a President remaining in office for 12 years, or even a single political party controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress for 12 straight years. I’m not sure if Mounk is putting higher odds on one/all of these outcomes or else is defining the end of liberal democracy in a much less severe way than this, it would be worth being clearer on it so we can better assess whether or not the predictions have come true.
I cannot understate how well organized Mounk’s book is with a clear statement of its thesis, a roadmap to the chapters, and then all of them fitting together logically into different sections. In the course of this Mounk draws liberally from examples around the world, but especially from the United States and Europe, as well as from some of the political science literature.
Overall I found Mounk’s diagnosis of the problem original and compelling, his explanation of the causes of the problem sensible but not as convincing as I would have liked, his solutions also sensible but possibly not sufficient, and his predictions highly implausible. Let me take these in turn.
For the diagnosis, separating out the concepts of democracy and liberalism and describing how their coexistence has been more of a fortunate coincidence than an inevitable outcome is one way this book will change my perspective going forward, along with the ways that an excess of democracy can overcome liberalism (e.g., people voting for leaders who limit rights or even directly voting to limit rights, like Switzerland’s referendum that banned the construction of minarets). But also ways that liberalism can limit democracy, particularly through the expansion of the administrative state, judicial review, and international treaties—all of which come together in something like the European Commission. (Although I would note that Mounk talks about controversy over the Democratic legitimacy of bureaucratic rules or the Supreme Court, but it is not like everyone happily accepts the Affordable Care Act because it came to us through the democratic process.)
For explanation, I am personally sympathetic to Mounk’s argument that liberal Democracy thrived because it coincided with economic advancement, communications were limited to oligopolistic providers of news/information, and nation states were monotonic or had dominant ethnicities. The flip side of this is that economic slowdowns, social media and immigration all move the other way. But I wish that Mounk did more to prove this. He is right that you can’t just do simple data correlating presence of immigrants or income with votes, but that leaves him with less testable hypotheses. Moreover, what about earlier periods of slower growth in American history or the advent of radio which transformed communications or the different trajectories of immigration in different countries?
For cure, I liked just about all of Mounk’s ideas. But even if we adopted all of his economic prescriptions, for example, it would not radically transform growth/incomes. And some ideas might actually increase tensions, like expanding social supports which may exacerbate resentments.
Finally, on prediction, I wish Mounk would define what he means by ending liberal democracy and put a probability on it. I myself would put a probability close to zero on any of the following in the United States: the government shutting down major media publications or universities or think tanks or websites, elections being suspended and rule is continued without them, or a President remaining in office for 12 years, or even a single political party controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress for 12 straight years. I’m not sure if Mounk is putting higher odds on one/all of these outcomes or else is defining the end of liberal democracy in a much less severe way than this, it would be worth being clearer on it so we can better assess whether or not the predictions have come true.