Scan barcode
A review by tuckmonster
How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future by Daniel Ziblatt, Steven Levitsky
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.