Scan barcode
jrc2011's review against another edition
3.0
People are unique, complex and also predictable – both as individuals and in the groups and societies that they form. Humans are also very good at denial – and like to imagine that what they are doing is novel and different, or that they will avoid the same results with the same methods tried in the past. This results in predictable old sayings about history repeating and the doom/fate awaiting those who don’t study history.
Levitsky & Ziblatt’s style is the very clear – he delineates his chief goals and repeats them frequently with many supporting historical examples. The first goal is to describe the key indicators of authoritarianism, and this is clearly illustrated throughout the book. The second goal is to describe two simple qualities that have made democracy more successful in the US. The book wraps up with some high-level recommendations for what has to be done to reduce the risk of further degradation of democracy to avoid increased risk of authoritarianism.
What has made democracy in the US unique is mutual tolerance and forbearance, and a whole truckload of unwritten rules and norms in the world of politics that keeps democracy healthy, such as being truthful (or just avoiding lying) and not making unqualified claims against your ideological opponents or claiming that democracy doesn’t work (ie, “the election is rigged”).
“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.” (p212).
The authors identify “Four Key Indicators of Authoritarian Behavior” that present a risk for democracy: “We should worry when a politician 1) rejects, in words or action, the democratic rules of the game, 2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, 3) tolerates or encourages violence, or 4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” (p. 21).
In the summary, it is recommended that the Republican party regroup and figure out how to filter out the extremist candidates who have demonstrated that they do not support the democratic process and who fail to exhibit the qualities of forbearance and mutual toleration necessary for the long-term health of democracy in our country. The Republican party needs to broaden their base – one of the things that is missing from our contemporary political parties is tolerance within the parties for different opinions and perspectives on how things should be done. That diversity needs to be fostered for the health of our democracy.
The most important recommendation is for anti-Trump forces to unite in a coalition. Building a coalition is critical because it will teach the norms of forbearance and mutual toleration by bringing together people who may have diverse and opposing ideological views in support of specific values and goals that they all support.
No matter where you and the others stand on a controversial topic such as abortion or gun ownership, for example, you may agree on health care or minimum wage or requiring honesty from those in public office. Building coalitions can rebuild the faith in the system. “Such alliances help us build and sustain norms of mutual toleration. When we agree with our political rivals at least some of the time, we are less likely to view them as mortal enemies.” (p. 219)
Finally, the third major recommendation is to focus on creating social policies that are more universalistic rather than means-test based, to reduce inequality across the nation as a way of increasing overall support for the system.
The authors are adamant that we continue to support racial equality – we can’t balance tolerance between ideological entities on inequality.
The authors do a great job of keeping on point and repeatedly illustrating the traits of authoritarianism and the risks to democracy. There are so many tangents that we can get into that are barely hinted at in this book, such as historical imperialism of the US in supporting autocrats at the expense of democratically elected regimes.
Also missing is the broader social and cultural changes that have contributed to some of the ongoing degradation of forbearance and mutual toleration. There are plenty of other books out there about those specific topics related to class (thought they do talk about how the Civil Rights movement impacted our democratic norms) – and the rise of forms of mass media which make it possible not just to shape what and how people think, but their patterns of communication and interaction.
If you have a long “Want To Read” list – check out this short version here at The Guardian.
Levitsky & Ziblatt’s style is the very clear – he delineates his chief goals and repeats them frequently with many supporting historical examples. The first goal is to describe the key indicators of authoritarianism, and this is clearly illustrated throughout the book. The second goal is to describe two simple qualities that have made democracy more successful in the US. The book wraps up with some high-level recommendations for what has to be done to reduce the risk of further degradation of democracy to avoid increased risk of authoritarianism.
What has made democracy in the US unique is mutual tolerance and forbearance, and a whole truckload of unwritten rules and norms in the world of politics that keeps democracy healthy, such as being truthful (or just avoiding lying) and not making unqualified claims against your ideological opponents or claiming that democracy doesn’t work (ie, “the election is rigged”).
“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.” (p212).
The authors identify “Four Key Indicators of Authoritarian Behavior” that present a risk for democracy: “We should worry when a politician 1) rejects, in words or action, the democratic rules of the game, 2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, 3) tolerates or encourages violence, or 4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” (p. 21).
In the summary, it is recommended that the Republican party regroup and figure out how to filter out the extremist candidates who have demonstrated that they do not support the democratic process and who fail to exhibit the qualities of forbearance and mutual toleration necessary for the long-term health of democracy in our country. The Republican party needs to broaden their base – one of the things that is missing from our contemporary political parties is tolerance within the parties for different opinions and perspectives on how things should be done. That diversity needs to be fostered for the health of our democracy.
The most important recommendation is for anti-Trump forces to unite in a coalition. Building a coalition is critical because it will teach the norms of forbearance and mutual toleration by bringing together people who may have diverse and opposing ideological views in support of specific values and goals that they all support.
No matter where you and the others stand on a controversial topic such as abortion or gun ownership, for example, you may agree on health care or minimum wage or requiring honesty from those in public office. Building coalitions can rebuild the faith in the system. “Such alliances help us build and sustain norms of mutual toleration. When we agree with our political rivals at least some of the time, we are less likely to view them as mortal enemies.” (p. 219)
Finally, the third major recommendation is to focus on creating social policies that are more universalistic rather than means-test based, to reduce inequality across the nation as a way of increasing overall support for the system.
The authors are adamant that we continue to support racial equality – we can’t balance tolerance between ideological entities on inequality.
The authors do a great job of keeping on point and repeatedly illustrating the traits of authoritarianism and the risks to democracy. There are so many tangents that we can get into that are barely hinted at in this book, such as historical imperialism of the US in supporting autocrats at the expense of democratically elected regimes.
Also missing is the broader social and cultural changes that have contributed to some of the ongoing degradation of forbearance and mutual toleration. There are plenty of other books out there about those specific topics related to class (thought they do talk about how the Civil Rights movement impacted our democratic norms) – and the rise of forms of mass media which make it possible not just to shape what and how people think, but their patterns of communication and interaction.
If you have a long “Want To Read” list – check out this short version here at The Guardian.
bucketoffish's review against another edition
4.0
Before going into this book's arguments, let's clarify some definitions. By democracy the authors refer to not just the act of voting, but to a society where people are free to share viewpoints, co-exist, and potentially transfer power. Under this definition, a society where people can't discuss ideas freely, or one where power is unlikely to shift with public opinion, is not democratic. Similarly, they define authoritarianism not as a measure of government size, power, or policies, but rather by the suppression of opposing opinions and political leadership. I think democracy and authoritarianism are sometimes used slightly differently in the public sphere, so it's worth clarifying.
Anyway, the authors look at some instances in history where democracies have become autocracies, and try to find commonalities. They also apply these findings to recent politics in the United States. An interesting point they made is that a democracy relies on checks and balances, but can only function if those checks are rarely used. That is, different parts of government need to be strong enough to stop other branches from doing whatever they want, but these powers need to be used sparingly, so that government can actually operate. This leads to an interesting situation where the law grants powers which lawmakers have to habitually choose not to use. Thus the entire system relies on social norms and precedence more than the text of the law. I think this is demonstrated well by the fact that several other countries have had constitutions essentially copy-pasted from the United States, but nonetheless quickly became autocracies.
In the authors' opinion, democracies die when politicians start disregarding political norms, treating their opponents as enemies who must be defeated by any legal means. This starts with ignoring etiquette and framing the opposition as not only differing in opinion, but also as wrong, dangerous, corrupt, bigoted, and unfit to rule. This is further followed by using legal but dirty techniques such as obstructionism, gerrymandering, refusal to confirm political appointees, court packing, etc. It usually ends with one branch going so far off norm that they rewrite the rules of the game, making it very difficult for opponents to ever regain power. They go through a brief history of US politics, showing the increase of this behavior over the past few decades, culminating with the Trump presidency.
I think a lot of readers will probably be put off by some of the authors' suggestions, especially where they call for the major US political parties to act more as gatekeepers. It seems they pin part of the problem on the opening of party primaries to direct democracy, thus removing some of the candidate selection process of the elites. They state that since Democrats retained a superdelegate system, they were able to maintain more control over their party than Republicans, who went with a full democratic approach. They seem to pin much of the spiraling populism of the Republican party on this decision. The authors argue that to preserve democracy, political control has to be put back in the hands of elites, and not trusted fully to the people. In fact, they argue that the formation of political parties with elite gatekeepers is the only reason that US democracy has been able to survive for as long as it has.
The idea definitely has some merit in my opinion. After all, there's basically no system outside of politics where people are allowed into positions of leadership without any experience or vetting by people inside the organization. Also, direct political appeal to non-experts leads to a trend of simpler and simpler messaging, with the entire conversation devolving into insults, straw men, and conspiracy theories. But nonetheless, this suggestion is bound to be unpopular.
At this point, I don't really see political discourse in the US getting better anytime soon. The rise of social media has exacerbated the problems of hyper-partisanship, with people getting better and better at twisting or inventing facts to make their opposition look bad. There's also increasing demand for aggressive political leaders who refuse to cooperate with the other party. Democrats are talking about packing the Supreme Court and removing the filibuster if they get into power, and Republicans are floating the idea of straight-up succession. Next few years are gonna be wild, buckle up.
Anyway, the authors look at some instances in history where democracies have become autocracies, and try to find commonalities. They also apply these findings to recent politics in the United States. An interesting point they made is that a democracy relies on checks and balances, but can only function if those checks are rarely used. That is, different parts of government need to be strong enough to stop other branches from doing whatever they want, but these powers need to be used sparingly, so that government can actually operate. This leads to an interesting situation where the law grants powers which lawmakers have to habitually choose not to use. Thus the entire system relies on social norms and precedence more than the text of the law. I think this is demonstrated well by the fact that several other countries have had constitutions essentially copy-pasted from the United States, but nonetheless quickly became autocracies.
In the authors' opinion, democracies die when politicians start disregarding political norms, treating their opponents as enemies who must be defeated by any legal means. This starts with ignoring etiquette and framing the opposition as not only differing in opinion, but also as wrong, dangerous, corrupt, bigoted, and unfit to rule. This is further followed by using legal but dirty techniques such as obstructionism, gerrymandering, refusal to confirm political appointees, court packing, etc. It usually ends with one branch going so far off norm that they rewrite the rules of the game, making it very difficult for opponents to ever regain power. They go through a brief history of US politics, showing the increase of this behavior over the past few decades, culminating with the Trump presidency.
I think a lot of readers will probably be put off by some of the authors' suggestions, especially where they call for the major US political parties to act more as gatekeepers. It seems they pin part of the problem on the opening of party primaries to direct democracy, thus removing some of the candidate selection process of the elites. They state that since Democrats retained a superdelegate system, they were able to maintain more control over their party than Republicans, who went with a full democratic approach. They seem to pin much of the spiraling populism of the Republican party on this decision. The authors argue that to preserve democracy, political control has to be put back in the hands of elites, and not trusted fully to the people. In fact, they argue that the formation of political parties with elite gatekeepers is the only reason that US democracy has been able to survive for as long as it has.
The idea definitely has some merit in my opinion. After all, there's basically no system outside of politics where people are allowed into positions of leadership without any experience or vetting by people inside the organization. Also, direct political appeal to non-experts leads to a trend of simpler and simpler messaging, with the entire conversation devolving into insults, straw men, and conspiracy theories. But nonetheless, this suggestion is bound to be unpopular.
At this point, I don't really see political discourse in the US getting better anytime soon. The rise of social media has exacerbated the problems of hyper-partisanship, with people getting better and better at twisting or inventing facts to make their opposition look bad. There's also increasing demand for aggressive political leaders who refuse to cooperate with the other party. Democrats are talking about packing the Supreme Court and removing the filibuster if they get into power, and Republicans are floating the idea of straight-up succession. Next few years are gonna be wild, buckle up.
johannaerikaly's review against another edition
3.0
Intressant och lärorik, men det blev väldigt tydligt att den är skriven av amerikaner för amerikaner. Hade önskat att den inte fokuserade på USA så mycket som den gjorde.
moseslh's review against another edition
4.0
I had been thinking a lot about the future of democracy, and whether liberal democracy would survive the 2020s, when I saw this book at the store and couldn't resist buying it. The authors, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, are political scientists who study how democracies collapse into authoritarianism. Over the past few years, they realized that the US was displaying many of the early warning signs (and, one imagines, that a book on that topic would be highly profitable).
I was already aware of much of what Levitsky and Ziblatt discuss in this book, but they articulated and framed it clearly and compellingly. They did present some useful context and insight that was new to me, particularly with their comparisons to other democratic countries that succumbed to authoritarianism or successfully resisted it.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone thinking about the future of democracy or how to save it.
I was already aware of much of what Levitsky and Ziblatt discuss in this book, but they articulated and framed it clearly and compellingly. They did present some useful context and insight that was new to me, particularly with their comparisons to other democratic countries that succumbed to authoritarianism or successfully resisted it.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone thinking about the future of democracy or how to save it.