Steven Levitsky

From the jacket:“Drawing on decades of research and a wide range of historical and global examples, from 1930's Europe to contemporary Hungary, Turkey and Venezuela to the American South during Jim Crow, Levitsky and Ziblatt show how democracies die – and how ours can be saved.”

“ A country whose president attacks the press, threatens to lock up his rival, and declares that he might not accept election results cannot credibly defend democracy “ p206


So how did we get into the show more current situation?

This book begins with a discussion of the four key indicators of authoritarian behavior:

1. Rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules of the game
2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents
3. Toleration or encouragement of violence
4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including media. P 23/24

American democracy has endured many previous threats, including the Civil War and Reconstruction and politicians such as Joseph McCarthy, Father Charles Coughlin and even Franklin Delano Roosevelt who, frustrated with his New Deal policies being struck down by the Supreme Court, attempted to increase the number of judges and thus pack the Court. Each time the checks and balances have brought the system back into balance as outlined by the framers of the Constitution.

An important check was that political parties were able to nominate candidates that conformed to party principles. However, after the chaos of the 1968 election, 'In 1972 passage of Mcgovern-Fraser Commission issued a set of recommendations that the two parties adopted before the 1972 elections. What emerged was a system of binding presidential primaries. ' (p 51) This resulted in the parties unable to perform as gatekeepers and keep unsuitable candidates out.

In addition, to work at its best, American democracy must be defined by two basic principles: mutual toleration and forbearance. Both of these address the idea that one's opponent is not evil and should not be annihilated; that varying political ideals are just that; that compromises between opposing views can be made.

These concepts have been breaking down for many years, as evidenced by the bombastic rhetoric of intolerance of Rush Lumbaugh and progressing through Ann Coulter whose 2008 campaign speech against Obama 'brought forth cries of “Treason!” “Terrorist!” and even “Kill him” from the crowd.” P157.

In addition to rhetoric, American politics has become a game of political hardball consisting of maneuvers that are legal, but not ethical or moral.

So is the answer to Republican hardball, hardball tactics by the Democrats? The authors say no.

”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. If the Trump administration were brought to its knees by obstructionism, or if President Trump were impeached without a strong bipartisan consensus, the effect would be to reinforce- and perhaps hasten – the dynamic of partisan antipathy and norm erosion that helped bring Trump to power to begin with. As much as a third of the country would likely view Trump's impeachment as the machinations of a vast left-wing conspiracy- maybe even as a coup. American politics would be left dangerously unmoored.

“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.” p 217

This book is short, only a bit over 200 pages. It has definitely opened my eyes to nuances of the current political climate and the true danger our democracy may be in. show less

Unsettling, to be sure. Obviously there’s a lot of resonance in this analysis of democratic erosion, even as things have gotten more extreme in the wake of Trump’s re-election. For a book with such devastating subject matter, it doesn’t lean into panic or hyperbole. Levitsky & Ziblatt provide provide measured examples drawn from a wide range of nations and histories. Most are powerfully illustrative, and collectively they shape a persuasive picture of how democracies falter—not show more through violent overthrow, but through the steady degradation of internal norms.

I came away with a clearer sense, not just of democracy’s fragility, but of the way that it is buttressed and supported from within. I must admit also, the book has shifted my sense of what effective political action looks like. I’m naturally inclined to support forceful, even radical action, but there’s a call to moderation here that I do find compelling.

It’s a thought-provoking book, not least because it resists despair. The authors don’t pretend the situation is good—but they do suggest that agency still exists, and even give some sense of its shape. show less

I have read many books in social and political theory which make a mockery of theoretical explanation. They use abstract terminology without explaining what their terms mean or how they are interrelated. They present arguments as perfect certainties, but the content of their arguments is so vague that it can only be challenged with equally vague verbiage. And the weakness of the underlying thought is disguised with hundreds of unnecessary pages which only add weight in the literal sense.

I show more liked this book because it's the precise opposite of bad social theory. The theoretical framework fits into a small figure (page 202) and can be easily understood from the text. The argument is sensible and the authors themselves evaluate it critically by analyzing case studies which conform to their theory, and also ones that don't! Finally, they say what they have to say and close shop without unnecessary loitering and repetition.

The argument of this book is that authoritarian political systems can become very durable if (1) they originate in a social revolution, (2) the revolutionaries pursue a radical political agenda which (3) leads to a strong counterrevolutionary reaction from somewhere, and if (4) the revolutionaries successfully unite as a cohesive elite group which overcomes the counterrevolution by eliminating alternative power centers and building a united military. Not all revolutionary systems pass through all stages, but the ones that do seem to have the tools to continue autocratic rulership for a long time.

As I already mentioned, the authors illustrate this argument with a number of case studies. The book also includes a list of all authoritarian regimes that ruled any nation in the world in the time period between 1900 and 2015, with a brief explanation why they were or were not included in this study. This degree of clarity and transparency is very admirable. After reading this book, the only question I had is this: the list of regimes that were not discussed in this book includes some that were durable, while others were not. How can these additional cases of durable authoritarianism be explained? If they can be cracked as clearly and elegantly as the ones studied in this book, I very much look forward to reading the sequel. show less

Tyranny of the Minority by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt is an essential read for anyone who would like to see democracy gain ground in this country. It can easily depress a reader, though hopefully the flip side of that is viewing it as a call to action.

The history of our Constitution as well as the histories of other democracies and their constitutions drive home several key points standing in the way of a healthy democracy here. I won't try to summarize the entire book, but I will show more mention a bit of my personal takeaway.

In finding ways to create a Constitution that would be ratified and unite the colonies, the founders built into it elements that insured that everyone would have a voice. Unfortunately, what should be a living document has stagnated, the country growing and changing while the laws that govern us are still the ones created for a small struggling nation trying to come together. Other democracies have modified and/or completely rewritten their Constitutions to adapt to a changing world. We, largely because of our mistaken understanding of American exceptionalism, refuse to do so. The original parts that were meant to protect the minority have become weaponized so that the minority, namely the moneyed minority, can rule over the majority. Not govern, rule, there is a major difference. Don't mistake every statement in this paragraph for what the authors might have written, this is part of my understanding of what the book shows coupled with my own ideas. Levitsky and Ziblatt are far more detailed and nuanced and may even disagree with some of my takeaways. The key is that this book gives you a rich history and ideas for making things better that will generate thoughts of your own, whether in agreement or not.

One indication that a book is good is when braindead people insist on leaving one-star ratings with no review. There is a reason other than their lack of functioning brain cells, they are following what they know that moneyed minority would want them to do. So read and decide for yourself and, if you feel it rates one star, by all means give it one star, but support that opinion. Otherwise your rating will be, justifiably, dismissed as partisan noise.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley. show less