HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE – Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt

How Democracies Die is about how nations fall to strongmen. This can happen when institutions lose strength and a country’s political culture degrades. of various kinds.  After the election of Donald Trump in 2017, this book gained widespread acclaim.   It tries to explain why and how the trends that Trump embodies represent a decline of our democracy. More than that, it urges us to understand that Trumpism is only a recent symptom of the disease, and not a cause.  Ziblatt and Levitsky draw comparisons to other nations that slipped into dictatorial rule. They do this as a warning about what’s at stake, as well as an exercise in recognizing the signs.

I remember hearing about this book during the rare times I’d watch CNN or MSNBC. Come to think of it, I almost only watch cable news on the days leading to, during, and immediately after an election.  Otherwise, I’d be good to ditch the cable box.  If I did, I’d miss some excellent examples of the trends that Ziblatt and Levitsky are talking about.  Their argument comes down to whether a country’s political system features two qualities enough to stave off authoritarians. Those qualities are mutual toleration and forbearance.

Look at how political pundits talk about their opponents in 2021. often they speak of them not as opposition, but as enemies, and as illegitimate.  Mutual toleration is the idea that political forces in a state are legitimate and have a right to be there. They can express their views and campaign for power.  School civics classics try to teach this as a core value. It’s inherent in the idea of shaking hands at the end of our kid’s soccer matches to recognize a fair game.  The other team had a right to be there, and whether they won or lost. We have to recognize the winner, wish them the best, and thank them for participating with us in a process. It may not be perfect, but we’re supposed to consider this to be way better than a street fight or a free-for-all.

If you have enemies instead of opposition, why not use everything in your power to defeat them?  It’s a war now, after all – would you fight a war with your hands tied against a deadly foe?  Shoot with your non-dominant hand and, in doing so, handicap yourself?  Or would you practice forbearance, and restrain yourself from using your full power?  This can mean ignoring laws and locking up opponents. It means using the powers of government to harass your enemies. It means criminalizing their legitimate activities and banning them from running for office.

If you want to know why Trump worried people beyond his mean tweets or the impact of his policies, this is a useful book.  It’s clear, well-written, and not long.  Despite the fact that it’s written by Harvard professors, I didn’t find it intimidating.  It summarizes how Trump damaged the norms of mutual toleration and forbearance in American politics.  Trump ranted about how his opponents were enemies of the people. He refused to follow many norms that weren’t written in law (like releasing tax returns) and refused subpoenas that did have the force of law. His administration issued copious executive orders to get around the laws that still exist (something other administrations have done to excess as well). Finally, he riled up followers to assault the capital on January 6, 2021 and aid a coup attempt when he lost re-election.

The book suggests that Trump is a continuation of this process of democratic decay, not its cause.  The larger Republican party, in particular, laid the groundwork for it over decades. Of course, Democrats had their role in it. Many of them talked about Bush as a dictator-in-waiting and an enemy of the Republic, as well.  Democrats and Republicans both waved executive orders around to circumvent laws.  Prominent members of both parties have resisted complying with subpoenas in my lifetime. When Congress allows them to get away with doing so, it weakens itself against the Presidency.  Trump is far from the first president to contribute to this erosion.  He’s not likely to be the last.

Levitsky and Ziblatt show that the Republican party treads on these norms more often. But do they explain why the forces of mutual toleration and forbearance held more sway in the past?  This context is lacking in the book. Another read, like Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop, offers compelling theories on this. Yet even that one glosses over the idea that both major camps in our politics serve the same masters.  Both run a system that ensures the already powerful remain so no matter the election result.  Do those powerful people tend to share something in common – gender, race, wealth, social status?  Whatever it is, it formed the basis of a system that, until the last few decades, was doing well for itself. Now, it appears to be unraveling.