How Democracies Die book review PDF

Preview

Summary

Book review...

Description

How Democracies Die Book Review

How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt is all about the fall of democracies around the globe, along with the current issues that are happening with the Trump administration in the United States. The authors attack this topic from a stance of checking all the

1

boxes that they have created in a guide for identifying radical leaders. Also, they look at the breaking of the norms established throughout the past administrations. Levitsky and Ziblatt show a timeline of past Presidents in Latin American countries as well as the former USSR on how radical politicians have gotten through the cracks. However, they have either been stopped by Congress or political parties, putting aside their differences to work together on the common goal to protect their democracy. This timeline is not only used for foreign countries, but the authors also do a timeline for the United States. This shows how there have been past Presidents that are considered norm breakers, like Abraham Lincoln, that are now considered heroes. Also, some Presidents have been in some deep waters with Congress and the American people over breaking such norms set by their predecessors. The author's main argument is that it just takes one person to break through all the checks and balances that are established in the Constitution, but also someone willing to break the unwritten rules of the Presidency to collapse a government. Levitsky and Ziblatt support their arguments very well with facts and sources throughout this book. They not only provide examples for President Trump but they use those examples to compare to other countries who have faced the same type of leaders. One of the most significant points that stands out in their argument is President Trump's use of disclaiming his competition, discrediting the news and "striking hostilities towards the referees - law enforcement, intelligence, ethics agencies, and the courts" (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018, p. 177). Levitsky and Ziblatt compare Trump's behavior to the former President of Venezuela Chávez (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018, p. 182). Chávez tried the same tactics to control his public perception to the people as well as making the government conform to his standard. Overall, Chávez failed to do so, but the alarming comparison that the authors make is unsettling.

2

These comparisons are helpful to the readers to help connect the dots to other leaders who have attempted the same tactics but also lets the readers understand that this is not just happening in America. All these examples and connections help support their central argument of President Trump being a radical. The authors also argue that this is not the first time in United States history that a candidate and Presidents have tried to rid the system. They reach back into the Civil War and post-civil war era with Lincoln and Johnson, as well as the great depression with Roosevelt and Truman. Both of these examples help build their case about President Trump. Still, the authors show how congressional gatekeeping has prevented them from getting to that point within the United States currently. As the authors state in context about President Trump, "the guardrails were still there, but they were weaker than they had been in a century" (Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018, p. 175). The way Levitsky and Ziblatt write this book allows the readers to quickly compare their descriptions of other countries who had democracies fail to what is currently happening in the United States. There is a debate that could be said to whether it is the President that is the problem or Congress or just the unwillingness for change in our government. The authors do point out valid character attributes in the leaders that have been consistent across the failing democracies to President Trump's characteristics, and sadly it's kind of a scary thought. The excessive force of power was one of the attributes that stood out to me while reading, especially since one of the impeachment articles was about the extreme use of power. While other leaders in South American countries used their power to disband certain parts of government, I do not think it is the same to compare President Trump to those leaders. This is because, as far as I know, he has not tried to disband parts of the government to make it a dictatorship. Even if he tried, the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution would have made this impossible.

3

As stated, the authors use a lot of evidence and background information to make their arguments very convincing. For the most part, the arguments are convincing due to the factual evidence in place, but there are some flaws. For one, Levitsky and Ziblatt look at democracy from one side of the table. They are very biased in their approach and only talk about the republican party problems with the rise of the tea party and how the Republican party candidates attack their competition. They never mention Democratic party candidates and their approach towards their competition or problems in the office. The authors did talk about Roosevelt and how he tried to stack the courts and broke a presidential norm of staying in office more than two terms. Still, when it came to a big democratic party scandal, Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton, the authors brushed right over it. There were only a couple of paragraphs between pages 149-150, where they discuss the impeachment of former president Bill Clinton. Also, the authors never address the surrounding cause for alarm about Hilary Clinton and the leaked email documents or Benghazi crisis when she was secretary of state. It is not that this information would sway the author's argument, but when the authors bring up a lot of issues and problems that have happened within the Republican party, they should also do that for the Democratic party. This would make a fair and unbiased argument without it looking like their book has been stacked against the Republican party. I consider this a significant flaw in the author's argument because it makes me question the validity overall. It makes it seem that they are trying to sway the perception by only giving one side of the story. They paint the picture that all Republicans are gun-loving, anti-abortion, radicals that do not want to cooperate with the Constitutions or Presidental norms of office. In fact, it has been a gradual decline in these two political parties, not wanting to work together. It can be seen through the past Presidents, especially Obama and Trump.

4

As for the value that this book provides to knowledge, I feel that every American and academic should read this book for the mere fact that it really explains how the government operates but also showing that not all rules of government are written down. I believe that it would provide people with the knowledge to understand what is happening in the world and news today, mainly if they have not studied government operations or involved in politics. If anything, it would help them make a knowledge base decision of who they should vote for when elections come. I know it helped fill some of the gaps in perception that I had about the government, mainly when it talked about different unwritten rules. I think that we as Americans feel that a lot of different so-called laws are written down when, in fact, most are just norms that have been followed throughout the years. For example, the size of the Supreme Court and how many members there are is not a written rule. Many Presidents have tried to change the size to stack the courts in one way or the other. Also, the issue that happened in 2016 when supreme court justice Sclina died and Congress blocked Obama's nomination had never happened before. It was the norm that was just broken. Overall, How Democracies Die provides an insight into not only how the United States government runs and operates, but also how other countries have handled Presidents and officials that did not follow the rules. Even though I feel that this book is one-sided and biased, I do believe that it is still beneficial in the fact that it shows how the government works and what a president can do and cannot. I do wish the authors would have attacked this book from both sides of the table to give the readers a better knowledge of how our democracy has been on the downfall for multiple decades and not pin it on one political party. Both parties have played their role in the decline of the United States democratic system, and they should both share the blame. Still, this book helps start the framework on looking at the more significant issue of it not being

5

one particular person.

Bibliography: Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. London: Penguin Books....