This book was quite disappointing. I was expecting a thorough analysis on how stable democracies turned into authoritarian regimes; in contrast, the book only does a quick overview of some modern dictatorships and then delves into the United States' democratic history. Finally, the book concludes with some possible solutions to the current political crisis in the US, but these solutions don't seem to be founded on what's written in the rest of the book.On the upside, the essay presents many interesting concepts that allow to assess if an 'outsider politician' shows authoritarian traits. Also, the first chapters of the book make a strong point about the unwritten rules that are tacitly understood and respected because they support democracies. As the book thoroughly states, no constitution can set the basis for the functioning of a whole country. Another strong point of the book is its portrayal of politicians and political parties as the main responsible for safeguarding democracy.Perhaps the most frustrating bit of this essay is that it covers all authoritarian regimes under the same umbrella. It does not include, in the analysis of how democracies have died in the past, the analysis of specific social and economical phenomena that may have elicited the rise to power of authoritarian personalities. It is almost vexing to state that the rise of power of Pinochet (a hard right dictator) happened under the same circumstances as that of Chavez (an extreme left populist).Finally, although the authors repeatedly visit Latin American dictatorships in look for examples, they never mention the fact that some of these (as in Chile and Nicaragua) would have been dead in their tracks had them not been financially supported by the US government. Perhaps the US policy of sponsoring dictatorships, when it fits their political agenda, has contributed to the political nightmare they are currently living in nowadays.

Two basic norms have preserved Americas checks and balances in ways we have come to take for granted: mutual toleration, or the understanding that competing parties accept one another as legitimate rivals, and forbearance, or the idea that politicians should exercise restraint in deploying their institutional prerogatives. These two norms under-girded American democracy for most of the twentieth century. Pg. 8That pretty much sums up the whole book, and for any that have their eyes open enough to see it, this was already obvious. And [REVIEW SPOILER ALERT] I just don't see any Republican alive ever practicing either those two wonderful qualities so we are doomed...DOOMED I SAY!!. But what this book does is lay it all out in an easy to read format with many examples of democracy gone wrong. At first I was worried about the lack of footnotes, but for any historical example or ridiculous conservative quote...all the who, what, where, and when is in the end-notes, VERY thorough.Aside from the easy access historical data, the authors were convincing (to me at least) in their conclusion of what went wrong past democracies and what to look for in weakened democracies.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. Pg. 21One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is used as a pretext for its subversion. Would-be autocrats often use economic crises, natural disasters, and especially security threats wars, armed insurgencies, or terrorist attacks to justify antidemocratic measures. Pg 92.One interesting observation is that for all the reverence for the founders intentions these guys remind us that it was not a sure thing at all.The American republic was not born with strong democratic norms. In fact, its early years were a textbook case of politics without guardrails.Federalists and Republicans initially suspected each other of treason. Pg. 120And after getting through those turbulent early days, the next wave of possible failure grew.The erosion of basic norms expanded the zone of acceptable political action. Several years before shots were fired at Fort Sumter, partisan violence pervaded Congress. Yale historian Joanne Freeman estimates that there were 125 incidents of violence including stabbings, canings, and the pulling of pistols on the floor of the U.S. House and Senate between 1830 and 1860. Pg 122I made a ton more bookmarks and I like the idea of being able to pull up some verifiable source to prove how crazy, crass or just plain stupid modern Republicans are (and of course Democrats have plenty examples of un-heroic political performance, but in todays world the problems are overwhelming caused by Republicans). But by the time I reviewed my notes I was just too depressed to bother loading up all this debate ammo.You see I finished this the weekend after the High School shooting in Florida, and the Republicans are already calling the angry students stooges of the liberal elite. And...well...damn...how can you argue with that? A truckload of footnotes or end-notes wont convince one Republican to change their mind.So reading How Democracies Dies is an insightful and informative presentation we can all appreciate as the ship of state confidently sails into the iceberg destined to bring about the Steve Bannons desire for the destruction of the bureaucratic state

This book delivers autopsies of various democracies from 30,000 feet. Hitler, Hugo Chavez, Pinochet, Trump somehow all get blended into this survey. So the bulk of the book works as an introductory history course. That's fine, but the rise of Hitler, for example, is old information. What I am looking for at this point is what to do to save democracy. I was disappointed by what the authors eventually conclude. For example, they have a long list of things that the leaders of the Republican Party "must" do to weed out Trumpish candidates. I don't know how "must do" lists for leaders change anything and I don't even know if I agree with the prescription. Registered Republicans wanted Trump and they got Trump, so the democratic system worked as far as that goes. Do the authors condone the shady shenanigans of the Democratic Party leadership in 2016 when it was taken over by Hillary Clinton long before she won the primaries? Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White HouseTrump is just a symptom of a syndrome that this autopsy is missing. The following offer better diagnoses of the deeper disorder: For a more illuminating book about the current political mess: . For digging into Hitler, I still like: For a better factual understanding of what is going right in the world in the present:

"Over the past two years, we have watched politicians say and do things that are unprecedented in the United Statesbut that we recognize as having been the precursors of democratic crisis in other places. We feel dread, as do so many other Americans, even as we try to reassure ourselves that things can't really be that bad here." But can they? Is American democracy dying? This is the question that Harvard government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt set out to answer in How Democracies Die. Drawing on decades of research in comparative politics around in Europe and Latin America, they review the conditions of today's fractured American polity with Donald Trump in the White House.Four Indicators of Authoritarian BehaviorThe principal contribution Levitsky and Ziblatt bring to their topic are the "Four Indicators of Authoritarian Behavior" that they use to analyze the conduct of any democratic regime. It's useful to cite them here:Rejecting (or weakly committing to) democratic rulesDenying the legitimacy of political opponentsTolerating or encouraging violenceDemonstrating readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including the news media.Unfortunately, "Trump, even before his inauguration, tested positive on all four measures on our litmus test for autocrats. . . With the exception of Richard Nixon, no major-party presidential candidate met even one of these four criteria over the last century." So, if you're worried whether American democracy is dying, you have reason to be."The most likely, post-Trump future"Levitsky and Ziblatt's conclusions are equivocal but sobering. "[W]e see three possible futures for a post-Trump America," they write. "The first, and most optimistic, is a swift democratic recovery. . . A second, much darker future is one in which President Trump and the Republicans continue to win with a white nationalist appeal . . . The third, and in our view, the most likely, post-Trump future is one marked by [increased] polarization, more departures from unwritten political conventions [i.e., customs and procedures], and increasing institutional warfarein other words democracy without guardrails.""Democracy without guardrails"Guardrails is the metaphor the two professors employ throughout their book. The word refers to the unwritten laws that have almost always restrained Trump's predecessors in the Oval Office, following a pattern consciously laid down by George Washington at the outset of the republic. Of course, there have been departures from the norm: Abraham Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt attempting to pack the Supreme Court and running for third and fourth terms, and Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping. However, with these and a few other notable exceptions, presidents have generally restrained themselves from using the full powers available to them against those they perceive as enemies. Similarly, until recently, Congress had shown similar restraint.Is American democracy dying?Not until the closing days of the 2oth century have we witnessed a dramatic increase in what can only be termed abuse of historical norms. The pattern is far and away most egregious because of the actions of the Trump White House. But, as the authors make clear, there have been precedents aplenty, especially beginning with the scorched-earth tactics Newt Gingrich engineered to achieve a Republican majority in the House in 1994, continuing with the explosion of right-wing media that constantly urges Republican politicians to take the gloves off, the brinksmanship over the debt limit and the budget, the increasingly frequent use of the filibuster by both Republicans and Democrats to frustrate presidents of the opposing party, and the blatant use of voter suppression and gerrymandering in red states. Donald Trump's attacks on the press, tolerance of white nationalism, and almost daily lies simply represent the fullest expression of these trends. Is American democracy dying? Has the trend been underway for three decades? You be the judge.What is to be done?To forestall the grim scenarios they foresee for America's future, Levitsky and Ziblatt recommend that centrist and liberal forces enter into coalition with their political enemies. "A political movement that brings togethereven if temporarilyBernie Sanders supporters and businesspeople, evangelicals and secular feminists, and small-town Republicans and urban Black Lives Matter supporters, will open channels of communication across the vast chasm that has emerged between our country's two main partisan camps." They point to successful efforts along these lines in such countries as Austria and Colombia. Can you imagine such a thing in today's overheated, deeply polarized political environment in the United States? I can't. Apparently, the two professors have had little if any practical political experience. Attractive as such an approach might appear in theory, it's a non-starter. To my mind, the only possible remedy for the current Republican shift to the far right is a sharp swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction.

A concise and sober exploration of the characteristics of failed democracies, with comparisons to the current American situation. It takes a broader approach, mainly thumbnail sketches of the countries in question, spending most of its time talking about the ways in which America's political parties and leaders have weakened the guardrail protecting our democracy. As a result, the book focuses mainly on that which is apparent to those of us who follow politics closely the ways in which the Republican Party especially has given itself over to paranoia, anger and authoritarianism, violating key norms on the way to nominating a man who apes the rhetoric and actions of other democratically elected leaders who destroyed democracies in their own nations during the 20th century.Overall, it's an excellent and easy read, though it's lighter on historical details than I'd have liked. Special kudos to the authors for pointing out that Ameerica's norms of mutual toleration and forebearance rested on an unspoken acceptance of racial exclusion crafted by the Compromise of 1876, which ended Reconstruction and allowed nearly a century of Jim Crow and that the current polarization is connected directly to the destruction of that status quo and the consequent realignment of the parties around the issue of race.