44 pages • 1 hour read
Daniel Ziblatt, Steven LevitskyHow Democracies Die
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2018A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Symbols & Motifs
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaKey Figures
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
Steven Levitsky (1968-) and Daniel Ziblatt (1972-) are professors in the Department of Government at Harvard University. While their main areas of research are authoritarianism in Latin America and Europe, respectively, the political conditions in the United States prompted them to examine American democracy in How Democracies Die. Drawing on their knowledge of the process of democratic breakdown in other countries, the authors offer a detailed analysis of how the same pattern is evident in the United States. The fact the authors have this breadth of knowledge underscores the validity of their argument that American democracy is not exceptional but is in fact vulnerable to the same authoritarian threats that other democracies have faced. It also positions them to identify the contours of the threat, since their study of authoritarian leaders in Europe and Latin America have given them the tools needed to create a “litmus test” that can diagnose would-be authoritarian leaders.
Finally, the authors’ self-professed dismay at having to focus their expertise in analyzing authoritarianism on their own country highlights how the political changes happening in the United States are a dramatic shift, though they are not without precedent in the country’s history. By positioning themselves this way in relation to the text, Levitsky and Ziblatt are underscoring the urgency of their work, insofar as the seriousness of the political situation has prompted them to draw on their research on democratic breakdown to offer a guide for citizens looking to defend American democracy.
Donald Trump
While the authors examine many authoritarian leaders in How Democracies Die, Donald Trump (1946-) is the most discussed and, given the context of the book, the most significant. The authors draw on the examples of these other leaders to highlight how Trump’s behavior fits a similar pattern, from seeking to capture the referees (e.g., intelligence agencies, judges), attempting to sideline the media, and changing the rules to his own advantage. That these behaviors so closely echo the criteria proposed by the authors in their litmus test of would-be autocrats emphasizes how Trump threatens democracy and justifies the project of the book, since it is by examining history that the authors can identify how Trump’s behavior betrays his authoritarian bent, despite the fact that he was elected.
It is also significant that this discussion centers on Trump as an American president, since as the authors point out, the American political system, as a presidential system with a broad scope of executive authority and dependence on unwritten rules, is particularly vulnerable to extremist outsiders with popular appeal. This is clearly exemplified by Donald Trump, who was a real estate developer and reality TV star before being elected. The focus on Trump highlights this threat not only in the context of Trump himself but in relation to authoritarians who could come after him.
Importantly, the authors point out that while Donald Trump has accelerated the destruction of the norms that sustain American democracy, and may have irrevocably damaged those norms, he is not the source of the democratic breakdown in the United States. Instead, that process dates back to figures like Newt Gingrich in the 1970s, who helped foster a more polarized, aggressive style of politics. The subsequent erosion of democratic norms continued in the decades that followed, under both Democrats and Republicans, driven by a climate of intense political polarization. While Trump did not create these dynamics, he did exploit them—and the fact that a leader with authoritarian tendencies was able to capitalize on political and social divides shows how defending democracy means not only changing the political situation but also addressing the social factors—such as rising inequality—that made such a leader appealing.
