Can It Happen Here? audiobook

This was an excellent edited volume, covering a range of perspectives both on Trump and on populism and democratic backsliding more broadly. These kinds of books tend to be hit or miss, and it is hard to find one in which every essay is well-written and engaging. Sunstein, however, has managed to curate a remarkably thoughtful and diverse set of authors who provide commentary from myriad perspectives and backgrounds, including psychology, political science, bureaucratic analysis, and history. Not every piece was original, but all were engaging and thought-provoking. This book meets all my standards for book-buying: It is incredibly relevant for today's politics, both in the U.S. and abroad, but it also contains more theoretical and timeless analyses that will remain important decades into the future.Note: I won this book in a Goodreads giveaway, so take that as you will. Also, because the version I read was prerelease, it was full of typos. I doubt this is the case for the final version, but I haven't had time to check.

An interesting and challenging book. Each chapter is written by a different person who has their own take on the question "Can It Happen Here?" Some chapters are relatively short while others felt tedious and the author sometimes felt like they were being garrulous for the sake of extra time in the book. That said, there were multiple great chapters that challenge the mainstream narrative and ideas. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the concepts of democracy and authoritarianism.

This essay collection has its moments. In answer to the question? Kinda, but here is where you can help and here is what to look out for.

From no to maybe to yes, thoughtful takes on the question. Essential and timely at any time.

This is an excellent book of essays (or chapters) written by constitutional law professors, political scientists, psychologists, and so forth, about whether authoritarianism could occur in the USA, and thereby either overtly or covertly/subtly take down democracy. Each essay was very informative, although one or two were tough going - rather dull - and the conclusion that I draw is that it's quite possible the unthinkable could happen here in America. The "model" of Putinism - continuing the forms of democracy (elections) but otherwise taking over the levers of power (media, intimidating the judiciary, etc) - could happen here. Probably why Trump is so "entranced" by Putin.. The quality of these writings is exceptional, and I recommend the book to anyone interested in gaining more insight into what has happened in American politics the past few decades (since the buildup to Trump didn't just occur since 2015 - when he threw his hat in the ring). One bit of to me at least startling information - no matter what, about one-third of the populace has authoritarian tendencies. Usually, they are kept in check, if things are going satisfactorily (enough) and it seems as if the American Dream is still in effect. However, if the long-term prospects evaporate, such that the Dream turns into a nightmare wherein it seems clear that future generations will not live a better life than their predecessors, then authoritarian-leaning Americans may "activate" - their latent pro-authoritarianism may become visible. As we can see at Trump rallies. Trump supporters aren't going anywhere so the task at hand is to understand what happened, reform American politics, and safeguard democracy (freedom of speech, elections, separation of powers, etc) - i.e. hope our democratic institutions resist Trumpism. Even if Trump is impeached though, unless there is reform such that politicians act in the peoples' interests rather than in the interests of their mega-donors, the trend toward authoritarianism, which is also a reaction against globalization/cosmopolitanism/the elites, will continue. Anyway, I have (as usual selected many quotes) which I shall organize by chapter. From Posner chapter "The Dictator's Handbook, US Edition:""Trump is unique in modern history as an outsider who came to power by overcoming his party's leadership." "In principle, Trump could try to create his own Brownshirts by rewarding supporters for their loyalty with offices and other compensation, along with pardons if they are convicted of crimes." "Imagine that Trump ...harasses agencies that pose a threat to his power (intelligence agencies?) while lavishing resources and attention on those that support him (immigration agencies?)...""Congress can defy a dictator, but maybe not if it believes that voters love their leader and will vote against members of Congress who oppose him." "Over time, our political system has become...increasingly oligarchical." "When representatives are responsive not to the interests of the public in general but to a relatively small group of individuals and groups, we have oligarchy." "...leaders...spend more and more time enriching a small group of important backers that keep them in power." "In the United States, oligarchy has resulted from the gradual breakdown of the party system...and from long-term changes in the structure of mass media, which have encouraged political distrust, exacerbated polarization, and merged politics with entertainment." "A small class of wealthy donors has disproportionate control over the Republican policy agenda." "...the causes of constitutional rot [include] (1) political polarization; (2) loss of trust in government; (3) increasing economic inequality; and (4) policy disasters, ...like the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and the 2008 financial crisis." "...polarization, loss of trust, economic inequality, and policy disaster -- mutually reinforce each other." "In an oligarchical system...a relatively small number of backers effectively decide who stays in power." "Our constitutional system is still formally democratic, but it has become more oligarchical in practice over time." "...the power of the press to protect republican government has been weakened." "The American system of freedom of the press ...was undermined [in 2016] not by state censorship but by Trump's very effective hacking of the media..." "...Russia and allied groups in Eastern Europe engaged in successful propaganda campaigns during the 2016 election season, designed to enhance Trump's chances and sow discord and confusion in the United States." "Propaganda...attempts to put everything in dispute, so that nothing can be established as true and everything becomes a matter of personal opinion or partisan belief." "...if people stop believing in the truth of what they read, they don't have to think hard about political questions." "Propaganda...undermines truth to destroy the concept of the public good and to encourage tribalism." "As a political system becomes increasingly oligarchical, it also becomes less equal and more polarized..." "...people have lost so much faith in government that they are willing to gamble on a demagogue." "Constitutional rot ...allowed Trump to rise to power; it also has given him incentives to increase and exacerbate constitutional rot to stay in power." "Polarization...[keeps] Trump in power because it binds his supporters to him. He exacerbates polarization by fomenting outrage and internal division." "Polarization and upheaval are good for [Trump]... Crisis is his brand." "Although Trump ran as a populist who promised to protect the working class from the depredations of globalization, as soon as he entered the White House, he reversed course. His cabinet is full of wealthy individuals,and many of his top advisers are from the very financial class that he excoriated in his campaign." "...he has quickly allied himself with the most conservative elements of the Republican party, and he ...supported a health care bill tat is likely to harm many working-class Americans." "The central goal of the Republican agenda...is to deliver benefits to the donor class, either through tax cuts, government expenditures, or deregulation." "From the standpoint of populism, the Republicans' proposed health care bills have been an utter travesty; they withdraw important benefits and protections from working-class Americans to benefit the very wealthiest." "Trump ran as a populist but he now governs as a sellout. This is not an unusual phenomenon among populist revolutionaries." "Trump is a huckster, with few actual ideological commitments." "...Trump's very strategies for gaining power--dividing the country and fomenting mutual hatred -- mean that he should align his policies with members of his own party against the Democrats. That means that he will not govern as an economic populist, although his rhetoric will remain rabidly populist." "Trump may have run a populist campaign, but now that he is in power, he has pretty much embraced oligarchy. His populism is mostly sloganeering..." "Trump is the last president in the Reagan regime...the regime's policy agenda was tax cuts and deregulation above all..." "...Trump is the last Reaganite." "The United States has failed to reconcile globalization with democracy.""The central question is how to preserve republican government in the face of a changing global economy." "The history of the American Constitution is a series of struggles for greater democracy, equality, and inclusiveness in the face of well-entrenched opposition. Trump's presidency signals the beginning of yet another contest."From Cowen chapter "Could Fascism Come to America?""A would-be fascist...promise[s] them a new social order in which violence is raised in social status, and in which violence is deployed for something other than just the protection of property rights." "Democracy is alive...at...least in the social democracies with government running at 40 to 55 percent of GDP." "...the Nazi state moved the German government away from transparency, including fiscal transparency....""Hitler...used...persuasion, force, and terror to make the state do his bidding." "...real consumption [in Germany] fell over that decade [of the 30s], and most of the spending boosts were for the military, which...did not create real wealth for the citizenry." From Sunstein chapter "Lessons from the American founding""According to "The Federalist Papers," small republics ...often end up destroying liberty, and themselves...because of the power of well-organized factions." "Publius argues...that in a well-ordered functioning deliberative democracy, a wide range of perspectives and diversity of views are a virtue rather than a vice..." "Opposition [to ratifying the Constitution] was especially intense in New York. ....Hamilton was the major impetus behind "The Federalist Papers;" he recruited John Jay and James Madison for the effort." "...passion and interest...can be harmful to "the rights of other citizens" and to "the ...aggregate interests of the community." ... ...interest plays a role...when nations confiscate property, or when majorities harm minorities whom they see as competitors." "In a small republic, a self-interested private group could easily seize political power and distribute wealth or opportunities in its favor." "Self-interest...would ...result from differences in natural talents and property ownership." "...a large republic would provide crucial safeguards." "An extended republic, with diverse interests, creates a built-in protection against oppression." "...bicameralism...enlists diversity both a safeguard and as a way of enlarging the range of arguments." "[Hamilton, No. 79:] "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution."" "...the system of checks and balances, in a large republic, would help to improve deliberation." "...the constitutional system would serve republican goals better than the traditional republican solution of small republics, civic education, and close ties between representatives and their publics.""...the president appoints the nation's judges, and we can imagine a federal judiciary that is supine in the face of presidential aggression."From Power chapter "Beyond Elections: Foreign Interference with American Democracy""One possible source of our relieve complacency now is that Russia's attempts to meddle in our democracy proved largely unsuccessful during the Cold War." "...foreign powers like Russia and china, or non-state actors like ISIS, today have a much greater ability to use "fake news" or "alternative facts" to influence a democratic electorate than they did during the Cold War." "Russia has keenly exploited our growing reliance on new media...""...the content disseminated by these [Russian] accounts and ads reveals a multifaceted strategy to support Trump's election...and sow political discord among Americans." "...the Russians had prepared a social media campaign, in anticipation of Secretary Clinton's victory, to amplify doubts about the validity of the results and "cripple her presidency from its start."" "...the great dangers of a media environment manipulated by targeted social media interventions. As demonstrated by decades of behavioral science research on agenda-setting, "elements emphasized by the mass media come to be regarded as important by the public."""European countries have been on the receiving end of similar Russian measures..." "...the echo chamber's walls are so soundproof that...President Putin's ....favorability among Republicans rose ... between 2015 and President Trump's inauguration, from 12 percent to 32 percent, while ... among Independents [it increased] from 12 percent to 23 percent." "An electorate that in the Cold War would have been hard to differentiate today comprises individuals whose particular likes and dislikes are intimately understood by big business, technology companies, and political campaigns -- and, seemingly, well-resourced foreign entities with an interest in impacting public opinion." "...it is already commonplace for governments to manipulate public opinion over social media by contracting directly with strategic communication firms." "...now that there is a genuine risk of foreign powers who, in Washington's words, "practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion," it is incumbent on the rest of us to enhance our vigilance."From Goldsmith chapter "Paradoxes of the Deep State""...every presidential administration from FDR through Nixon used the Deep State to collect political intelligence on potential rivals." "...no statutory laws governed Deep State activities inside the united Sates, and intelligence agencies "simply ignored" the Constitution, concluded the Church Committee.""[Watergate "Deep Throat" Mark] Felt... was ratting on one of the most corrupt presidencies in American history." "...the Deep State...can preserve democratic values though the revelation and correction of antidemocratic action in secret." "The government... ....has never prosecuted a member of the media for publishing secret government information." "...leaks of government information are not always an absolute bad, and ...can serve a vital function in checking a too-secretive Deep State." "...the US government ...is unable to control its leakers, who ....possess enormous discretion to use the secretly collected information to sabotage persons, policies, and initiatives they do not like." "...a profusion of sensitive leaks from the Deep State [as never before in US history] with ...an overtly political aim to bring down senior leadership [of the Trump administration]." "...we have never faced a situation in which the National Security adviser, and perhaps even the president of the United States, presented a credible counterintelligence threat involving one of our greatest adversaries."From Ginsburg and Aziz chapter "How we Lost Constitutional Democracy""[In a hypothetical scenario] ...the new president...handpicks allies for key judicial vacancies..." "Despite the Civil War, two world wars, and countless economic and security emergencies, national elections have never been postponed." "The United States...is ...vulnerable to the most prevalent form of democratic backsliding: the slow ...descent toward partial autocracy." "...the quality of democracy can decline precipitously even as formal elections continue to be held." "...democracy...relies on transparency, legality, impartiality, and constraint." "...democracy needs liberal rights of speech and association so those with alternative views can challenge government on its policies, hold it accountable, and propose alternatives." "The rule of law ...is essential." "...would-be autocrats find it critical first to control the public narrative, often by directly attacking or intimidating the press." "Leaders who wish to roll back democratic institutions...tend to depict those institutions' defenders as representatives of a tired, insulated elite engaged in self-dealing to the detriment of the people." "...an independent judiciary and institutional checks such as legislative oversight...can prove significant barriers to democratic backsliding." "The institutional checks on national political power rest on theoretical assumptions that have proved in practice rather fragile." "...the Republican move to lay off federal workers and reduce the benefits of those who remain is so significant..." "...the First Amendment, for good or ill, arguably protects sources of outright propaganda -- sites spreading lies about politicians, for example -- which could in tandem with presidential attacks on the media lead citizens to distrust all news sources." From Feldman chapter "On "It Can't Happen Here"""Because populist movement sometimes feature demagogic leaders, it's easy to conclude that those leaders are the necessary precondition for their movements." "...it could be argued that the rapidity of democratization in Eastern Europe has impeded the development of the robust civil society ecosystem necessary to resist de-democratization."From Stenner and Haidt chapter "Authoritarianism is not a Momentary Madness, but an Eternal Dynamic within Liberal Democracies" "There is a fundamentally antidemocratic mood afoot that has lost patience in particular, with the strictures of political correctness." "Whatever these political brands might once have represented, "left" versus "right" is being overturned in a new game of "insiders" versus "outsiders" ... or so it seems." "From the perspective of Stenner's "authoritarian dynamic," this "far-right populist" tangle simply represents the activation of authoritarian predispositions (in the roughly one-third of the population who are so inclined) by perceptions of "normative threat" (put most simply: threats to unity and consensus, or "oneness and sameness")." "Authoritarianism is substantially heritable ...and mostly determined by lack of "openness to experience" ...and by cognitive limitations...these are two factors that reduce one's willingness and capacity (respectively) to tolerate complexity, diversity, and difference." "In contrast to status quo conservatism, authoritarianism is primarily driven not by aversion to change (difference over time) but by aversion to complexity (difference across space). In a nutshell, authoritarians are "simple-minded avoiders of complexity more than closed-minded avoiders of change"..." "...suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual autonomy yields to group authority." "...there was no socio-demographic variable whose impact on populist voting exceeded that of our basic "child-rearing values" measure of authoritarianism: not education, income, religion, gender, age, or urban/rural residence." "...non-authoritarians' "activation' -- in defense of freedom and diversity over obedience and conformity -- includes rejection of populist candidates and causes that fail to share this vision of the good life." "...evidence in support of the notion that populism is mostly fueled by economic distress [is] weak and inconsistent..." "Trump ascended to the American presidency, Britain exited Europe, and the French flirted with the National Front because Western liberal democracies have now exceeded many people's capacity to tolerate them--to live with them, and in them." "...there is ...little evidence that living in a liberal democracy generally makes people more democratic and tolerant." "Democracy in general and tolerance in particular, might actually be better served by an abundance of common and unifying rituals, institutions, and processes." "The gleeful reactions of Trump's supporters to his "strongman" posturing attested to their anger and bitterness regarding the "political correctness" of the "liberal elite," and the pleasure they seemed to derive from watching someone who sounds like "us" finally sticking it to "them."" "Liberal democracy has now exceeded may people's capacity to tolerate it."

Many people should read this, because there is not enough high level discourse about politics beyond the bounds of specific policies or outcomes of particular elections. There's no way to gauge the likelihood that Trump ends up materially impacting the institutions underlying the republic, or to effectively counteract that threat, without exploring the possibilities.Understanding the vulnerabilities of the present system also shows what needs to be reformed to strengthen it.A few favorites:Karen Stenner and Jonathan Haidt's essay on the psychology of authoritarian dispositions is a useful framing for understanding other reporting on trump loyalists.Duncan Watts articulates how "common sense" is a dangerous lie in political discourse.Stephen Holmes ties in the weakness of democracy with rising economic inequality. Voters will rationally not bother to make "rational" voting decisions in their economic interests when political elites of all viable parties perpetually side with economic elites.

Duncan watts essay was remarkable

It has just happened to a former democracy in Europe. In Hungary, Victor Orbán invoked Islamic terrorism and the migration crisis to enhance his power, even though his country is not in the crosshairs of either. With his recent re-election, Hungarian democratic institutions are comatose, with the effective stifling of opposition and a free press. Could it happen here?This book is a collection of essays by 18 authors plus editor Cass Sunstein about how democracies perish, and about how American democracy is susceptible to authoritarianism. The writers are mainly prominent professors, most of them law professors. Former UN ambassador Samanatha Power warns about foreign interference with American elections, which is much easier in the social media age than it was during the Cold War. There is an interesting variety of perspectives, although not a Trump defender in the bunch.The most constructive and persuasive essay is from Bruce Ackerman. His simple argument, which he made in his book on the subject, Before the Next Attack (Yale U. Press, 2006), is this: There will be future acts of terrorism in the US that may kills thousands. After that occurs, the president may well declare a state of emergency, and the emergency powers he invokes and their duration may well threaten our democratic tradition. Some countries have explicit constitutional limits on emergency powers, but the US Constitution does not. History suggests that we can’t count on the SCOTUS to stop abuses of power under those circumstances. Consequently, Ackerman recommends that Congress act now, before the next 9/11, to legislate specific checks and balances on states of emergency. The purpose is to guarantee that the extraordinary powers and suspension of constitutional rights lasts no longer than “the period of their obvious necessity.” That logic is hard to argue with. In a separate essay, Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Haq basically agree with Ackerman. David Strauss makes an argument for the liberal interpretation of the law by courts to protect democracy, even if they have to stretch the law to do so, as was done on occasion during the civil rights era. Judges should resist the slide toward authoritarianism by applying established principles, not merely the letter of the law. That’s what federal judges did to the first two Trump executive orders banning Muslim immigration. Though immigration law gives the president broad discretion in making rules, the courts nonetheless opted to limit executive power rather than to permit it.Though the authors see the threat to democracy as transcending any one person, they sometimes refer to President Trump. Duncan Watts critiques Trump’s reliance upon common sense. Though politicians in both parties make appeals to common sense, Donald Trump bases public policy on what he calls common sense. This is harmful, argues Watts, because it excludes expertise in policy making, and it’s divisive, since only unreasonable people could oppose genuine common sense.Several authors refer to the mass evacuation and detention of 120,000 Japanese Americans during WWII, which even J. Edgar Hoover opposed. They point out that the SCOTUS decision upholding that egregious policy has never been overruled. When Trump proposed the Muslim travel ban, some supporters cited Korematsu. Because it hasn’t been overturned, the Korematsu precedent “provides potential authority for federal or state officials who assert public necessity as a basis for detaining a group of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.” Justice Scalia said, “You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again. Because…in times of war, the laws fall silent.” Jon Elster says Trump’s narcissistic megalomania also afflicted French kings Louis XIV and Louis XV. This psychological makeup predicts failure, because success requires listening to competent advisors who might then take credit. What prevented these kings from great achievements was their refusal to appoint competent advisors or to listen to their advice. The rapid turnover in the White House reflects Trump’s disinclination to listen to advisers. Tyler Cowan makes a similar point: “The problem with Trumpian rule has been one of chaos much more than totalitarianism.”Timur Kuran describes polarized politics as “competing intolerances.” It’s the nativists on the right vs. the identitarians on the left, who both see their main goal as crushing their rivals, not improving society. Neither side is interested in genuine compromise with the other, and both embrace fragrant double standards. “Intolerant communities are never satisfied with sharing political power” because they despise their opponents. “They lay the foundations for tyranny by creating constituencies prepared to suspend the rule of law for some higher purpose.” There is currently a rough equilibrium between the two sides; neither can impose its will on the other. What could lead to the loss of American democracy is if one side gains ascendancy, and proceeds to punish and attack the other.One of the most fascinating essays is by psychologist Jonathan Haidt and political scientist Karen Stenner. Their research reveals that about one-third of the population has authoritarian predispositions, which are activated by normative threats to identity. Growing ethnic diversity in the West has activated the authoritarian predisposition. Economic factors were weak and inconsistent predictors of populism and intolerance, contrary to popular explanations for populism. Populists may frame their opposition to immigration in economic terms, since that’s more politically acceptable than ethnocentrism; the research indicates the source is not economic distress, but opposition to immigration.Haidt and Stenner make suggestions to lower the defensive reaction by the authoritarian one-third of the population. Society would “be better served by an abundance of common and unifying rituals, institutions and processes.” It would be better to recognize that people have a need for oneness, identity, cohesion and belonging, and that need should not be ridiculed or casually dismissed. Human nature has two critical parts: “the desire to liberate and enable the individual, and the impetus to protect and serve the collective.”Not all the contributors in this volume foresee authoritarianism. Tyler Cowan writes that the complex, sprawling bureaucracy is difficult to control. Eric Posner sees two factors reducing the threat. First, most laws are enforced at the state and local level, so a president who wanted to repress his political opponents might face substantial resistance from state and local officials. Second, the free press is not subject to libel laws in the US the way it is in Russia and Turkey, though Trump has said he’d like to change our libel laws.This book offers well-informed perspectives on a subject about which all Americans have a stake. ###

This is a book you have to want to read. Some essays require focused attention in ways that are challenging, but worth the challenge. If there is anything to be gained from this book (and there is much), is it that we must be mindful of our practice in democracy, that we should strive to understand it, understand ourselves, and that we should work hard to preserve it. Liberal democracy is not a natural state of being, and as such, it requires vigilance to maintain it, which requires an openness to those who are not always in agreement with us, such that we uphold rights and the law before personal passions, prejudices or fear.

Can it Happen Here? It is a good question. I remember when I was in school and I had to find different points of view for arguments. I was never in Debate Club or anything like that, but I still had to find opposing viewpoints for topics like the Death Penalty, the legalization of certain drugs, changing the legal age of drinking, or Abortion laws.This book is in the same vein as those subjects. I will admit to one thing now; I am not a fan of President Donald J Trump. I didn’t vote for the man, I think he is a bully, and I don’t think he has adequate experience in being a politician. Trump’s presidency has a number of problems in my opinion. Listing them all would be taxing though, so I will continue with the book.The book is a series of essays written by leading scholars. The editor is Cass R Sunstein, a man who also contributed a piece of writing to this work. Trump has done a number of things while President that has led a group of people to ask the question of whether an Authoritarian Government could take root here. The general consensus in the book is no, it can’t happen here. The American Government is far too large and unwieldy for one man to effectively manage. Also, the system of Checks and Balances in effect in the government means that Trump would have to control all three of the branches and get rid of Free Speech. A huge catastrophic event on par with the September 11th attacks would have to happen and Trump would have to be given “Emergency Powers.” Even that isn’t limitless though. Although he can certainly mobilize the military as Commander-in-Chief, eventually Congress would stop him from doing that. The same thing applies to the Judiciary. Although Trump or another President could load the Courts with his supporters it would be far too much work. As I mentioned, the Bureaucracy is far too large to control.Some of the authors examine why Trump was elected in the first place and the rising power of Populism in the United States. They discuss the erosion of trust in our elected leaders and in our democracy in general. Others talk about how things like Authoritarianism have already happened in certain contexts. Take the forced detainment of Japanese-Americans during World War II or the “Deep State” with the Intelligence Agencies. America does not have a spotlessly clean record of Liberty. A number of marginalized groups can argue a lot of things. Then we have to remember that a number of White, Heterosexual Males might feel marginalized due to the focus on Political Correctness. All the people who feel “Triggered” by things and avoid them since it might hurt their feelings.The book is very well done and informative.

This book is an interesting collection of essays dealing with the question of the possibility of a rise in authoritarianism in America, and just how possible that eventuality is. The essays don't deal so much with the question of the Trump presidency, as most of the arguments are based on the premise that the presidency is simply a symptom of a much deeper crisis America is facing. Many of the arguments deal with the issue of authoritarianism and the American political culture, and while most of them are of the opinion that an all out transition to and authoritarian regime is not a feasible possibility, the crisis of the erosion of the American Constitutional system is. Many of the essays are more educational in tone, and avoid the alarmist approach. However, they are still honest and frank in their assessment of the aspects of the eroding constitutional standard that is undermining our government today.The majority of the essays are short, making it a book that you can read in segments -- and most are well written, documented and reasoned. It is an interesting look into many of the problems that our country is facing, while at the same time maintaining an optimistic perspective that there are things that can be done to check the crumbling downward spiral that our country's government seems to be caught in.

Enjoyed it. I found myself feeling bogged down mid-stream, but ended up finishing and enjoying the whole. Some reviewers found it to be Trump bashing. That may be true, but I personally feel he needs some bashing for his methods, for the things he did while president, foe his expressed attitudes about government in the United States. I think of his appointment of Delaney (spelling?) to the consumer protection bureau and Pruitt to the Evironmental Protection Agency, with the express purpose of defanging those agencies. I think of the incremental attacks on the immigration system, which led to radical changes to the system, and an attempt to severely limit even legal immigration. I think of his calls to lock up his opposition, and his statements that he alone could fix things. I think about his attackers on the free press, protected under the constitution but attacked by him more than by any other public figure that comes to mind. He was (is?) an autocrat. I enjoyed the historical comparisons, particularly in the last essay. I thought the book over all presented a balanced approach. Some feel it can’t happen here, some feel it can, some feel it already has. Only time will tell.

Rather than keeping up with the daily or hourly news on authoritarian politicians, white supremacist movements, and their supporters, take a step back and read this essay collection to put recent events in their proper perspective. A highlight is The Commonsense Presidency by Duncan J. Watts, enumerating multiple fallacies you see every day in political writing.

Very interesting discussion, by some of the highly qualified group of writer writing and discussing what makes democracy strong or weak and how authoritarians rise and what prevents them from rising.

Good collection of essays regarding how democracy and civil liberties can be destroyed by an authoritarian regime, with plenty of examples from U.S. history. But if you have time to read one book on the topic, I recommend Steven Levitsky's How Democracies Die.