Read on Twitter
An election day thought:
Sadly, I have never been so conscious of comparative political scientists so explicitly studying and worrying about the state of US democracy.
Sadly, I have never been so conscious of comparative political scientists so explicitly studying and worrying about the state of US democracy.
In 2014, @drsltaylor, @laderafrutal, and co-authors rightfully placed the US in comparative perspective and challenged readers to reconsider the institutional setup Americans take for granted. https://www.amazon.com/Different-Democracy-Government-31-Country-Perspective/dp/0300198086
They asked, in part: could we build a better democracy? This seems like quite a pressing imperative today.
But this has taken off post-Trump.
In 2018, Steve Levitsky (Latin Americanist) and Dan Ziblatt (Europeanist) published an enormously influential book, in part about how the president and his enablers have undermined democratic norms. https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/dp/1524762938
In 2018, Steve Levitsky (Latin Americanist) and Dan Ziblatt (Europeanist) published an enormously influential book, in part about how the president and his enablers have undermined democratic norms. https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/dp/1524762938
Their concern is meaningful!
For heaven's sake, Levitsky helped coin the term "competitive authoritarianism".
For heaven's sake, Levitsky helped coin the term "competitive authoritarianism".
The expert surveys have been equally eye-opening.
@BrendanNyhan, @johncarey03755, @GretchenHlmk & Sue Stokes established @BrightLineWatch, "to monitor democratic practices, their resilience, and potential threats" in the US via expert surveys.
Three of those people are well-known comparativists!
http://brightlinewatch.org
Three of those people are well-known comparativists!
http://brightlinewatch.org
Similarly, the @authwarning at GW, which "presents democracy experts evaluating threats to American democracy in real time" was started by autocracy expert @mkmdem and Russianist @dszakonyi. https://www.authwarningsurvey.com
Comparativist (and serial publisher!) @PippaN15 has increasingly focused on studying US right-wing populism, and carried out the "Global Party Survey" to identify and compare the ideology, policy positions, and rhetoric of political parties, including the US.
The results of these surveys are not encouraging.
These experts, and the experts they survey, indicate a great deal of concern for a pretty unhealthy American democracy.
These experts, and the experts they survey, indicate a great deal of concern for a pretty unhealthy American democracy.
One bad indicator is polarization, which Latin Americanist @jlynnmccoy has written and repeatedly warned about
But there is also norm-breaking (the Levitsky and Ziblatt theme), and rule-breaking, and institutions that permit minority rule, and a whole host of other factors.
The survey results and the websites are well worth your time.
The survey results and the websites are well worth your time.
Academics are generally pretty careful people and--social media aside?--are not often prone to hyperbole. We *love* to make statements as probabilistic and conditional as possible. We don't often like to give straight answers.
I am worried about the quality of democracy in the US.
But the fact that so many usually cautious scholars (and in some cases, the experts they've surveyed) are also so worried... well, frankly, that concerns me a great deal, too.
But the fact that so many usually cautious scholars (and in some cases, the experts they've surveyed) are also so worried... well, frankly, that concerns me a great deal, too.
Fingers crossed that in a couple of years, all these comparative political scientists are back to studying other places and can leave the US--or at least a sole focus on the US--to the very capable Americanists.
