A Hornbook of Democracy Book Reviews

As I suppose everybody knows, populism is a wildly popular academic subject at present. The number of papers and books coming out that focus on the concept is mind-boggling. And, naturally, Comparative Politics and Political Philosophy Departments are promoting new programs for both faculty and students to immerse themselves in populist studies. That, one must suppose, is the main reason for the appearance of this gargantuan collection. Walter Horn reviews

In previous writings here and elsewhere, I have written as if the forms of democracy that might be endorsed or criticized are pretty much exhausted by the following broad and basic categories: Elective (however voting is conducted) “Republican” (i.e., severely restricting the sorts of things the populace is allowed to do) “Populist” (i.e., intending to give “the people” what they want in almost every arena) Sortitionist (however their lotteries may be conducted) Direct (where people rule without need of representation)... The problem with this taxonomy is that Roslyn Fuller has recently written three compelling books on democratic theory showing that it exhibits a significant lack of imagination. Walter Horn reviews.

It wasn’t terribly long ago, just 1999, that recently anointed Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen, wrote a celebrated essay (“Democracy as a Universal Value”) according to which the spread of democracy in the 20th Century was perhaps the most important device for human betterment since the domestication of cud-chewing mammals. In Sen’s view, democracy–something he took to include most elements of classical liberalism–even prevents famines. Surely, Sen sang, nothing else during that period can be justly claimed to have delivered the miracles accomplished by the proliferation of democracy. Walter Horn reviews.

I spent a good deal of space in my review of Rick Hasen’s previous book, Cheap Speech, marveling at the author’s prodigious industry. Rather than descend into that rabbit hole again, I will say here only that each new book, paper, op-ed, TV appearance, etc. may cause one to wonder if prior, ostensibly scientific claims regarding the absolute impossibility of perpetual motion machines ought to be reconsidered. Walter Horn Reviews.

Given the fact that it is now almost commonplace to shove a significant portion of blame for the pernicious hyper-partisanship now evident in the U.S. on the 1950 American Political Science Association study on political parties one can’t deny the courage it must have taken for that august society of social scientists to give the same issue another public look. It’s not only the numerous mentions of the Schattschneider-led post-WWII report that make clear that the authors often had the earlier work at the back of their minds, but the much more cautious tone exemplified by the new report. Walter Horn reviews.

One might put contemporary assessments of Schmitt into four major categories. First, there have been unapologetic admirers. However, because of Schmitt’s association with Nazism, members of this group may prefer to go by aliases on Truth Social rather than try to publish in mainstream journals. Second, there are those who focus on Schmitt’s anti-Semitism and the apparently self-serving metamorphosis of his attitudes toward the Nazi Party. Third, we can find writers who (mostly) set aside Schmitt’s personal proclivities and zero in on rebutting his arguments against liberalism and parliamentarism. The fourth group consists of those observers who seem to be primarily interested in whether any sort of livable society might be consistent with an admission that Schmittian attacks on liberalism and/or democracy might be sound—at least to some extent. Walter Horn Reviews

Anybody who has spent any time at all on Twitter or Breitbart—or the comments section following a political piece found on the New York Times, Yahoo, or The Hill websites will be quite familiar with the extremely wide variety of inconsistent ideas that people are absolutely sure are true. It’s not just that some folks believe—contrary to everything we have learned in school and seen on TV or the movies—that the Earth is flat or that the Holocaust never happened or that many Democrats are lizard people who answer only to George Soros. It’s that proponents are so positive of all these things that they are very quick to make fun of anybody who expresses any doubts. True believers think skeptics are hilarious, fools who it is hardly worth the breath it would take to correct their elementary, laughable errors. Walter Horn reviews.

The introduction to Samuel Issacharoff’s new book on the rise of populism, Democracy Unmoored, leaves little doubt about the depth of anxiety that current governmental trends around the world produce within the author’s breast. He ponders: How much power can an executive be granted in a legitimately democratic regime? Is there a limit to the largess that can be distributed by an incumbent government during the run-up to an election? Is nearly constant direct communication between a head of government and an electorate via television or social media, an abuse of power? Is legislative activity a safer bet for citizens than executive power? Does a populist movement always require a “strong man” to get it going…and eventually to pull all the strings? Walter Horn reviews.

Yascha Mounk has made his name writing and speaking about democracy, populism, threats to liberalism and the like over much of the past decade. I quite enjoyed his 2018 book, The People vs. Democracy, largely because of its stress on the ways in which different countries can suffer from two separate but related political deficits: democracy without (classic) liberal rights protections, and liberalism without sufficient democratic mechanisms. Walter Horn reviews.

In the mid-1980s, a draft of a paper by Yale comparative politics scholar Juan Linz on the preferability of parliamentary governments (where voters pick only legislators, who pick the prime minister themselves) to presidential governments (in which voters select their own heads of state) began to circulate among political scientists. Linz had been writing insightfully about the tendencies of various types of democracies to descend into authoritarianism since the 1960s, so it is natural that this distillation of his far-ranging thoughts on the subject of the perils related to governmental structure would attract significant attention. Walter Horn Reviews.

Since the Victorian days of W.K. Clifford, when philosophy types have talked about epistemic duties, they have usually been concerned with “the ethics of belief.” This was a major focus of William James, as well as such later philosophers as (my old grad school prof) Roderick Chisholm. That subject, which involves what steps we are obligated to go through in order for it to be OK for us to believe something, remains a hot topic in epistemology. Walter Horn Reviews.

When one considers why so many ostensible democracies, both historical and contemporary, seem so bad at providing citizens the ability to efficiently devise public policies that they actually want or like, a number of possibilities may suggest themselves. Perhaps it is difficult (or even impossible) for many of the residents to vote—or those in power don’t care much what those allowed to vote actually say. Maybe there are no--or insufficient--protections of individual rights. Possibly, the voting mechanisms are deficient in some way: elections might be too infrequent, tally votes in an inappropriate fashion, or fail to touch on the most important issues facing the electorate. Walter Horn Reviews.