Trump Meets Political Science

By Valelly, Rick | The Washington Monthly, April-June 2018 | Go to article overview

Trump Meets Political Science


Valelly, Rick, The Washington Monthly


How Democracies Die

by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt

Crown, 320 pp.

The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It

by Yascha Mounk

Harvard University Press, 400 pp.

The profession confronts a grim question: Are we witnessing the end of the world's oldest democracy?

Like the prospect of a hanging, Donald Trump's presidency concentrates the minds of America's political scientists. Why is no mystery. Trump treats his opponents as illegitimate. Failure to clap during the State of the Union ranks as "treason." He bridles at the rule of law and seems especially intent on weakening the Department of Justice and the FBI. Russia interfered in our elections? So what? Hey, it might be nice to have a "major event" that would "unify" the country. Short of that, let's have a military parade in the District of Columbia.

But, of course, the shock to political science is not just about the man in the Oval Office. On election day, Trump won 90 percent of the voters who identified themselves as Republicans to exit poll workers. On inauguration day, 89 percent of Republicans approved of him, per Gallup. Exactly a year later, 87 percent still approved. Given these numbers (roughly replicated across other polls), congressional Republicans have accommodated or even enabled Trump's transgressions. Only those who know that this is their last Congress dare to question him.

For a growing number of political scientists, a startling question flutters in the wind: Are we witnessing the end of the world's oldest democracy? At conferences and in working papers a host of new nouns swirl about: backsliding, decay, erosion, deconsolidation. They evoke processes that might result in things like one-party dominance, a corrupt judiciary, a politicized military, the disorganization of independent media, and the end of administrative meritocracy. No one predicts such a disaster confidently--and many place bets on American democracy's resilience. Nonetheless, there are lot of political scientists living in their own version of a Roz Chast cartoon.

Americanists are generally the most sanguine. These are the people who study our system's many moving parts--for instance, coding oral arguments before the Supreme Court or figuring out whether Americans can discern ideological differences between the parties. They have deep knowledge of one national case, ours. To be sure, leading Americanists do worry about the damage that Trump and his enablers have done to informal rules of the game. But they tend to agree that our system of checks and balances will blunt his worst impulses. They take comfort, too, from Trump's abysmal overall approval ratings, which powerfully constrain him.

Turn, however, to scholars who think about systems of governance, plural, and one finds more anxiety. Comparativists ask why some countries are democracies and others are not. They think about the conditions under which different kinds of regimes emerge, persist, and diffuse across the globe, or, instead, fail, shrink, and recede. They know the warning signs that prefigure serious trouble for any democracy.

The comparativists tend to deliver bad news these days. Two stories are on offer. One is a "wolf at the door" account. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt's How Democracies Die fits into that category. The other, exemplified by Yascha Mounk's more recent The People vs. Democracy, is more of a "termites in the basement" tale.

Mounk usually works as a theorist--that is, someone who keeps his lamp on for the likes of Aristotle and Arendt. But in 2015 and 2016, he collaborated with Roberto Stefan Foa, a principal investigator of the World Values Survey, to test the concept known as "democratic consolidation"--the thesis that once a nation has established a strong democracy, it is unlikely to revert back to its previous system. The results deeply troubled Mounk. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Trump Meets Political Science
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.