cover of episode The Authors of “How Democracies Die” on the New Democratic Minority

The Authors of “How Democracies Die” on the New Democratic Minority

2024/11/18
logo of podcast The Political Scene | The New Yorker

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

AI Deep Dive AI Insights AI Chapters Transcript
People
D
Daniel Ziblatt
S
Steven Levitsky
Topics
Steven Levitsky: 美国民主的衰落并非始于特朗普,而是根植于更深层次的问题。选举人团制度以及其他反多数派制度导致政治体系失衡,使得少数派能够左右大选结果,并对最高法院的构成产生重大影响。此外,共和党已经转变为一个由特朗普完全控制的政党,任何内部反对特朗普的行为都将付出政治代价。精英和制度,而非选民,负有保护民主的责任。选民关注的是更世俗的事情,他们不会将民主置于其他一切之上。 美国面临的风险高于其他西方发达国家,因为其30%到35%的选民支持激进右翼民粹主义政党,这足以左右两党之一。为了改善美国民主,需要进行选举制度改革,例如自动登记、消除选区划分不公和便利投票等。废除参议院冗长辩论规则、对最高法院法官实行任期限制以及废除选举人团制度等改革措施将使民主制度更能回应民意。 特朗普上台后,可能会利用政府机构来打击对手,共和党是否会支持这种行为将对民主产生重大影响。政府利用政策和机构来改变关键社会行为者的行为,是民主面临的危险信号。观察政府对社会行为者的奖惩行为,是判断民主是否受到侵蚀的重要指标。 Daniel Ziblatt: 美国民主的困境远不止始于特朗普,其根源更深远。阿根廷的民主程度高于美国,因为阿根廷没有大规模限制投票权、暴力威胁以及总统试图推翻选举等行为。共和党已经转变为一个由特朗普完全控制的政党,任何内部反对特朗普的行为都将付出政治代价。特朗普及其愿意为他效力的共和党对民主构成了巨大威胁,其威胁程度远超2018年。 美国制度存在缺陷,选举人团制度导致政治体系失衡,偏向人口稀少的地区。美国反多数派制度导致政治失衡,例如2016年总统选举和参议院选举结果,以及最高法院的构成。全球范围内的执政者在2019年和2020年以来普遍表现不佳,这反映了选民的不满情绪,也是民主制度的正常运作方式。问题不在于选民为何投票给特朗普,而在于为什么唯一能表达他们愤怒和不满的替代方案是一个对民主构成威胁的人。 将特朗普称为法西斯主义者取决于对法西斯主义的定义,但“威权主义者”更准确地描述了他的行为。特朗普是一个威权主义者,因为他拒绝接受选举结果并纵容政治暴力。美国民主的改善需要一个长期的过程,选民需要持续地要求改变,才能促使政治家和制度做出回应。没有证据表明专制制度在经济增长等方面优于民主制度。民主制度的优势在于能够和平地罢免糟糕的领导人,并能更好地保护公民自由和权利。尽管大多数美国人仍然支持民主,但越来越多的年轻人对民主制度持怀疑态度,这使得民主本身面临威胁。民主制度在历史上一直面临挑战,但它始终需要得到捍卫和改进。认为民主是唯一可行的政治制度的想法是一种错觉,民主制度需要不断地得到捍卫和改进。民主制度的自我修正机制依赖于参与者对游戏规则的遵守,而当前的威胁在于一些参与者试图破坏这种机制。

Deep Dive

Key Insights

Why shouldn't voters be expected to defend democracy on their own?

Voters prioritize more immediate concerns over abstract principles or procedures. Democracy requires protection by elites and institutions, not just voters.

What are the key threats to democracy according to Levitsky and Ziblatt?

The transformation of the Republican Party under Trump, efforts to limit access to the ballot, and violent threats against election workers and officials.

How do Levitsky and Ziblatt view the Electoral College's impact on democracy?

The Electoral College distorts the democratic process, leading to outcomes like the 2016 election where the winner of the popular vote did not win the presidency.

What reforms do Levitsky and Ziblatt propose to strengthen democracy?

Reforms include automatic voter registration, eliminating gerrymandering, abolishing the Senate filibuster, term limits on the Supreme Court, and replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote.

Why do Levitsky and Ziblatt believe the U.S. is at greater risk than other democracies?

The U.S. has unique institutions like the Electoral College and the Senate that disproportionately favor minority rule, making it more susceptible to democratic backsliding.

What indicators would signal a significant threat to democracy under a Trump administration?

Indicators include the use of government agencies to intimidate or punish political opponents, changes in behavior of key societal actors like media and business, and efforts to weaken the civil service.

How do Levitsky and Ziblatt view the long-term viability of democracy as an idea?

Democracy is constantly challenged but has historically proven to be the best system for protecting civil liberties and allowing peaceful transitions of power.

Chapters
Los autores discuten la condición actual de la democracia en los Estados Unidos y su deterioro desde la publicación de su libro en 2018.
  • La democracia en EE. UU. ha experimentado un declive significativo según las mediciones internacionales.
  • EE. UU. ahora se califica como menos democrático que Argentina según Freedom House.
  • Los autores destacan la necesidad de mejorar las instituciones democráticas.

Shownotes Transcript

American voters have elected a President) with broadly, overtly authoritarian aims. It’s hardly the first time that the democratic process has brought an anti-democratic leader to power. The political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, who both teach at Harvard, assert that we shouldn’t be shocked by the Presidential result. “It’s not up to voters to defend a democracy,” Levitsky says. “That’s asking far, far too much of voters, to cast their ballot on the basis of some set of abstract principles or procedures.” He adds, “With the exception of a handful of cases, voters never, ever—in any society, in any culture—prioritize democracy over all else. Individual voters worry about much more mundane things, as is their right. It is up to élites and institutions to protect democracy—not voters.” Levitsky and Ziblatt published “How Democracies Die)” during Donald Trump’s first Administration, but they argue that what’s ailing our democracy runs much deeper—and that it didn’t start with Trump. “We’re the only advanced, old, rich democracy that has faced the level of democratic backsliding that we’ve experienced. . . . So we need to kind of step back and say, ‘What has gone wrong here?’ If we don’t ask those kinds of hard questions, we’re going to continue to be in this roiling crisis,” Ziblatt says.