A Message Worth Repeating
Luke Pickrell revisits Ziblatt and Levitsky's 'Tyranny of the Minority'
Last year, Daniel Lazare introduced me to Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky’s Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point. Without his review, I probably wouldn’t have gotten past the book’s cover: “By the best-selling authors of How Democracies Die.” How Democracies Die (squints eyes) — wait, the book that Obama included in his top-ten list of 2018? The one that motivated Biden to run for President? Yikes. Am I supposed to take seriously what these guys say about democracy?
One review and dozens of references later, I’m glad I gave Ziblatt and Levitsky a chance. Many others have done the same. Tyranny of the Minority is a New York Times and Newsweek bestseller. The authors have spoken at the Harvard Kennedy School and appeared on The Daily Show (drawing one million views), CNN, MSNBC, and PBS. I still have my fingers crossed for a Democratic Constitution Podcast interview. Of course, each outlet puts its spin on the book, and like the authors, none of them argue for a new and actually democratic constitution. “Scholar explains why he thinks the GOP has turned away from Democracy,” wrote CNN. “Constitution not strong enough to protect democracy,” said PBS. “Improving Our Democracy,” advertised John Stewart. You get the picture. Still, as far as I’m concerned, any publicity is good when it involves critiquing the Constitution.
Tyranny of the Minority has undeniable merits, perhaps none more significant than the argument that the Constitution’s minoritarian features empower Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. This argument alone puts Ziblatt and Levitsky ahead of many people in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is why it’s worth repeating. Two examples. First and most obviously, Trump lost the popular vote but became President because of the Electoral College. Second, “Rules enabling legislative minorities to routinely ignore the will of the majority are a powerful contributing factor to the rise of inequality.” Rising inequality and the “persistent failure to address problems of stagnating incomes” are linked to “radical right-wing populism.” The Constitution amplifies the ideological power of the far-right by blocking popular reforms. No bonus points for catching that by protecting the Constitution, the Democratic Party is also empowering the far-right.
Still, the book is far from perfect. Instead of focusing on universal and equal suffrage, Ziblatt and Levitsky erroneously define democracy as universal suffrage, limited civil rights, and “a system in which parties lose elections.” Their stubborn wordplay and linguistic gymnastics, typical in discussions about the U.S. and democracy, reach the height of absurdity with a recommendation to “democratize our democracy.”
Furthermore, Ziblatt and Levitsky proposed methods for democratizing democracy — supporting the Democrats and “loyal” Republicans, amending and then using Article V, leveraging the courts — only reinforce the Constitution’s legitimacy (along with that of the two existing parties) by suggesting that the same rules that got us into this mess can get us out of it. Ultimately, Ziblatt and Levitsky exemplify intellectual life within the “constitutional bind,” a widespread phenomenon coined by Aziz Rana in which the afflicted think the Constitution is simultaneously the problem and the solution to America’s myriad problems.
Back to the positive. Ziblatt and Levitsky’s transformation between 2018 and 2023 (something only Lazare noticed despite dozens of other reviews) proves that political events can change people’s ideas. How Democracies Die argued that Trump became President despite the Constitution’s checks and balances; five years and one hell of a political roller coaster later (including flawed COVID policies, narrowly avoided government shutdowns, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema’s congressional obstruction, and multiple Supreme Court decisions), they argue the Constitution’s checks and balances have empowered Trump and the MAGA movement. If Ziblatt and Levitsky exemplify the constitutional bind, they are also symbolic of how the ongoing disintegration of U.S. politics increases the demand for democracy, how those democratic demands run headlong into the Constitution, and how the Constitution is becoming increasingly conspicuous.
The fight for a democratic constitution is a slog. In the trenches, unsure of what passing shot will connect or what message in a bottle will find land, one stays alert for even the slightest change in ideas, especially among people with a sizable following. Adding democratic republican language to DSA’s For Our Rights program between August of last year and July of this year is one example of change. The contrast between How Democracies Die (the Consitution is the solution) and Tyranny of the Minority (the Constitution is the problem) is another. Aziz Rana noticed a transformation of popular ideas while writing The Constitutional Bind. Accounting for that change, Rana changed his book from an attempt to “pierce the veil” of constitutional devotion to a resource for those already grappling with the perennial question of what’s to be done.
I’ve never met Ziblatt and Levitsky, but having spent so much time writing about them, I feel a particular connection. I genuinely hope they can escape the constitutional bind.