Scan barcode
A review by megankass
Tyranny of the Minority by Daniel Ziblatt, Steven Levitsky
5.0
Me: what's going on in Washington is crazy! I can't believe what's happening.
Levitsky & Ziblatt: actually, this was fairly predictable.
Me: what????!!!
Two polysci professors explain how the American Constitution was set up to give extra privileges to states with smaller, minority-opinions in order to maintain the alliance against England and the cascade of effects that have led to the present day nightmare. They also compare our situation with democratic erosions in other countries since the 1900s, from Germany to Thailand and beyond. Hungary was a particularly relevant example and hopefully not a preview of 47.
The writing was very compelling and well-paced. The examples were well researched and presented. My only complaint would be that the reader had to have faith that the authors were telling you this information for a reason and that the relevance would become clear later. Which did consistently happen, but it would have been nice to have more setups interwoven into the narrative. For example, we spent a lot of time talking about Thailand's democracy before they tied it into how pro-democratic forces slowly change sides with unexpected economic shifts. It eventually made total sense and it was a helpful comparison, but it took a long time to realize why it was relevant.
Levitsky & Ziblatt: actually, this was fairly predictable.
Me: what????!!!
Two polysci professors explain how the American Constitution was set up to give extra privileges to states with smaller, minority-opinions in order to maintain the alliance against England and the cascade of effects that have led to the present day nightmare. They also compare our situation with democratic erosions in other countries since the 1900s, from Germany to Thailand and beyond. Hungary was a particularly relevant example and hopefully not a preview of 47.
The writing was very compelling and well-paced. The examples were well researched and presented. My only complaint would be that the reader had to have faith that the authors were telling you this information for a reason and that the relevance would become clear later. Which did consistently happen, but it would have been nice to have more setups interwoven into the narrative. For example, we spent a lot of time talking about Thailand's democracy before they tied it into how pro-democratic forces slowly change sides with unexpected economic shifts. It eventually made total sense and it was a helpful comparison, but it took a long time to realize why it was relevant.