What do you think?
Rate this book
The Confidence Trap: A History of Democracy in Crisis from World War I to the Present
Why do democracies keep lurching from success to failure? The current financial crisis is just the latest example of how things continue to go wrong, just when it looked like they were going right. In this wide-ranging, original, and compelling book, David Runciman tells the story of modern democracy through the history of moments of crisis, from the First World War to the economic crash of 2008.
A global history with a special focus on the United States, The Confidence Trap examines how democracy survived threats ranging from the Great Depression to the Cuban missile crisis, and from Watergate to the collapse of Lehman Brothers. It also looks at the confusion and uncertainty created by unexpected victories, from the defeat of German autocracy in 1918 to the defeat of communism in 1989. Throughout, the book pays close attention to the politicians and thinkers who grappled with these from Woodrow Wilson, Nehru, and Adenauer to Fukuyama and Obama.
The Confidence Trap shows that democracies are good at recovering from emergencies but bad at avoiding them. The lesson democracies tend to learn from their mistakes is that they can survive them--and that no crisis is as bad as it seems. Breeding complacency rather than wisdom, crises lead to the dangerous belief that democracies can muddle through anything--a confidence trap that may lead to a crisis that is just too big to escape, if it hasn't already. The most serious challenges confronting democracy today are debt, the war on terror, the rise of China, and climate change. If democracy is to survive them, it must figure out a way to break the confidence trap.
A global history with a special focus on the United States, The Confidence Trap examines how democracy survived threats ranging from the Great Depression to the Cuban missile crisis, and from Watergate to the collapse of Lehman Brothers. It also looks at the confusion and uncertainty created by unexpected victories, from the defeat of German autocracy in 1918 to the defeat of communism in 1989. Throughout, the book pays close attention to the politicians and thinkers who grappled with these from Woodrow Wilson, Nehru, and Adenauer to Fukuyama and Obama.
The Confidence Trap shows that democracies are good at recovering from emergencies but bad at avoiding them. The lesson democracies tend to learn from their mistakes is that they can survive them--and that no crisis is as bad as it seems. Breeding complacency rather than wisdom, crises lead to the dangerous belief that democracies can muddle through anything--a confidence trap that may lead to a crisis that is just too big to escape, if it hasn't already. The most serious challenges confronting democracy today are debt, the war on terror, the rise of China, and climate change. If democracy is to survive them, it must figure out a way to break the confidence trap.
408 pages, Hardcover
First published October 7, 2013
36 people are currently reading
724 people want to read
About the author
David Runciman
25 books172 followersDavid Runciman teaches politics at Cambridge.
He writes regularly about politics and current affairs for a wide range of publications including the London Review of Books. The author of several books, he also hosted the widely-acclaimed podcast Talking Politics, along with the series ‘History of Ideas’. Past Present Future* is his new weekly podcast, where he is exploring the history of ideas from politics to philosophy, culture to technology.
*Ideas from the past, questions about the present, shaping the future.
He writes regularly about politics and current affairs for a wide range of publications including the London Review of Books. The author of several books, he also hosted the widely-acclaimed podcast Talking Politics, along with the series ‘History of Ideas’. Past Present Future* is his new weekly podcast, where he is exploring the history of ideas from politics to philosophy, culture to technology.
*Ideas from the past, questions about the present, shaping the future.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
January 20, 2023
I don't know if this was a book or a series of lectures published as a book, but the content of this was long, dry, and tedious. Mr. Runciman repeated himself often in each of the chapters, which then make them 40 or so pages long when they could have been about 25-30 pages. He then gives concepts about democracy and autocracy, but then skims over what he means without going into greater detail and offering up examples that kind of make his point but does not in a way.
Overall, a book that I thought had promise but it turned out to be 9 chapters of political theory with some loose examples of what democracies do when faced with a crisis
Overall, a book that I thought had promise but it turned out to be 9 chapters of political theory with some loose examples of what democracies do when faced with a crisis
June 24, 2017
A political history of how democracies have fallen into and faced up to crises in the last hundred years, the book suffers a lack of nuance and relies on assertion over argument to make its point.
The central hypotheses are that (1) democracy's indecisiveness gives it the flexibility to correct mistakes and avert catastrophe, and (2) over-confidence in this ability to 'muddle through' leads democracies to repeatedly delay action until the point of crises.
The ideas in the book are fairly reasonable and not without interest. It's not dissimilar to the 'least worst form of government...' argument. Sadly, the histories are light on detail and nuance, and too sketchy to prove or disprove the hypotheses.
The book is also heavily littered with maxims of the type 'democracy's strength is its weakness, and it's weakness is it's strength' which becomes both superficial and tiring.
Ultimately it is the writing style that lets the book down and makes it a sluggish repetitive read. Perhaps a heavier handed editor would have improved the book and halved its length?
The central hypotheses are that (1) democracy's indecisiveness gives it the flexibility to correct mistakes and avert catastrophe, and (2) over-confidence in this ability to 'muddle through' leads democracies to repeatedly delay action until the point of crises.
The ideas in the book are fairly reasonable and not without interest. It's not dissimilar to the 'least worst form of government...' argument. Sadly, the histories are light on detail and nuance, and too sketchy to prove or disprove the hypotheses.
The book is also heavily littered with maxims of the type 'democracy's strength is its weakness, and it's weakness is it's strength' which becomes both superficial and tiring.
Ultimately it is the writing style that lets the book down and makes it a sluggish repetitive read. Perhaps a heavier handed editor would have improved the book and halved its length?
January 31, 2015
This book brings Toqueville's Democracy in America up-to-date. It looks at Toqueville's main premise that democracies are messy, complacent, slow, selfish, and bad at avoiding crises, but that they are more flexible and innovative than other forms of government and thus are better able to adapt and pull through a crisis - with the cautionary note that there is no guarantee democracy will be able to respond to every crisis, and that assuming it always has (and always will) respond to a crisis is the biggest barrier to being able to respond to the next one. Runciman looks at examines the historical record over the past century - World War I, the Great Depression and World War II, the post-war crisis with communism, the Cuban Missile Crisis, financial and energy crises and Watergate in the 1970s, and the financial crisis of 2008 - and adds some refinements to Toqueville's main thesis. The main premise is very good and it's an interesting read, but it seems repetitive - though that may be partly because history is somewhat repetitive (except, of course, when it isn't). It is not a given that democracy will be able to respond to the current crises (wars in the Middle East, periodic financial crises, the environment and climate change, and rivals such as China).
June 8, 2020
An interesting book on the stability as well as instability that characterises the democratic form of governance. David Runciman highlights - what he deems - seven critical years to demonstrate various crisis situations that shook democracy by the scruff of its neck but failed in a collective mission to uproot it. The years in question are 1918 (the immediate aftermath of the bloody World War I), 1933 (the rise of Hitlerism and the failed World Congress to decide on the future of global economy), 1947 (the aftermath of World War II and the inception of the Cold War era), 1962 (The Cuban Missile Crisis; Sino-Indian war and the downfall of Adenauer in West Germany), 1974 (The Watergate Scandal), 1989 (The End of the Cold War, fall of the Berlin Wall and the impending collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union) and 2008 (The Great Recession).
In each of the aforementioned crisis, hammer blows rained upon democratically elected Governments threatening to rip out the very edifice of the basis upon which they were elected. But in every case, democracy ultimately prevailed, but hardly by much!
Even though heavy with technicalities, the books makes for some interesting reading especially for those keen to explore the machinations of a democracy at work.
In each of the aforementioned crisis, hammer blows rained upon democratically elected Governments threatening to rip out the very edifice of the basis upon which they were elected. But in every case, democracy ultimately prevailed, but hardly by much!
Even though heavy with technicalities, the books makes for some interesting reading especially for those keen to explore the machinations of a democracy at work.
September 18, 2022
This was an interesting and informative read. I went in believing that Democracy was clearly the best form of government and now I am not so sure. The book brought to light some issues that I have been considering for some time now and I really had to face that the education that I thought I had was complete, I have learned that that education is woefully incompleted. I learned a tremendous amount of history which I lived through but really did not understand. This book presents a unique viewpoint and is well worth reading.
Read
February 20, 2014Democracy always gets out of the problems that it gets itself into. It's the process that scares.
May 17, 2016
A perfect time to read this..... democracy is messy but its also one of the most flexible forms of governance with somewhat reliable checks and balances. Lets go summer.
September 25, 2025
Is This An Overview?
Different forms of government have their advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of autocracies and aristocracies is that they can respond to a crisis quicky and decisively with long-term agendas. The disadvantage is that once those decisions have been made, the people are stuck with those decisions as the leaders lack adaptation methods. A disadvantage of democracies is that they have difficulty coordinating action on short-term notice. The advantage is that democracies are constantly experimenting, finding different ways to overcome a challenge.
Democracies are better equipped to overcome long-term problems due to methods of adaptation, but being able to adapt does not make democracies any wiser than before. Overcoming a crisis through adaptation can teach the wrong lesson, that the democracy can overcome any crisis. Successfully overcoming a crisis makes democracies complacent to problems, and behave recklessly for the assumption is that problems could be overcome. Recklessness, complacency, failure to take action to correct a problem, creates crises. This is democracy’s confidence trap. For confidence in being able to overcome a crisis, creates the crisis. While past crises have been overcome, that does not mean knowing that adaptation is possible to a future challenge.
Possibility of adaptation comes from elections. Elected officials need to change their minds to stay in power, unlike unelected officials who are afraid of public opinion as they seek to control public opinion. Elections are a tool that can be used as an opportunity to remove those who are making mistakes and change the ideas being used. But elections can also prevent officials from making tough decisions for fear of how the voters will respond. Officials are quick to change decisions, which develops a myopic political situation. The future of democracy is evanescent, for no democratic behavior is representative of what the democracy will do in the future.
Caveats?
Although various democracies are represented, as the author acknowledged, the focus is on the democracy of United States of America.
The author reflects on various commentators of democracy. The interpretations often lack background information about the content of the claims, and different people can have different interpretations of the claims than those provided by the author.
Different forms of government have their advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of autocracies and aristocracies is that they can respond to a crisis quicky and decisively with long-term agendas. The disadvantage is that once those decisions have been made, the people are stuck with those decisions as the leaders lack adaptation methods. A disadvantage of democracies is that they have difficulty coordinating action on short-term notice. The advantage is that democracies are constantly experimenting, finding different ways to overcome a challenge.
Democracies are better equipped to overcome long-term problems due to methods of adaptation, but being able to adapt does not make democracies any wiser than before. Overcoming a crisis through adaptation can teach the wrong lesson, that the democracy can overcome any crisis. Successfully overcoming a crisis makes democracies complacent to problems, and behave recklessly for the assumption is that problems could be overcome. Recklessness, complacency, failure to take action to correct a problem, creates crises. This is democracy’s confidence trap. For confidence in being able to overcome a crisis, creates the crisis. While past crises have been overcome, that does not mean knowing that adaptation is possible to a future challenge.
Possibility of adaptation comes from elections. Elected officials need to change their minds to stay in power, unlike unelected officials who are afraid of public opinion as they seek to control public opinion. Elections are a tool that can be used as an opportunity to remove those who are making mistakes and change the ideas being used. But elections can also prevent officials from making tough decisions for fear of how the voters will respond. Officials are quick to change decisions, which develops a myopic political situation. The future of democracy is evanescent, for no democratic behavior is representative of what the democracy will do in the future.
Caveats?
Although various democracies are represented, as the author acknowledged, the focus is on the democracy of United States of America.
The author reflects on various commentators of democracy. The interpretations often lack background information about the content of the claims, and different people can have different interpretations of the claims than those provided by the author.
March 2, 2021
The history of crisis in an easy-to-read but insightful work, which manages to put a lot of historical crises in perspective and nuance while at the same time providing little hope for the future: crisis and democracy will continue their unlucky marriage.
August 10, 2019
All my undergraduate lectures in one book! (Vol. 3).
June 14, 2020
Decently wide coverage, examples, and references, which were interesting. However, arguments remain frequently naive and tenuous.
August 31, 2014
I would if this book doesn't itself suffer from the Confidence Trap in its upbeat epilogue chapter. Interesting thesis, but I did feel as though the book went on longer than necessary. Yes, it is short but still somewhat tedious at the end. Essentially the lesson is that "[d]emocracies survive their mistakes. So the mistakes keep coming." The trap is that we get overconfident that the pattern is inevitable. "But how can we be sure the pattern will keep repeating itself? We can't. We should not assume that democracies will always be able to improvise a solution to whatever challenges they face. There is northing about democracy that guarantees this will happen; it is simply more likely to happen under democracy than any other system of government. The assumption that it is bound to happen increases the likelihood it will stop happening . . . The next crisis might take a form that makes it much harder to overcome. And if we do overcome . . . there is always the one after that."
May 12, 2014
Concentrating on examples from recent U.S. and UK history David Runciman offers an entertaining and pithy argument for Democracy's greatest strength also being its greatest weakness - nobody really understands how it works. Just when you think Democracy is doomed somehow it muddles through by virtue of its many contradictions. The examples are well chosen and provide fleeting glimpses into the genius of a profoundly flawed system.
June 20, 2014
Confidence trap... a book that is burdened by too much research information. It presents the pro's and cons of Democracies and other forms of governance/politics. The book just reminds us the perils of going from one extreme belief to another, confidence and wariness.
I did like the font of this book, makes me want to read it again and somehow soothing.
I did like the font of this book, makes me want to read it again and somehow soothing.
September 15, 2014
Between a 3 and a 4 rating. Interesting read that got me thinking.... but took far too long to finish (6 week time span) and it's not a long nor difficult read. One of those books you know you should value more but the impact was lost as I lost interest at various points.
Want to read
October 18, 2013Extract on Foreign Policy
February 24, 2016
intriguing and well written, but from a quite right-wing and rather ahistorical perspective
July 1, 2016
Lots of good ideas but doesn't quite seal the deal. Columns are still great though!
Read
January 18, 2015Didn't finish.
Nice thesis, not well argued and ignores some of the contrary evidence.
Nice thesis, not well argued and ignores some of the contrary evidence.
December 28, 2017
This is an extraordinary analysis of democratic politics
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews