How Books Can Save Democracy

by Michael Fischer

How Books Can Save Democracy argues that American democracy is in crisis as healthy disagreement has pivoted into negative, winner-take-all contests. Michael Fischer proposes that literature is an essential tool to rekindle the relationships and mutual understanding that functional democracies require.

By participating in reading, writing, and discussions about literature with diverse perspectives—whether in classrooms or book clubs or at public festivals—we can discover how to embrace our differences rather than fear them, enabling the empathy and collaborative spirit needed to sustain a democratic society.

How Books Can Save Democracy illustrates how literature, from classics to contemporary works, fosters nuanced thinking and the ability to find common ground despite our differences. Fischer draws insightful connections and examines how great literature throughout history has diagnosed societal democratic challenges, discussing the works of Zadie Smith, Charles Dickens, Alexis de Tocqueville, Hannah Arendt, Philip Roth, Ezra Klein, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and many others. For anyone concerned about polarization and democratic backsliding, he provides evidence that the reading, writing, and discussion of powerful texts may be our most valuable and overlooked democratic resource.

How Books Can Save Democracy is essential reading for educators, community leaders, and anyone concerned about the future of American democracy. Now more than ever we need works of literature to help us benefit from our differences instead of being threatened by them, and our bookshelves may hold the solution to this pressing civic challenge.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Books About Books, Activism, Essays

84 pages, Paperback

Published September 9, 2025

Reviews

[Jean Kojali]

When I saw this slim volume in the bookstore the other day, I didn't need to read the back cover's summary to know that I was going to buy it. Yes, please, give me another essay combining elements of literary theory and political science. I quickly looked up a bio of the author, clarified he is a real and credentialed person, went to the checkout counter, and walked out happy and intrigued with this find. Later that day I read this in one sitting, but I have not been able to stop thinking about what was said (and what wasn't) here. Although this book - really more of a tract - is just under eighty pages, it brought out a lot of emotions in me, both pleasant and not.

Considering that what I write here will constitute this book's first review on Goodreads (an honour, I think?), I am weary of allowing this to turn into a political rant. I am not interested in publicly espousing my political opinions on the interent, at least in detail. However -this book was so close to doing so many things well, but there was a layer of restraint applied to almost every meaningful, contemporary issue brought up here, so to not express my frustration would feel dishonest. My biggest problem with this book is that it does not dare to call things what they are - whether subdued or pensive. For example, Fischer does not use President Trump's name at all throughout the text. I think this is a mistake, especially since other political figures are named. Just because we all may know the one who denied the results of an election and instigated an insurrection on this nation's capitol, does not mean we should neglect his name - it needs to be printed and printed a million times over in explicit association with the destruction it wrought on our history. Further, there is no mention of the GOP-led assault on the first amendment in this country. For a book that seeks to defend all books, how is it possible not to discuss this!? By using the word 'save' in the present tense, the title of this book correctly implies that democracy is, in fact, in peril and under direct assault. Under such circumstances, shouldn't we seek to identify problems by their origin, their instigator, and their henchmen? Who and what are we protecting by not?

I would like to see this expanded into a full length book - I think the ideas are promising and the empathy that pulses throughout the whole narrative is necessary and refreshing. More exposition is deserved. However, unfortunately, I do not think the both sides-ism approach is conducive to the topics discussed here. One side bans books, and one doesn't. Call it for what it is. Vague rhetoric and having conversations about having conversations is not enough anymore.

[jillianorion · Rating 3 out of 5]

silly me for thinking i would hear an argument for books and reading for more than just the 5 pages at the end instead of 60 pages summarizing the idea of democracy

[Brittany Viklund · Rating 4 out of 5]

A slim but important book, I tabbed and highlighted lots of passages. Unfortunately the folks who need to read this, are the ones who will not— but recognizing that books are tools for saving democracy makes it all the more important to continue reading, reading in public, talking about books, and rebuilding a culture that thrives on reading.

[Ginger · Rating 2 out of 5]

I assume most who pick up this slim booklet buy into the premise embedded in the title, that books can save democracy, and therefore that democracy could be or is at risk. Yet the author spends over 40 pages establishing that democracy is at risk, and only 20 or so pages loosely convincing us that books could be the solution. How that is, as implied by the “How” in the title is barely touched until the very end—the last 4-5 pages.

I was disappointed.

[Neoson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a good beginning of understanding the importance of literature. In a world consumed by polarization and hatred, giving way to corruption, it's so easy for reading to fall to the wayside. With the direction the US is going, it is no wonder why so many think reading is boring or that literature classes are a waste of time, something worsened by the ever increasing presence of technology. But ChatGPT can't replace thinking, and this book is a fantastic explanation of how we need to rely on physical words more. If anything, this book feels more like a sociological paper than a book, yet nothing is lost in that.

[Kelsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this little introduction on the importance of reading and analyzing literature in order to cultivate and practice essential skills that are required for a society to successfully create/maintain democracy. As an avid reader myself, I don't think there was anything shocking or surprising, but I did appreciate the historical research the author gave. I do wish there had been more time spent on the actual thesis of how books can save democracy - the vast majority of the book (minus about 10-15 pages) focused more on historical context and background, when, while interesting and important, I would have liked a longer second chapter that delved a bit deeper. That said, the author provided numerous book recommendations that seem to expand on this topic, and I understand that this was a short essay designed as a primer.

[Brittany Cardenas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book left me sitting with more questions than answers — which I think is exactly the point (hopefully, lol.)

I’ve always held onto the phrase “history repeats itself” as a source of comfort. (I know, crazy… I shouldn’t find that comforting), but I believed that because we’ve faced dark and divisive moments before and I always assumed that we could find our way back. This book challenges that assumption for me. It made me realize that history doesn’t automatically correct itself — people do. And only when they’re willing to think critically, read deeply, and confront uncomfortable truths.

Social media, misinformation, and the speed at which narratives spread make this era feel like uncharted territory. I don’t feel as if we are repeating history — we are (unfortunately) spicing things up (not in a good way) with tools that amplify division at an insane scale that I cannot comprehend. This reality makes me fearful about what’s ahead.

The hardest question this book left me with is… how do we come back from damage that has already been done? You can’t force someone to think more deeply if they don’t want to. And without collective reflection, progress feels incredibly stalled.

I do like how this book argued that reading is a form of resistance. It’s a way to slow down and to build empathy.

I don’t know that I finished this book feeling hopeful. But I did finish it feeling challenged.

[Millie Nevelos]

like sure i understand it’s a short book but i just don’t think there was a ton of substance to this? that actually answered how books save democracy? but a good intro i guess!

[Martina · Rating 3 out of 5]

demasiado utópico

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes. Yes to all of it.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5?

[Omar Khedr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautiful book on the importance of pluralism and the indicators on how best to measure a society’s democratic strength

[Allie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short introduction to the basis of what is a democracy and an even shorter explanation on how literature can save it or why it is necessary to sustain. I enjoyed the breakdown of a democracy and anxiously read the chapter on “How Democracies Die”, especially given that our is currently in the midst. However, the author emphasizes that now is the time for empathy, constructive disagreement, and my own opinion, the ability to label what is happening and how this has happened before. Under the Trump administration, we have already seen small instances of silencing the press, picking a group to demonize, and how the President has ensured he is in every aspect of our lives. History truly does repeat itself, but we may not know the outcome until it happens.

While this did induce anxiety, it also brought some relief. The main message is clear: we must continue to learn, academically and socially. And literature and humanities is a good place to start.

Not a big fan of nonfiction, but to anyone who would like to start or at least be able to identify what is currently happening, this is a good place to start!

[Orlando Herrera · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Good fiction pulls off a magic trick of absurd power: It makes us care.”

I am a better man because of books.

Books can shape the world. They can shape you. It is no surprise that literature is so intrinsically connected to democracy. Books open the door to discussion, to conversation, to perspectives we would have never encountered otherwise. And what is democracy, if not a discussion? A conversation among different points of view?

The stories I’ve read are my own now. They travel with me wherever I go, subtly shifting the way I see the world. I have felt every emotion and lived a kaleidoscope of experiences through them. I have lived hundreds of lives in one because of books. What a privilege it is to be part of this unending flow of stories, waiting to be read.

My curiosity and hunger for these stories will never be fully satisfied. To drink from books is a sweet, never-ending thirst; an ache that calls us back to our humanity.

I love books.

[Reed · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like how this is a small book that can be placed in a back pocket and be read in under 45 min. The premise is strong; and all readers so wish the central thesis is true.

Having said that, the argument is slim, and almost seems an afterthought, not appearing until the very end.

My main learn: the author emphasizes the value of discourse between 2 or more characters with opposing views. While he starts off by referencing a relatively obscure short story by Zadie Smith (when he could have chosen Plato or myriad other examples), discourse between characters is a useful construct for showing how to respect opposing viewpoints.

[Nicole Potter · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars, a centrist rating for a centrist little book. I agree with many of the key points, but feel underwhelmed and pretty frustrated. While I agree that empathy is something that we are sorely lacking in today’s world, hammering that over the head and making the point that it is ultimately important to see both sides seems in poor taste when not everybody plays by the same set of rules. The people that need to read this book never will, and I see it only frustrating the people that are drawn in by its title (like myself)

[Knox Isham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Succinct and compelling look into what's impacting our democracy today, warning signs and comparisons.

Interesting takes on how people can find more compassion through study and conversation.

If hatred can gather momentum and spread, so can compassion and understanding. Our democracy depends on it.

[David Rebula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading allows you to immerse yourself into other's points of view by the nature of the characters in the story. Democracy survives, not when everyone agrees, (that's totalitarianism), but when we disagree (even heatedly at times) we don't think the other side is evil and must be destroyed. Books allow us to see into the mind of someone else, even if its fictious. And in that moment of seeing the view in someone else's eye is called... empathy. And THAT is what the world needs more of

[Sameeha · Rating 4 out of 5]

A slim but important book on how reading and discussing literature can help us learn empathy and understanding in our polarized world, and why building relationships despite differences is key to a thriving democracy.

[Ryan Ard · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is basically a long essay. The TLDR is we need to understand each other's viewpoints and one way to understand more people is reading stories.

Also book clubs are good for democracy. Go Prose and Cons! Saving democracy one book at a time.

[Nicole Anderson · Rating 1 out of 5]

This pocket-sized essay offers plenty of thoughts on democracy, but very little about how books can save it. I was hoping for more insight and a clearer connection to the book’s title. While the topic has potential, and this book is surprisingly short, I’d still skip this one.

[Amy Grossman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A small but might book that is so important and relevant in our current political and personal communications in society.

[Andrea Amole · Rating 5 out of 5]

Important book for today. Reading increases empathy and talking about books can help bridge divides. Read more and join a book club!

[Sabrina Fernandez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short but crucial read!

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great ideas, and I loved the philosophy and literature it’s built upon, but I did feel that his own argument could’ve been more developed. Great opening!

[Elizabeth Crawford · Rating 3 out of 5]

The thesis is compelling but the evidence is not

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Have a fresh highlighter ready.

[Ryan Leary · Rating 5 out of 5]

$13 ask me for the link

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

WITH MALICE TOWARD NONE.

(Think about that: Malice toward none. Lincoln's ideal sounds impossible.)

Reading creates empathy. Empathy creates common ground, connection, relationships.

A reader learns to use his imagination to enter into the mind of another. Reading helps us listen and communicate, skills sorely needed in today's polarized culture of mutually assured destruction.

"Healthy democracies thrive on constructive disagreement; they collapse when that disagreement devolves into violent attacks aimed at silencing, humiliating, and shutting out others."

In a culture where neither side respects the other enough to let him speak, Fischer urges us to remember Lincoln, who in a time unimaginably more hopeless, led the people to bind up the nation's wounds with malice toward none and charity for all.

Imagine that today: MALICE TOWARD NONE....

I enjoyed this terrifically short and not completely one-sided book. The author seems comfortable assigning blame to the right. He should do so--while also noting the left's decades of condescension toward conservatives. The impulse toward tyranny and authoritarianism is strong among the pro-Communist, pro-Castro, pro-Hamas left.

At a time when social media (proven to be more driven by anger than by 'likes') pulls us further and further apart, we must revive the conversation and diplomacy urged by Fischer.