What do you think?
Rate this book
Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy
Has American democracy’s long, ambitious run come to an end? Possibly yes. As William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe argue in this trenchant new analysis of modern politics, the United States faces a historic crisis that threatens our system of self-government—and if democracy is to be saved, the causes of the crisis must be understood and defused.
The most visible cause is Donald Trump, who has used his presidency to attack the nation’s institutions and violate its democratic norms. Yet Trump is but a symptom of causes that run much social forces like globalization, automation, and immigration that for decades have generated economic harms and cultural anxieties that our government has been wholly ineffective at addressing. Millions of Americans have grown angry and disaffected, and populist appeals have found a receptive audience. These are the drivers of Trump’s dangerous presidency. And after he leaves office, they will still be there for other populists to weaponize.
What can be done to safeguard American democracy? The disruptive forces of modernity cannot be stopped. The solution lies, instead, in having a government that can deal with them—which calls for aggressive new policies, but also for institutional reforms that enhance its capacity for effective action.
The path to progress is filled with political obstacles, including an increasingly populist, anti-government Republican Party. It is hard to be optimistic. But if the challenge is to be met, we need reforms of the presidency itself—reforms that harness the promise of presidential power for effective government, but firmly protect against the fear that it may be put to anti-democratic ends.
The most visible cause is Donald Trump, who has used his presidency to attack the nation’s institutions and violate its democratic norms. Yet Trump is but a symptom of causes that run much social forces like globalization, automation, and immigration that for decades have generated economic harms and cultural anxieties that our government has been wholly ineffective at addressing. Millions of Americans have grown angry and disaffected, and populist appeals have found a receptive audience. These are the drivers of Trump’s dangerous presidency. And after he leaves office, they will still be there for other populists to weaponize.
What can be done to safeguard American democracy? The disruptive forces of modernity cannot be stopped. The solution lies, instead, in having a government that can deal with them—which calls for aggressive new policies, but also for institutional reforms that enhance its capacity for effective action.
The path to progress is filled with political obstacles, including an increasingly populist, anti-government Republican Party. It is hard to be optimistic. But if the challenge is to be met, we need reforms of the presidency itself—reforms that harness the promise of presidential power for effective government, but firmly protect against the fear that it may be put to anti-democratic ends.
275 pages, Paperback
Published August 5, 2020
50 people are currently reading
440 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 11, 2021
Two words: painfully repetitive
The authors seem to establish themselves in the group which considers populism as a political strategy (their exact word is rhetorical framing). This vision of populism is usually authoritarian because it is based on the personal power of an individual. There is a place for debate here, but my point is that this definition influences the whole book. If your vision is that populism is a political logic (as such, inseparable from democracy like Laclau claims) or a weak ideology, then their claim that populism is a threat to democracy becomes weaker. Why? Because then other leaders that do not fit their conception of populism should be included and those might not threaten democracy. Because if populism isn’t inherently bad, then maybe it can be repurposed by others for more honourable purposes.
The first part of the book is really about explaining how populism came to be in recent times and why it’s a threat to democracy. I won’t deny not liking their wording and use of adjectives (ex: flood of refugees). For the wording, here’s an example:
They [nontrivial minorities] have autocratic values that are characterized, here and around the world, by a strong desire for social order, a fear of outsiders, suspicion of and disdain for racial and ethnic minorities, a hierarchical view of society, and an inclination to turn […] to strongman leaders who promise to restore order. (p. 34)
I’m not quite sure what they mean by nontrivial minorities and as such, am not convinced they are a homogenous group from which this conclusion can be drawn. I am reticent with the use of these general statements because they can lead to logical errors and because they don’t allow for nuance.
The second part of the book got better as we delved into the problems left by the constitution and why the presidential is where they feel might lay the key in solving the inefficiency problems left by the governing system in the US. Chapter 3 is basically about how inefficient Congress is. Chapter 4 is probably the most (only?) interesting one where they actually talk about reform. If that’s what you care about, then just read pages 175-205. Overall, though, really basic descriptions because the authors spent so much time on Trump.
The authors seem to establish themselves in the group which considers populism as a political strategy (their exact word is rhetorical framing). This vision of populism is usually authoritarian because it is based on the personal power of an individual. There is a place for debate here, but my point is that this definition influences the whole book. If your vision is that populism is a political logic (as such, inseparable from democracy like Laclau claims) or a weak ideology, then their claim that populism is a threat to democracy becomes weaker. Why? Because then other leaders that do not fit their conception of populism should be included and those might not threaten democracy. Because if populism isn’t inherently bad, then maybe it can be repurposed by others for more honourable purposes.
The first part of the book is really about explaining how populism came to be in recent times and why it’s a threat to democracy. I won’t deny not liking their wording and use of adjectives (ex: flood of refugees). For the wording, here’s an example:
They [nontrivial minorities] have autocratic values that are characterized, here and around the world, by a strong desire for social order, a fear of outsiders, suspicion of and disdain for racial and ethnic minorities, a hierarchical view of society, and an inclination to turn […] to strongman leaders who promise to restore order. (p. 34)
I’m not quite sure what they mean by nontrivial minorities and as such, am not convinced they are a homogenous group from which this conclusion can be drawn. I am reticent with the use of these general statements because they can lead to logical errors and because they don’t allow for nuance.
The second part of the book got better as we delved into the problems left by the constitution and why the presidential is where they feel might lay the key in solving the inefficiency problems left by the governing system in the US. Chapter 3 is basically about how inefficient Congress is. Chapter 4 is probably the most (only?) interesting one where they actually talk about reform. If that’s what you care about, then just read pages 175-205. Overall, though, really basic descriptions because the authors spent so much time on Trump.
November 4, 2020
One thing they make very clear in this book...even after Trump is gone (and he will be soon), we still have a LOT of work to do as a country. Trump is merely a symptom of a very broken political system, and a very dissatisfied populace, in America. We all need to do better, and actively work to fix it. I'm doing my best to remain 'cautiously optimistic.' We are ALL Americans and we need to work together to find our common ground and to better ourselves and the nation.
July 15, 2021
Insightful view into the crumbling state of our current democracy and the poison of Trump’s populist revolution that’s slowly permeating America. Appropriately cynical while providing clear, thoroughly-researched recommendations to preserve American democracy.
February 24, 2022
Very informative - and rather worrisome also.
February 18, 2022
Endlessly repetitive and argumentative with very little science, this polemic concludes that the Constitution is fatally flawed, relevant only to the world of 1787, then concludes that the solution is to keep the Constitution but give the President more power, but to limit that power.
This argument strikes me as confused.
The specific suggestions are: 1. Make all policy fast-tracked (President proposes, Congress votes up or down in 90 days, no filibuster); 2. Put the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department under a separate (additional) bureaucracy over which the President has no control and nail down the "unitary executive" interpretation of the Constitution as false; and 3. Restrict Presidential appointments to one or two per department. They also propose to 1. Eliminate Presidential pardons and 2. Eradicate conflicts of interest (but they're pretty vague on what that means and how to do it). But note that Congress could still change any of this at the drop of a lobbyist's hat.
All of this, they claim, is in pursuit of encouraging the "government" to become efficient and effective, which it currently is not. The "populism" part of the book is mostly either a comprehensive bashing of Trump (very thorough, too) or an assertion that the "people" (presumably the voters) are disaffected by the generations of ineffectual government that has totally destroyed the fabric of the United States and hence support any old populist that comes along. And, of course, "populist" means somebody such disaffected people would vote for. They note that political scientists disagree on the definition of populism, but I can't find one here at all. Circular? You decide.
When I look around at everyday life in San Francisco, the ineffective government actions I see have to do with potholes, bizarre decisions about large construction projects, encouraging crazy companies to hire people through tax breaks, badly running the schools, and so on. Parks are pretty good right now :), and solar energy and Tesla chargers are doing quite well. Lots of poor people, terrible housing prices, many problems in the neighborhoods. None of that has anything to do with the Federal government. Places like Flint, MI, have big problems, but not because of the Feds, it's the State and local governments that cause the problems. Perhaps the Feds could step in if national environmental laws are broken, but nothing in the proposals in this book would guarantee such enforcement, even if the powers were there.
I see more action on climate change from my state government, because most of the things involved are at the state or local level. Sure, the Feds could coordinate and set the goals, but I fail to see how any President will ever do that.
Finally, the Federal government makes most things happen through giving money to the states. The states are then in charge of policy implementation. "Ineffectual" government here is either driven by the way the states implement or by the inability of the Feds to allocate money in the right places. I am not convinced all the problems that people have with ineffectual government involves money flows rather than policy implementation, but I'm also not convinced that there's some magic in a fast-track approach that will get the President to put money in the right places.
I keep thinking, gee, if you want the trains to run on time, we need a dictator.
Tried that, didn't work. What's next?
This argument strikes me as confused.
The specific suggestions are: 1. Make all policy fast-tracked (President proposes, Congress votes up or down in 90 days, no filibuster); 2. Put the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department under a separate (additional) bureaucracy over which the President has no control and nail down the "unitary executive" interpretation of the Constitution as false; and 3. Restrict Presidential appointments to one or two per department. They also propose to 1. Eliminate Presidential pardons and 2. Eradicate conflicts of interest (but they're pretty vague on what that means and how to do it). But note that Congress could still change any of this at the drop of a lobbyist's hat.
All of this, they claim, is in pursuit of encouraging the "government" to become efficient and effective, which it currently is not. The "populism" part of the book is mostly either a comprehensive bashing of Trump (very thorough, too) or an assertion that the "people" (presumably the voters) are disaffected by the generations of ineffectual government that has totally destroyed the fabric of the United States and hence support any old populist that comes along. And, of course, "populist" means somebody such disaffected people would vote for. They note that political scientists disagree on the definition of populism, but I can't find one here at all. Circular? You decide.
When I look around at everyday life in San Francisco, the ineffective government actions I see have to do with potholes, bizarre decisions about large construction projects, encouraging crazy companies to hire people through tax breaks, badly running the schools, and so on. Parks are pretty good right now :), and solar energy and Tesla chargers are doing quite well. Lots of poor people, terrible housing prices, many problems in the neighborhoods. None of that has anything to do with the Federal government. Places like Flint, MI, have big problems, but not because of the Feds, it's the State and local governments that cause the problems. Perhaps the Feds could step in if national environmental laws are broken, but nothing in the proposals in this book would guarantee such enforcement, even if the powers were there.
I see more action on climate change from my state government, because most of the things involved are at the state or local level. Sure, the Feds could coordinate and set the goals, but I fail to see how any President will ever do that.
Finally, the Federal government makes most things happen through giving money to the states. The states are then in charge of policy implementation. "Ineffectual" government here is either driven by the way the states implement or by the inability of the Feds to allocate money in the right places. I am not convinced all the problems that people have with ineffectual government involves money flows rather than policy implementation, but I'm also not convinced that there's some magic in a fast-track approach that will get the President to put money in the right places.
I keep thinking, gee, if you want the trains to run on time, we need a dictator.
Tried that, didn't work. What's next?
October 18, 2020
William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe have written an insightful book about the threats to democracy and the rise of populism in America. Through much research, they note that populism is the result of inefficient government. They believe the Constitution, which was written during an agrarian era when the U.S. population was a mere 4 million, needs some major changes in order to respond to today's populace of 330 million in a technological age. Surprisingly, to some, is their assertion that a strong president is a catalyst for needed changes in the nation. But that doesn't mean a populist president who doesn't have wide-ranging and visionary goals. They also suggest changes in Congress to make it more responsive and term limits in the judicial system. I recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in government and a desire to learn what is needed to improve democracy. And they caution that democracy isn't guaranteed. Other democracies have failed and the U.S. isn't immune to failure.
April 19, 2021
Not really sure how I feel about this book. The first two parts were interesting but really difficult to get through, the final part re: reforms was probably most novel but only 30 pages. Lots of times it felt like a more boring Pod Save America/Ezra Klein Show ep (although that's probably because one/both have definitely referenced this book, which is why I read it).
The concepts were interesting but I struggled to read it. It didn't really capture my interest but I suppose I feel more informed at the end of it.
The concepts were interesting but I struggled to read it. It didn't really capture my interest but I suppose I feel more informed at the end of it.
September 19, 2021
A bizarre read that bases it's analysis on a rewriting of what the definition of populism is and over generalising most aspects covered, all whilst falling for MSM Russia talking points and occasional Fox News/Bill Maher type framing. Howell seems to have his heart in the right place and is correct on some base points but overall this book is not very helpful or useful. You're probably better off reading Thomas Frank's book on populism, Aviva Chomsky's works on immigration and the many books covering the influence of money in politics over this.
Read
December 17, 2021Had to read this for my Poli Sci capstone class. It was an okay read, but I overall found the solutions put forward on populism's crisis to democracy were inadequate, and I shared them often. Maybe a real self-recognition of class within the system would be relevant? Maybe the dismantling of the New Deal in the 60s led to a slow creeping disassociation from all relevant material issues, focusing entirely on individual personalities?
May 6, 2021
Not a thrilling read but a very productive and ultimately non-partisan take on the trajectory of the Republican party and our democracy at large. If only I could believe that their recommended actions would ever come to pass!
December 19, 2020
The few objective take always from this book could've been summed up in an essay. Most of the content was inflammatory entire public an rhetoric.
March 16, 2025
This is a waste of time to read - slanted, bias, weak application of facts, written with a clear purpose and agenda... not to provide new thought or presentation of analysis and logical conclusions.
November 23, 2020
This is not just another critique of the Trump phenomenon, though it does go into great depth about the failures of the outgoing administration. The underlying problems of a populist regime became a full-blown crisis under Trump, a would-be demagogue despite the best efforts of the founding fathers to avoid just that situation.
Where the authors add value is to show how the thinking and structures developed centuries ago when America was a largely agrarian society of about 4 million souls simply cannot address the increasingly complex society that we've evolved into.
The most valuable sections of the book propose potential institutional reforms to America's obsolete systems, ranging from recrafting the presidency to the courts and the Congress itself. Can it be done? Well, are you a optimist or a pessimist?
Where the authors add value is to show how the thinking and structures developed centuries ago when America was a largely agrarian society of about 4 million souls simply cannot address the increasingly complex society that we've evolved into.
The most valuable sections of the book propose potential institutional reforms to America's obsolete systems, ranging from recrafting the presidency to the courts and the Congress itself. Can it be done? Well, are you a optimist or a pessimist?
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews