Sein erstes Buch habe ich schon mit gemischten Gefühlen gelesen und jetzt legt Yascha Mounk ein noch unschärferes Buch vor, das wechselhaft zwischen seiner Familie, dem alten Griechenland, den alten Römern, zwischen Orban, Erdogan, Merkel und Trump hin- und her schwingt - und letzten Endes nichts erklärt außer einer diffusen Sorge um die liberale Demokratie, für die wir ohne „Rücksicht auf Verluste“ kämpfen sollten.

Schon dieser totalitäre Ausdruck zeigt die Sorge eines diffus verängstigten Menschen, der nicht begriffen hat, um was es geht. Hier fliegen allen aktuellen bösen Demokratie-Abschaffern die Wortkeulen nur so um die Ohren, rechts alle und eine extreme Gefahr.

Hier ein Auszug, der das ganze Dilemma dieses nichtssagenden, unleserlichen Buches auf den Punkt bringt:

„Zum Glück gibt es vieles, was wir tun können, um die liberale Demokratie gegen das anbrechende Zeitalter des Populismus zu verteidigen: Wir können den Populisten auf der Straße Paroli bieten. Wir können unsere Mitbürger an die Vorzüge der Freiheit und der demokratischen Selbstbestimmung erinnern.“

YM hat über die Stoiker nachgedacht, ohne zu erkennen, dass er selber einer ist. Stoisch betätigt er die Phrasendreschmaschine gegen Populisten, ohne echte Erkenntnisse zu bieten. Aber vielleicht doch.

Wir lesen: „Wir sind inmitten eines einzigartigen historischen Experiments, monoethnische in multiethnische Gesellschaften umzuwandeln.“ Es stimmt, dieses Experiment basiert lediglich auf Träumen und einem Singsang, der schon seit Jahrzehnten in starren, nicht zusammenhängenden Parallelgesellschaften liberale Demokratien von innen her auflöst.

Es kann nur unterstrichen werden, wir müssen wieder für unsere Werte kämpfen. Aber es sind nicht jene Werte, die YM so weitschweifig herbei-betet, ohne seine Grundlagen zu benennen. Es sind Werte, die sich gegen Intoleranz und eine Rückkehr religiöser Unvernunft richten. ( )

Liked the first half of the book a lot, where he defines populism and discusses its history and manifestations in different places and times. Also really thought his discussion of “liberal democracies” was good, especially the conflicts that arise when the majority of voters oppose protections for minorities.

The latter half of the book, where he proposes strategies and fixes, seemed a lot weaker. ( )

Liberal democracy is in crisis. But liberal democracy is two different things joined together. You have a liberal regime if you have checks and balances, safeguarded freedoms, etc. You have a democracy when the opinion of the majority of the citizens is translated into policies.

This book is an excellent survey of why liberal democracies are in crisis and it deserves 5 stars for that survey.

The book is less convincing when proposing solutions to that crisis. ( )

The author provides a perceptive and timely analysis of the recent electoral successes of populist politicians. President Trump is of course the centerpiece, but a number of illiberally inclined European leaders are also discussed in detail. The scary prospect in populist victories is that so many voters prefer strong leadership ahead of liberal values, and that the campaign promises needed to gain their votes are so simplified, poisonous and adversarial.

The author articulates a justifiable fear that liberal democracy may soon be coming to an end. He identifies three important reasons behind this historical trend towards authoritarianism. The first is that living standards have not improved in western democracies in the past few decades - for most people, they have not changed. The second is that the populations in these western democracies are no longer so racially homogeneous as they once were, which makes many people susceptible to racism. And the third factor is the rise of social media, or perhaps more accurately the decline of traditional liberal news media, which allows racist and populist ideas to spread with ease to large masses of people.

Although reverence for liberal values seems to be in decline in many western democracies, the author's claim that liberal democracy is splitting into "liberal non-democracy" and "non-liberal democracy" still seems a bit forced. His only viable example of a liberal non-democracy seems to be the European Union, so I don't think that distinction makes that much sense.

The self-defense cures that the author offers for liberal democracies against the stupidity and low moral character of their citizens are for the most part quite obvious, though not necessarily easy to administer. The defenders of liberal democracy must always take the moral high ground and defend the existing political system, even if populists do not. A lot hinges on leaders who must conceive a positive message that ordinary people can assimilate. It is perhaps even more important that the defenders of liberal democracy should not be splintered into too many different parties (or, in a two-party system, into too many different interest groups within a party). If the threat of an authoritarian takeover is imminent, its opponents should join their forces.

One key long-term solution, which the author only discusses very briefly, is public education. Children should be educated on the basic ideas and importance of liberal democratic politics, and on its authoritarian alternative, from a young age, again and again. After all, as the author writes, the best bulwark against populists is to keep them from the halls of power, and a generation which has been inocculated against the most extreme forms of populism stands the best chance of forming that bulwark.