Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point

What is the Reconstruction era and why is it so important in US history? What are the parallels between this period and contemporary US politics and society?

The authors assert that America has previously come close to establishing a multiracial democracy, only to have such a step thwarted by reactionary forces. How do these historical reactions compare to the present-day reactions of American conservatives? How could a multiracial democracy be achieved once and for all?

The democratic theorist Robert Duhl “warned, fear of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ may obscure an equally dangerous phenomenon: tyranny of the minority” (142). What are the strengths and weaknesses of Levitsky and Ziblatt’s analysis of these two dangers? In what ways, if any could they be reconciled?

In Chapter 5, Levitsky and Ziblatt list eight counter-majoritarian institutions. Which of these institutions do you believe is the most dangerous to American democracy and why? Are there any other institutions that the authors may have overlooked in their assessment? Explain your reasoning.

Levitsky and Ziblatt state that “US presidential elections have not been very democratic in the twenty-first century” (174). What evidence do the authors use to support this assertion? What evidence or arguments could you use to contradict or qualify their assessment?

In Chapter 6, the authors describe four “pillars” of minority rule (See: Symbols & Motifs). Select one of the pillars and explain its history and how it has enabled minority rule. Do you find the pillar as dangerous as the authors do? Use evidence to support your assertion.

Pick a non-US democratic country that has reformed its political institutions to make them more democratic. Discuss how the political leaders went about making these reforms. What lessons, if any, might the US apply to its own situation to help shore up its democratic institutions?

In Chapter 8, the authors emphasize the importance of integrating proposals for constitutional reform into a broader national discourse. How do Levitsky and Ziblatt conceive of this national discourse? How can an effective and fair national discourse be encouraged?