Long time no see! After feeling paralyzed for the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, I launched the “100 days of democracy” series to spur myself towards more constructive efforts for the second hundred days. As we near the 200th day of the term on August 8th, I haven’t written as much as I expected to, nor been as action-oriented as I intended, but I’ve done a lot of reading and thinking, and I’m nearing some more tangible ideas that I want to flesh out more in the next 100 days. I’d like to update you on that journey.
Since my last post on day 13, I’ve read four books that have given me a foundation for thinking about the past, present, and future of American democracy:
- How Democracies Die (Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, 2018)
- Abundance: How We Build a Better Future (Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson, 2025)
- Why We’re Polarized (Ezra Klein, 2020)
- Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America (Lee Drutman, 2020)
How Democracies Die taught me that democracies have been upheld throughout history by norms of mutual toleration (seeing political opponents as rivals rather than enemies) and forbearance (leaders deliberately holding back from leveraging all the power at their disposal). It also taught me that modern democracies don’t usually collapse into full-blown totalitarianism but rather into “competitive authoritarianism” in which elections still happen but liberties are suppressed. As norms of mutual toleration are widely being eroded, and leaders are exercising less and less forbearance, alongside increasingly overt corruption and constitutional showdowns between the executive branch and the judiciary, it’s not hard to imagine the US potentially sliding into competitive authoritarianism in the years ahead, though we do still have some fairly robust structural protections keeping us afloat.
One of the more perspective-changing parts of the book was the emphasis on political parties as gatekeepers to power and bulwarks against populism. Before the modern primary election system started in 1972, party insiders had much more control over who would be chosen as the nominee. While these “smoke-filled rooms” were susceptible to corruption and limited voters’ power, they also tended to produce more moderate candidates and prevented more radical or populist leaders from rising to power. This theme reappeared in Why We’re Polarized and Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: political parties are key institutions in our democracy for preventing the rise of authoritarian leaders, and for mediating politics for the public – giving voters a home where they can trust their values and preferences generally to be represented in policy ideas. I finished How Democracies Die with a more nuanced appreciation for parties, and with a recognition that we must bolster our longstanding traditions of mutual toleration and forbearance in order to prevent democratic backsliding.
I next moved on to Abundance, mostly because it seemed like everyone was talking about it, and it turned out to be a hopeful palate cleanser. It helped me realize the way that the Democrats, as the pro-government party, have become defenders of regulation in ways that hinder progress toward a more abundant future. It helped me feel more excited about a vision for the future where we use the levers of government to build and innovate. But, while I felt optimistic about abundance politics as a new vision and message for the Democratic party, I didn’t feel like it would be enough to set our country back on track. I needed to understand more about what’s at the root of our toxic politics.
I decided to stay with Ezra Klein and read his 2020 book, Why We’re Polarized. This was a great journey into the history and present state of polarization in America. I learned that it wasn’t long ago when many felt that the country needed more polarization. In 1950, the American Political Science Association published “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” urging the Democratic and Republican parties to distinguish themselves in order to offer citizens clearer alternatives. Incoherent and ideologically overlapping parties abdicate their responsibility to help voters understand the issues at play and potential policy choices. We certainly no longer suffer from this lack of party distinction.
Another key cleavage came with civil rights. Up until then, our two-party system had actually masked a four-party system, with conservative southern Democrats and liberal Republicans making up their parties’ coalitions. After civil rights, the parties realigned with conservative southerners joining the Republicans and liberals joining the Democrats. Thus ensued what Klein describes as “identity stacking,” with core identities like race and religion aligning tightly with political parties. The amount of cross-cutting identities dwindled, and now the amount of Democrats and Republicans who prefer their child to marry someone of the same party has doubled, to 60%.
Beyond identity stacking, we’ve also seen many more years of divided government, in which congressional leadership are incentivized to obstruct the president’s agenda, in hopes that their party will win the next presidential election. As each party has adopted more hostile tactics, the other has responded in turn, making each election feel like an existential threat to people on either side. Informed by Klein’s thorough historical analysis of polarization, I went in search of solutions.
I am so grateful to have found Lee Drutman’s 2020 book, Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. For the first time since starting this blog, I feel like there’s a viable way out of our national quagmire, even if it’s incredibly daunting. I recommend that everyone read this book. Drutman starts by laying out the self-reinforcing “doom loop” of our current two-party politics, and convincingly makes the case that we are headed for destruction if we don’t get out of the two-party system. As a person living in 2025, who has read everything above, I am fully on board and am not going to go into more detail of those arguments.
What was new for me was the analysis of why multiparty democracy is superior and has worked so well elsewhere. Having multiple parties (ideally 5ish) undermines the identity stacking driving the wedge in the two-party system and forces collaboration. It erodes the sense that your party must win a majority in the next election or else the country is doomed. While it’s true that most of our best examples of multiparty democracy come from parliamentary systems in Europe, where the majority coalition in the legislature chooses the executive, he makes a strong case that the same principles apply and are likely to work in the US presidential system as well.
Besides a multiparty system, the only alternative I can imagine that might revive American democracy, would be a major party realignment which breaks the identity stacking. But I just don’t see that happening anytime soon, because of the “doom loop” phenomenon that is driving everyone deeper into their corners. And shaking up the core platforms of two major parties wouldn’t change the fundamental problem that the minority party is incentivized to obstruct the majority party, forcing the majority party to be more aggressive when in power, and undermining the key norms of mutual tolerance and forbearance.
So this is where I’ve landed after (nearly) 100 days of democracy. I’m convinced that our democracy is at risk. I’m convinced that we’re in a two party doom loop of toxic politics, and that multiparty democracy is the best way out. Even though I wrote less than I expected, I learned more than I expected in these 100 days. I was pleasantly surprised to have the blog spark conversations with friends and push my thinking in new directions. Overall it was successful enough that I’m going to keep it going. I’ll call this next phase Another 100 days of democracy: exploring multiparty politics. Hope you’ll join for that journey!
Leave a Reply