Yascha Mounk in “The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It” (Harvard, 393 pages, $29.95) answers Mr. Sunstein’s question with a hearty “Yes.” “Donald Trump’s election to the White House has been the most striking manifestation of democracy’s crisis,” Mr. Mounk writes. “It is difficult to overstate the significance of his rise.” It may be difficult, but Mr. Mounk has a go: “For the first time in its history, the oldest and most powerful democracy in the world has elected a president who openly disdains basic constitutional norms—somebody who left his supporters ‘in suspense’ whether he would accept the outcome of the election; who called for his main political opponent to be jailed; and who has consistently favored the country’s authoritarian adversaries over its democratic allies.”
Mr. Trump is guilty of some appalling demagoguery, true enough (though note again the heavy emphasis on rhetoric and attitudinizing rather than action: “disdains,” “called for,” “consistently favored”). But versions of all these accusations might have been, and indeed were, leveled against previous presidents—both Roosevelts and Nixon, for sure—and constitutional norms held up just fine.
It’s true, though, that Mr. Trump doesn’t seem to care all that much about the Constitution or American democratic institutions. Is that a reflection of the American electorate’s own attitude? Mr. Mounk amasses a great deal of evidence indicating that Americans are losing faith in those democratic institutions. We’re told, for instance, that in the U.S. “close to one in four millennials now think that democracy is a bad way of running the country—an increase of over 100 percent compared to the oldest cohorts in the sample.” But surely this is only evidence that people change opinions over time. That the youth develop greater regard for a nation’s institutions as they grow older is hardly unusual. And, in any case, weren’t the democracy-loving older Americans more likely to vote for Trump, not less?
Mr. Mounk suggests one way liberals can counter Mr. Trump’s right-wing “ethnocentric” nationalism with a nationalism of their own. The trouble, as he puts it, is that American liberals are “increasingly directed toward a radical rejection of the nation and all its trappings.” If I may put the point in my own words: It’s going to be pretty hard for progressives to offer a patriotic alternative to right-wing nationalism when they’ve spent the past half-century placing their hopes in transnational bodies and arguing that national borders are arbitrary constructs. Mr. Mounk proposes what he calls “inclusive patriotism,” which after many pages of description sounds like ordinary left-liberalism but with an admission that securing a nation’s borders isn’t a terrible idea.