I am very much looking forward to reading this, and think it will be an excellent complement to Heather Cox Richardson’s work. We need such grounded, considered, studied historical perspective.
I first encountered this theory in the book How Democracies Die. They talk about how the Electoral College failed relatively early-on, and how the "back-room deal," as it came to be known, was central to this gatekeeping role. They make a clear case that democracy depends less on putting the right people in power, than on barring the wrong people, and it's based on studies of the many (many) democracies that have failed in the last century or so.
The removal of the Fairness Doctrine was certainly a huge mistake. But it's not the whole story. Religion was always treated with kid gloves in the US, and demagoguery is rife in the religious world, going back to Herbert W. Armstrong starting on radio in 1933, or back to William Miller and the founding of the Adventist churches, or even the the Calvinists and Puritans who figured in early America. Religion is driven and dominated by demagogues. The Religious Right began taking over the political system in the 1960's and 1970's, and they were driven by the Evangelical Coalition, which was dominated by the Southern Baptist Convention, which was closely tied to Reconstruction government in the South, and the KKK.
The significance of Limbaugh, in my opinion, was that he secularized much of the worst of the old-school KKK/Baptist/Evangelical demagoguery, making the same old story much more palatable. And the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine let him get away with it.
I see now on your profile: Physicist, software developer, musician, music composer, writer. Great combo. I am a psychiatrist, ethicist, and historian . . . Let's keep dialoguing.
Agreed, Joe (let me know if you only go by Joseph). Limbaugh took tricks out of an old hat and sent them out over the airwaves to 20 million folks per week––to get famous, powerful, and rich. Then Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of the early 1990s saw and emulated. It's the Limbaugh >> Gingrich contagion that is the more complete origin story. And now Trump and posse.
As I write, the book eight inches away from me at the top of a stack on my side table is How Democracies Die. It's a jewel, I agree. Levitsky and Ziblatt have helped me greatly to maintain my confidence in the gatekeeper theory. Well, they and Hamilton and other founders as well.
I am earmarking this comment of yours, by the way. It is well put: "They make a clear case that democracy depends less on putting the right people in power than on barring the wrong people."
Where are you from and what do you do, if I may ask?
Yes Limbaugh and Gingrich were a solid inflection point. But so was Reagan, and his famous nine words. I've always been angry with Reagan -- the man who claimed trees produce more pollution than cars -- because his administration did me a lot of personal dirt, as well as being a Teflon-coated lying bag of moronic actor's throw-away lines. His administration killed my career in physics: he collapsed the US university system, and replaced it with Star Wars, which I read somewhere was another of Dr. Edward Teller's wet dreams: a former girlfriend told me she had no moral problems with working on it, because it was never, ever, ever going to kill anyone. His policies caused me to walk away from my first house with about $23 in equity, which I spent on pizza. His Laffer-able economic prowess trapped me in an unpleasant job in a stagnant economy for years. And let's not talk about health care. Or unions. Or corporate mergers. Let's just not. Or my prose will turn bitter.
----
As they say, call me anything except late to dinner. My well-loved (first) mother-in-law called me Joseph. My well-loved second mother-in-law calls me Joe (and on at least one very funny occasion, Pendejo). One of my best friends from my first year in college always calls me Giuseppe. I just picked up the name "Chepe" this summer in Colombia. Everyone else calls me Joe. Joe is perfectly fine.
I grew up in Wyoming, traveled Europe with America's Youth in Concert (violinist), went to UW and then Stony Brook for grad school. I have a passion for music, and compose: see https://soundcloud.com/joseph-nemeth-788868404. I do a little fiction writing: see https://themonthebard.org/category/myfiction/. I grew up a Fundamentalist Christian, and now call myself a Pagan Druid, affiliated with OBOD in England, though technically I'm Bardic grade and have no intention of "moving up."
I started my adult life as a budding physicist, dropped out of my PhD program (1982), and went into computers, which has been my career. I currently work for Cray/HPE designing networking software for new hardware. Looking forward to leaving all that for music and fiction-writing.
I currently live in northern California with my wife.
Interesting. I'd like to hear more about the gatekeeper theory. While the Electoral College still helps to protect US federalism somewhat, it obviously no longer plays the historical gatekeeper role referred to in this article, as it is now supposed to simply reflect the votes by the "demos" of each state... those so very susceptible to demagogues, especially in these days of 24 hour news and social media. As free and ubiquitous megaphones of Trump, arguably CNN and MSNBC did as much as anyone to help Trump get elected in 2016. In 2020, however, the Electoral College ironically became a positive instrument of deceit and demagoguery.
I admire Eli explaining and warning of demagoguery, given the treacherous and metastasizing example Trump set. I admire Eli fighting against it becoming a new norm, as there sadly seems to be a growing contagion of demagoguery, aided greatly by new and old media.
Agreed about the Electoral College. Interesting point that its convoluted nature enabled it to be used for deceit and demagoguery. Broadly speaking, the media should be ethical gatekeepers of our democracy, most essentially when something as serious as an authoritarian demagogue comes along. But the opposite happened. I trace the problem, for one, back to 1987 when the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine, giving rise to Rush Limbaugh––who gave rise to Trump. Here's a great podcast on this historical progression: https://podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/the-legacy-of-rush-limbaugh/id1200361736?i=1000510150650
This is essential, existential work to save and sustain the best form of governance in human history. Dr. Merritt's diagnosis is precise and and well-supported across an admirable body of historical writings. May these efforts lead us all to a clearer vision of what we can and must do as citizens, as the body politic of our great republic. History will be our judge. I hope Merritt will help us all rediscover the wisdom and courage of Lincoln. Tempus fugit.
Apropos of the gatekeeper theory, Lincoln encouraged the people themselves to unite across party lines whenever demagogues and strongmen threatened. In his Lyceum speech, he was clear to ask rhetorically, if "some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs." Lincoln knew his history and understood democracy. He was foretelling precisely a one such as Trump.
This is a critical and spot-on argument. As we are seeing today with the Republicans, even those who take oaths, who are supposed to block and jettison the corrupt, themselves become corrupt. That is the hot mess we’re in today. In fact are “ethical gatekeepers” one vital element of democracy that can protect it from the downward spiral of demagogues to tyrants? Yes, I believe so. For the moment, my focus is on accurate insight. Once the premise is accepted, the question becomes how do we determine who is ethical and how do we get those folks into positions where they can actually gatekeep. I am lately thinking about the rules and referees that seem to manage professional sports so well. Why should politics really be any different?
Thanks for this thoughtful post! I find the "gatekeeper theory" fascinating. That said, I'm curious about what can make a "gatekeeper" impervious to demagoguery. After all, ancient Rome had a pretty robust system of checks and balances, and that did not prevent demagogues like Caesar and Tiberius Gracchus from taking control. As you write in this post, it seems that our "gatekeeping" institutions have also failed to protect democracy from demagoguery. This is making me wonder: is it possible to prevent demagoguery on a structural level? I'm sure this is something you'll discuss in future installments, and I'm looking forward to reading.
I am very much looking forward to reading this, and think it will be an excellent complement to Heather Cox Richardson’s work. We need such grounded, considered, studied historical perspective.
Thank you. I too am a fan of Heather Cox Richardson and am inspired by her work. 
I first encountered this theory in the book How Democracies Die. They talk about how the Electoral College failed relatively early-on, and how the "back-room deal," as it came to be known, was central to this gatekeeping role. They make a clear case that democracy depends less on putting the right people in power, than on barring the wrong people, and it's based on studies of the many (many) democracies that have failed in the last century or so.
The removal of the Fairness Doctrine was certainly a huge mistake. But it's not the whole story. Religion was always treated with kid gloves in the US, and demagoguery is rife in the religious world, going back to Herbert W. Armstrong starting on radio in 1933, or back to William Miller and the founding of the Adventist churches, or even the the Calvinists and Puritans who figured in early America. Religion is driven and dominated by demagogues. The Religious Right began taking over the political system in the 1960's and 1970's, and they were driven by the Evangelical Coalition, which was dominated by the Southern Baptist Convention, which was closely tied to Reconstruction government in the South, and the KKK.
The significance of Limbaugh, in my opinion, was that he secularized much of the worst of the old-school KKK/Baptist/Evangelical demagoguery, making the same old story much more palatable. And the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine let him get away with it.
I see now on your profile: Physicist, software developer, musician, music composer, writer. Great combo. I am a psychiatrist, ethicist, and historian . . . Let's keep dialoguing.
Agreed, Joe (let me know if you only go by Joseph). Limbaugh took tricks out of an old hat and sent them out over the airwaves to 20 million folks per week––to get famous, powerful, and rich. Then Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of the early 1990s saw and emulated. It's the Limbaugh >> Gingrich contagion that is the more complete origin story. And now Trump and posse.
As I write, the book eight inches away from me at the top of a stack on my side table is How Democracies Die. It's a jewel, I agree. Levitsky and Ziblatt have helped me greatly to maintain my confidence in the gatekeeper theory. Well, they and Hamilton and other founders as well.
I am earmarking this comment of yours, by the way. It is well put: "They make a clear case that democracy depends less on putting the right people in power than on barring the wrong people."
Where are you from and what do you do, if I may ask?
Yes Limbaugh and Gingrich were a solid inflection point. But so was Reagan, and his famous nine words. I've always been angry with Reagan -- the man who claimed trees produce more pollution than cars -- because his administration did me a lot of personal dirt, as well as being a Teflon-coated lying bag of moronic actor's throw-away lines. His administration killed my career in physics: he collapsed the US university system, and replaced it with Star Wars, which I read somewhere was another of Dr. Edward Teller's wet dreams: a former girlfriend told me she had no moral problems with working on it, because it was never, ever, ever going to kill anyone. His policies caused me to walk away from my first house with about $23 in equity, which I spent on pizza. His Laffer-able economic prowess trapped me in an unpleasant job in a stagnant economy for years. And let's not talk about health care. Or unions. Or corporate mergers. Let's just not. Or my prose will turn bitter.
----
As they say, call me anything except late to dinner. My well-loved (first) mother-in-law called me Joseph. My well-loved second mother-in-law calls me Joe (and on at least one very funny occasion, Pendejo). One of my best friends from my first year in college always calls me Giuseppe. I just picked up the name "Chepe" this summer in Colombia. Everyone else calls me Joe. Joe is perfectly fine.
I grew up in Wyoming, traveled Europe with America's Youth in Concert (violinist), went to UW and then Stony Brook for grad school. I have a passion for music, and compose: see https://soundcloud.com/joseph-nemeth-788868404. I do a little fiction writing: see https://themonthebard.org/category/myfiction/. I grew up a Fundamentalist Christian, and now call myself a Pagan Druid, affiliated with OBOD in England, though technically I'm Bardic grade and have no intention of "moving up."
I started my adult life as a budding physicist, dropped out of my PhD program (1982), and went into computers, which has been my career. I currently work for Cray/HPE designing networking software for new hardware. Looking forward to leaving all that for music and fiction-writing.
I currently live in northern California with my wife.
Interesting. I'd like to hear more about the gatekeeper theory. While the Electoral College still helps to protect US federalism somewhat, it obviously no longer plays the historical gatekeeper role referred to in this article, as it is now supposed to simply reflect the votes by the "demos" of each state... those so very susceptible to demagogues, especially in these days of 24 hour news and social media. As free and ubiquitous megaphones of Trump, arguably CNN and MSNBC did as much as anyone to help Trump get elected in 2016. In 2020, however, the Electoral College ironically became a positive instrument of deceit and demagoguery.
I admire Eli explaining and warning of demagoguery, given the treacherous and metastasizing example Trump set. I admire Eli fighting against it becoming a new norm, as there sadly seems to be a growing contagion of demagoguery, aided greatly by new and old media.
Bravo.
Agreed about the Electoral College. Interesting point that its convoluted nature enabled it to be used for deceit and demagoguery. Broadly speaking, the media should be ethical gatekeepers of our democracy, most essentially when something as serious as an authoritarian demagogue comes along. But the opposite happened. I trace the problem, for one, back to 1987 when the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine, giving rise to Rush Limbaugh––who gave rise to Trump. Here's a great podcast on this historical progression: https://podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/the-legacy-of-rush-limbaugh/id1200361736?i=1000510150650
This is essential, existential work to save and sustain the best form of governance in human history. Dr. Merritt's diagnosis is precise and and well-supported across an admirable body of historical writings. May these efforts lead us all to a clearer vision of what we can and must do as citizens, as the body politic of our great republic. History will be our judge. I hope Merritt will help us all rediscover the wisdom and courage of Lincoln. Tempus fugit.
Apropos of the gatekeeper theory, Lincoln encouraged the people themselves to unite across party lines whenever demagogues and strongmen threatened. In his Lyceum speech, he was clear to ask rhetorically, if "some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs." Lincoln knew his history and understood democracy. He was foretelling precisely a one such as Trump.
This is a critical and spot-on argument. As we are seeing today with the Republicans, even those who take oaths, who are supposed to block and jettison the corrupt, themselves become corrupt. That is the hot mess we’re in today. In fact are “ethical gatekeepers” one vital element of democracy that can protect it from the downward spiral of demagogues to tyrants? Yes, I believe so. For the moment, my focus is on accurate insight. Once the premise is accepted, the question becomes how do we determine who is ethical and how do we get those folks into positions where they can actually gatekeep. I am lately thinking about the rules and referees that seem to manage professional sports so well. Why should politics really be any different?
Thanks for this thoughtful post! I find the "gatekeeper theory" fascinating. That said, I'm curious about what can make a "gatekeeper" impervious to demagoguery. After all, ancient Rome had a pretty robust system of checks and balances, and that did not prevent demagogues like Caesar and Tiberius Gracchus from taking control. As you write in this post, it seems that our "gatekeeping" institutions have also failed to protect democracy from demagoguery. This is making me wonder: is it possible to prevent demagoguery on a structural level? I'm sure this is something you'll discuss in future installments, and I'm looking forward to reading.