text: The author is a journalist, but he seems straight out of the Chamber of Commerce or a right-wing think tank. Like business elites, the author basically does not particularly like democracy. In his view societies should be run by elites from several areas - even authoritarians if needed. He is a proponent of constitutional liberalism, based on laws, rights, especially property rights, separation of powers, with much of that power being held in unelected bodies, and most of all free-market capitalism. He finds that set of conditions to be far more important than the exercise of democracy. His low regard for democracy is easily seen in his minimal interest in the manner in which a society of laws is created or even its exact nature and who benefits. Most in the West do care. Rights and legal systems are not neutral: the manner of construction determines relative winners and empowerment. 
  
  Though the author's real target is US society, he looks at the results of democracy over the world. And of course, he finds plenty of examples where democracy doesn't work. A country in the grip of fanatics will invariably elect and support leaders who are little concerned with rights and legalisms. But it is ridiculous to imply that those situations have any bearing on democracy in the US. 
  
  In the US, the author is most concerned with what he calls the democratization of society over the last fifty or so years. In actuality, he is focusing on mass culture that is spread through mass consumption as vigorously promulgated by globalizing capitalism. In this era, elites in finance, business, law, banking, health care, various media, etc have likewise been swept up, in fact are the driving force, in a money-first culture. He contends that such elites once had an ethos of service and basically kept our democracy on track via subtle pressures on the masses. It is simply a cynical misrepresentation to hold that massive shopping at Wal-mart and the like represents democratic empowerment. The actual test of democracy would be the ability of a community to stop the Wal-mart juggernaut. 
  
  He especially decries direct citizen actions. He is correct to observe that referenda and initiatives have had unintended consequences, often being usurped by special interests with deep pockets. However, he little notes that citizens have taken those routes due to the unresponsiveness of legislative processes. It's hard to take seriously the stance that the robber barons of the late 19th century, and their heirs, should be viewed as elites who kept our democracy on course, after bribing entire state legislatures as well as members of Congress to accumulate vast sums. If citizens had actually been democratically empowered, such distortions of the political process could have been prevented. The theme that cash sanitizes crooks is as American as apple pie. His view that such unelected bodies as the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve Board prevent illiberal democracy is also questionable. Who could be unaware of the politicization of those bodies: the embarrassing handling of the presidential election of 2000 or the cheerleading role of the Fed during the stock market bubble of the late 1990s benefiting financial elites? No, rule by elites has very frequency distorted and usurped democracy, not buttressed it. 
  
  If the author put journalism first, instead of being an apologist for 21st century capitalism, he would note the death grip that corporations now have over our society and the political process, actually foiling democracy. First and foremost that control is solidified through the mass media and the education system, distorting and muting all challenging ideas. It is not surprising that Americans have been unable to mount any significant challenge to this latest version of laissez-faire, free-market capitalism that is involved in such harmful developments as free-trade agreements, worker visa programs, massive immigration, out-of-control energy policies, broken health care systems, huge cutbacks in various safety net programs, massive redistribution of wealth upwards, the gutting of our manufacturing base, etc. The list could go on. Informed, empowered citizens would not permit this system of corporate rule to exist. The US most decidedly is not in a state of too much democracy, but is in the throes of democratic failure, which election hoopla very conveniently disguises periodically. This is the story of democracy that the author chooses to ignore. 
  
  It is surprising to see the fairly high ratings of this book. Americans are supposedly fiercely democratic. Yet here is a book that clearly advocates elite rule, even anti-democratic generals if need be. The book is really worth reading only to see the willingness of some to contain citizen empowerment. 
  