Terrific to be back on Talking Points Memo--thank you for having me. I really have to send out a special plug for this book. It's rare that we get a chance to read a new work of political philosophy, written for a mass audience. Demagogue is a very special, unique piece of work, and I really encourage readers not just to read our cliffs' notes version, but to buy the real thing.

I think the answer to Matt's question is very simple. Demagogue's thesis is that the reason we haven't seen the rise of a demagogue in the U.S. as this crisis unfolds is that we have developed, over 200 years, a very deep constitutional culture. It's the same reason that when the most powerful office in the world was up for grabs after the 2000 election, and again in 2004, no one ever imagined that the military might come out on the side of one of the candidates. Think about that: when elections are that close in Kenya, Albania, Zimbabwe, and all sorts of less powerful countries, we don't bat an eye when Parliament refuses to convene, or violence breaks out. But when the American presidency was so close that it came down to a few hundred hanging chads, it was over unthinkable that our military would get involved, or that Congress would refuse to accept the Supreme Court's ruling--even a very politicized ruling. I was in Bangladesh to monitor their elections this December, and one thing that impressed them about our elections was how quickly and graciously McCain accepted his defeat. That didn't happen in their own elections, or in many other countries the world over. That is the power of a constitutional culture.

I think Mike's point about the deep importance of culture is worth driving home, for two reasons. First, as we recover from the debacle of the Bush years, it suggests ways to strengthen our own democracy so such Presidential excesses are unlikely to happen again. And second, it points to important modifications in how we support democracy abroad.

First: Clearly, after the Bush years, we need to strengthen our democracy at home. The last eight years were a perilous example of Presidentialism run amok. Some people will argue for deepening the role of Congress or oversight of the courts. What Mike's thesis argues is that we need to deepen our culture of constitutionalism: if the American people refuse to accept torture, Preidential secrecy, and the violation of civil liberties, it won't happen. If the American people think these things are okay, it will -- no matter what institutional safeguards are in place.

That would point to a real need for civic educational programs to deepen our commitment to our own constitution and Bill of Rights. They are not intuitive, and culture can deteriorate. In the first progressive era, much energy was put into deepening our constitutional culture--at that point, the goal was to assimilate immigrants. That reason might not be acceptable to today's progressives--but the need to focus on cultural education is just as strong, and just as needed, if Mike's point is accepted.

Second, democracy promotion overseas. Most of our democracy promotion programs are pretty technocratic: we teach political parties how to advertise and how to create policy programs. We build Bar Associations. We educate Parliamentarians. We draft constitutions. In other words, we tend to focus on changing laws, and building institutions. Many people argue that this isn't enough--we also need to focus on power dynamics.

Mike is arguing that power dynamics are also not enough: we need to focus on building democratic cultures in other countries. That's a controversial thesis--it implies the need for cultural change. But that change need not come from the U.S.: it comes from the abstract idea of democracy, and can take many local forms. It does require that the political culture become one in which citizens feel they control the government, that it is there to serve them. It requires parties to believe in compromise, rather than winner take all politics--democracy is all about what goes around comes around. And it requires other cultural changes that are not "Western" but are inherent in the idea of democracy. Focusing on building that political culture would be a radical rethinking of democracy promotion programs. But I agree with Mike that it is a necessary corrective to the overly technocratic programs we have now.