I have a theory that people gravitate toward autocrats during periods of chaos and transition. They yearn, perhaps unconsciously, for someone to reassert the authority that has eroded. Just as the printing press undermined the authority of the Church, the information revolution has undermined the authorities of 20th century liberalism--journalists, scientists, doctors, politicians, generals, and religious leaders. The authoritarian promises to restore political and moral clarity in an era of uncertainty. That doesn't mean democracy is doomed but rather that democratic nations are vulnerable during this transition period before new authorities become established.

We saw a similar pattern during the decline of aristocracy from the late 18th century to the early 20th when some nations turned to post-aristocratic authoritarian nationalism--first France, then Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain. Most of these reemerged as liberal democracies, but it was rough going, to put it gently. Hopefully, the changes of the early 21st century won't be so destabilizing.

In 2001 Bush & posse, after successfully storming the recount office and blocking the people's will at the packed original intent Supreme Court took office with a neocon "we have a mandate" attituded that allowed them to ignore Democrats and start dusmantling basics of government operations and oversight. Gingrich largely paved the way for DeLay nd Cheney and later jerks including Trump. 

Bush is rehabilitating himself, but he was a "major league asshole" whose actual performance won't be forgot no matter how many smiles and backrubs. As for first ladies, don't think any reason for them to frown - they just cleaned shit up, didn't start it.

Good catch. It's not just the "one in three" error; the whole analysis of the study is BS. Here's the source:

At first glance, you might wonder why this study goes from "1930s" to "1980s." If you read the fine print, you might also wonder how a 2005-2014 study surveyed public opinions of young people the 1930s during .

Well they didn't. They surveyed people in the 21st century and broke down the responses by decade of birth. This study says nothing about what young people valued in the 1930s. Rather, it tells us that old people today think democracy is more important than young people today. Moreover, those youngsters aren't saying that democracy is not important. They rated the importance of democracy on a scale from 1 to 10. 57% rated it from 8 to 10. 39% rated it from 4 to 7. The number of people who believe democracy is not important (1 to 3) is very small no matter how old you are. There is a trend here, but it's been totally misrepresented.

PS More info:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/08/yes-millennials-r...

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Foa%26Mounk-27-3.pdf