On Tyranny

Appropriate book for the first Trump term but it seemed a little dated already. I was kind of hoping for more universal advice and examples.

Grossly simplifies and cites outdated studies like the Milgram experiment. Full of truisms that serve only to appeal to the intended liberal reader's sense of superiority and intelligence. I didn't find it worth finishing despite its brevity.

I have heard a lot about this book. Bummed that I felt an ethical panic that resulted in me leaving my apartment in the middle of the day, unprompted, a week or two ago to go to the book store and buy it.It's short and readable. The question is: is anyone that's likely to pick up a book called “On Tyranny” going to make a decision to adjust their lives to ingest its lessons? I don't know. This is the same fundamental question facing all of these books, from Albright's [b:Fascism: A Warning 35230469 Fascism A Warning Madeleine K. Albright https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1513524068l/35230469.SY75.jpg 56577028] to something as basic as Goodwin's [b:Leadership: In Turbulent Times 38657386 Leadership In Turbulent Times Doris Kearns Goodwin https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1519455513l/38657386.SY75.jpg 60268060]. Anything that promotes a ‘patriotic' value or thing that yearns for us to not passively accept the fall of a great experiment is subjected to a purity test. But I will try to put the crushing cynicism I'm feeling right now aside to think more about this book. I'm trying to do that because I have watched the same ten-minute video of Obama talking about cynicism periodically for the past, what, maybe ten years? (Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxuwazaXOMg). I really do believe that cynicism is a chronic condition that can wrap around your eyes and blind you and then proceed to your heart and hollow it out.The lessons are straightforward. I appreciate the historical element to them. It is one thing to know that everything happening right now has a direct analog in the fall of the Wiemar Republic and rise of Hitler and other fascistic leaders to power. It is another to read it spelled out succinctly and bluntly. I have personally witnessed in my work steps taken that mirror those that occurred back then. It is alarming, and is causing me a sort of crisis of confidence. I have shared with people I work with, and repeated to myself, that we have to remain calm, mindful, and carefully navigate. We cannot let ourselves panic and be pushed back into nothing. That's the goal of all this chaos.p54-55 - “In fact [Churchill] himself helped the British to define themselves as a proud people who would calmly resist evil. Other politicians would have found support in British public opinion to end the war. Churchill instead resisted, inspired, and won. ... Churchill did what others had not done. Rather than concede in advance, he forced Hitler to change his plans.” (emphasis mine, -TB)Back in November, a thing I worked on was quietly shuttered. The phrase, “strategic retreat” was used. It pissed me off something terrible. It was the first time I was majorly angry in my job. There is no strategic retreat. If ground is ceded it must be fought back and time is long and suffering in that time is the responsibility of those who refused to even attempt to hold back the tide. Snyder talks about this a lot in this book: anticipatory compliance. Changing things in an attempt to detract attention, giving up ground to hide or to not attract attention. I understand the want for this, but is there an imagining that by doing this, you are not simply capitulating to the pressure of a despot? I hate that I see people lying to themselves that, if we can just be very quiet and make it through a few years of stress, we can bring all of this back out of a box someday and pick up where we left off.That is not how this works. If you put this in a box, it will be lost. You cannot set your values down. If you hide them, they will suffocate and die within you. They need nurturing and they need exercise.p124 - “If the politics of inevitability is like a coma, the politics of eternity is like hypnosis: We stare at the spinning vortex of cyclical myth until we fall into a trance—and then we do something shocking at someone else's orders.”At work these past few weeks, I have heard our current situation described as a “swinging pendulum” and I think this is a manifestation of learned helplessness. I do not believe there is a pendulum. I think there is a clash between good and evil. The pendulum, as they describe it, are bulges in the fight. If you take for granted that the fight is a pendulum and will swing back as a matter of physics, you are ceding the fight.A quote that people go to, that I hear a lot, from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Yet, I so often hear this in a capitulating or passive framing. As if we can simply accept that things will get better. This is something of what Snyder calls the politics of inevitability. King never meant for this statement to be a release from our responsibility to our fellows and ourselves to be the ones forcing the bend. The arc only bends because pressure is exerted upon it. We cannot be passive.I am thinking about this every day. Because I do not know exactly where my role is. How can I use what exceedingly little skill that I have to make any meaningful difference? Is my only role really as someone who might be able to pump breaks or mitigate harm? I don't feel very good about that. I want to do something.Snyder does not demand that we all take to the streets. In some ways, the resistance he imagines is small and obtainable (lesson 12, make eye contact and small talk). In discussion the other day, someone I was speaking to said they think this will continue until something gets people in the street, a sort of general strike. I am skeptical that such a thing is possible in this country. I don't think we have the in-the-streets culture of a country like France or others. Much of our populace is completely captured either in this cult of personality or in crushing poverty, and often both.Still, I think that we all have some role to play. I think identifying that role is non-trivial. I think this book is good reading for those who want to be able to start identifying even small things they can do in their lives to begin.—Notes/highlights:* p35 - You might one day be offered the opportunity to display symbols of loyalty. Make sure that such symbols include your fellow citizens rather than exclude them.* p37 - “We have seen that the real meaning of the greengrocer's slogan has nothing to do with what the text of the slogan actually says. Even so, the real meaning is quite clear and generally comprehensible because the code is so familiar: the greengrocer declares his loyalty in the only way the regime is capable of hearing; that is, by accepting the prescribed ritual, by accepting appearances as reality, by accepting the given rules of the game, thus making it possible for the game to go on, for it to exist in the first place. (Snyder quoting [a:Václav Havel 71441 Václav Havel https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1300059716p2/71441.jpg].)”* p54-55 - In fact [Churchill] himself helped the British to define themselves as a proud people who would calmly resist evil. Other politicians would have found support in British public opinion to end the war. Churchill instead resisted, inspired, and won. ... Churchill did what others had not done. Rather than concede in advance, he forced Hitler to change his plans.” (emphasis mine, -TB)* p66 - You submit to tyranny when you renounce the difference between what you want to hear and what is actually the case. The renunciation of reality can feel natural and pleasant, but the result is your demise as an individual—and thus the collapse of any political system that depends upon individualism.* p68 - The final mode is misplaced faith. It involves the sort of self-deifying claims a president made when he said that “I alone can solve it” or “I am your retribution.” When faith descends from heaven to earth in this way, no room remains for the small truths of our individual discernment and experience. What terrified Klemperer was the way that the transition seemed permanent. Once truth had become oracular rather than factual, evidence was irrelevant. At the end of the war a worker told Klemperer that “understanding is useless, you have to have faith. I believe in the Fuhrer.” * Connection to my clinical deprogramming thing.* p71 - [Fascists] used new media, which at the time was radio, to create a drumbeat of propaganda that aroused feelings before people had time to ascertain facts. And now, as then, many people confused faith in a hugely flawed leader with the truth about the world we all share.* p79- (TB: Snyder is making an analogy between publishing/sharing falsehoods and our behavior driving cars.) We know that the damage will be mutual. We protect the other person without seeing him, dozens of time every day. (TB: reminds me a lot of [a:Erving Goffman 149 Erving Goffman https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1210309065p2/149.jpg]'s facework theory, which was a sociological thing on how people engage with one another with a concerted effort to protect not only their face (reputation, impression) and that of those around them. Has fascinated me since I read about it in the UIC stacks in 2013.)* p81 - “Make eye contact and small talk.” (Lesson 12), then p32: “You might not be sure, today or tomorrow, who feels threatened in the United States. But if you affirm everyone, you can be sure that certain people will feel better.”* p84 - Protest can be organized through social media, but nothing is real that does not end on the streets.* p120 - We learned to say that there was “no alternative” to the basic order of things, a sensibility that the Lithuanian political theorist Leonidas Donskis called “liquid evil.” Once inevitability was taken for granted, criticism indeed became slippery. What appeared to be critical analysis often assumed that the status quo could not actually change, and thereby indirectly reinforced it.* p124 - If the politics of inevitability is like a coma, the politics of eternity is like hypnosis: We stare at the spinning vortex of cyclical myth until we fall into a trance—and then we do something shocking at someone else's orders. * TB: I have seen our current situation described as a “swinging pendulum” and I think this is a manifestation of learned helplessness. I do not believe there is a pendulum. I think there is a clash between good and evil. The pendulum, as they describe it, are bulges in the fight. If you take for granted that the fight is a pendulum and will swing back as a matter of physics, you are ceding the fight.* p126: “If young people do not begin to make history, politicians of eternity and inevitability will destroy it. And to make history, young Americans will have to know some. This is not the end, but a beginning.”

Probably the best introduction to where the US is at now, with direct links to history. At only 128 pages, it is concise, but powerful. A great jumping off point that will undoubtedly lead to further reading.

Written in the wake of the (sadly) first Trump election, this book gives keys on how to resist in an age of rising tyranny. When the far right is rising a bit everywhere, I feel such books are vital into not giving up, and while it might be hard to keep hope, it also give some paths to explore on how to resist and face those rising dangers for our democracies.

Aristotle warned that inequality brought instability, while Plato believed that demagogues exploited free speech to install themselves as tyrants.

All I felt was dismay that a book like this would even need to be written: nothing in it is new or even unusual. It's simply how a human being lives day to day, with integrity and decency.

Then I started thinking about two books I read in the past week, [book:Mountain Time|201358084] and [book:Thunder Song|185767242], both dealing in part with the Turtle Island genocide, and in particular illustrating historical interactions between individuals. Both books reinforced a belief I've long held: inferiors are <i>incapable</i> of understanding honor. It's not that they scorn it or use it selectively, it's that their brains genuinely don't have the ability to register it. Sort of a corollary to Jonathan Haidt's work. Anyhow, that makes it challenging to reach them... and impossible for a book like this. So who is Snyder's target audience then?

Summary: A long lecture or short book on ways to prevent tyranny based on 20th-century history.

I have looked at but not read On Tyranny several times. It came out about six years ago. But I decided to pick it up after a tweet from Samuel Perry about regularly rereading it and teaching it. I looked it up again and saw the audiobook was on sale for $3 and was less than 2 hours. (It is $4.50 as I am writing this.)

This formatted too quickly read. Each chapter is only a few pages; the longest chapter is nine pages. While most sermons or commencement addresses won't have 20 points, it is that type of approach. These are short pieces of advice with brief historical references. Chapter one is Do Not Obey in Advance. That may seem like it doesn't need to be said, but if we look at history, there are many examples of trying to appease by preemptively doing what you think they would like done. Appeasement may work in some cases, but not in cases of tyranny. In cases of tyranny, it just cements power.

Many of the pieces of advice are about understanding truth or learning. These are always helpful whether we are talking about tyranny or not. Other is more specific like Make Eye Contact and Small Talk. This is primarily a “know your neighbors” idea.

I could easily list and discuss all of the chapters, but this is a short book. I want to make three comments and recommend the book as helpful. I went back and forth between thinking this occasionally was too much fear-mongering and wishing there were different examples. On Tyranny was published in 2017, and the previous president is referenced regularly. Many of the concerns did not come to pass either because institutions pushed back or because of ineptness. But in some cases, the concerns raised were too weak. There is value in reading a book like this later so that we, as readers, can see how its predictions played out.

At the same time, most of the examples of 20th-century tyranny were European, either Soviet or Putin-led Russia or Nazi Germany. And when those are the examples, many assume these things cannot happen here. I wish Snyder had expanded the historical lens and focused more on US history because this book will primarily be read in the US. When he talks about the rise of paramilitaries, I instantly thought about the rise of the KKK during Reconstruction and how there were literal coupes toward the end of the Reconstitution era, where elections were overthrown, and there was a concerted effort to intimidate voters with violence. Not only could it happen here in the US, it did happen here.

That being said, for years, those that have studied Nazi Germany of Soviet Russia have raised concerns about US politics. One book that I recommend is The Battle for Bonhoeffer by Stephen Haynes. Primarily Haynes is writing about the misuse of historical figures for current political ends. But at the end of the book, he has a section on legitimate concerns that Bonhoeffer scholars have about modern US politics. He tries to be very moderate in raising concerns, but the limited approach may be more helpful than a too-strong approach, and On Tyranny may sometimes verge into being too strong.

This is a short book. I listened to it on two long walks. There is value, but those aware of the history probably do not need it, and those unaware of the history may not believe it or will not pick it up.

It's an ok start.

Really only using Nazism as its main source of historical reflection, and cherry picking a few small stories from other parts of the world, means that he gets to largely ignore the role the US has played in preventing democracy and installing authoritarian dictatorships in the rest of the world. In doing so, he also never has to meaningfully grapple with contemporary attempts at socialism.

This combined with trying to stay slightly closer to center, only ever referring to Trump as “he who must not be named”, and it only being 120 pages leaves his arguments a little hollow. I might find more in a larger work, but I get the sense that a larger version of this would only more clearly reveal the parts where the answer is leftism unspoken.

I think I got to know about this book first because Rachel Maddow mentioned it quite a few times (including very recently when Russia started its war on Ukraine) and has also hosted the author on her show. But I don't know why I never actually picked it up before. But somehow this felt like the right time.

This short book is essentially an extended essay by the author about the various ways to identify authoritarianism, how to ensure that we keep our thoughts in check and survive any emotional brainwashing, and how to move forward individually and with others to form a resistance against the rise of tyranny. But on the other hand, it is also terrifying in how prescient and relevant it is for today's times. The author might be evoking the fascist and Nazi regimes of Italy and Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and currently Putin's Russia and all the atrocities they committed, but what he does emphasize more is how they rose to power, the methodologies they used in those times, and how those same tools have been modernized for our Internet age and being used against us again. The particular parallels he draws between the rise of past authoritarian regimes and the rhetoric and devices used by president 45 during and after his term are singularly scary and and it almost feels like 2020 was a narrow and lucky escape. But the main lesson of this book is that the escape was very narrow and we got lucky, but we want to continue to protect our democracy, it's time to take action.

There are 20 lessons to take from here. All of them are important but there are definitely a few I think we all need to learn even if we are not fighting to preserve our democracy - verify truths and facts, and mind the language you use, before presenting them to others; gain a historical as well as a current global perspective; help others in whichever way possible; and finally, take responsibility for your actions. This is a must read for everyone, even more so due to the current moment we are living in.

I did rather enjoy this. I understand that it was a short book, but I wish that there were more American examples. I assume that there is a bias to think ‘oh no that hasn't happened here, so it'll never happen here.' I enjoyed [b:The Day the Klan Came to Town 57566660 The Day the Klan Came to Town Bill Campbell https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1620688457l/57566660.SX50.jpg 90152051], which covers a Klan march on a Pennsylvanian town in 1923, while I read this on my commute. I felt that the two books helped support each others' main messages.I am also unsure about how I feel about the oblique reference to the Trump Administration. I did appreciate the mentioning of Orwell's 1984.

This felt like a really long essay with separate but interlinked section. I'm glad the author and editor chose this length and it felt very concise and intentional. I did find the last 30% a bit repetitive. I like the premise of the book (that's why I even begin reading it) but i wish the examples and case studies could have been less global north centric. Listen, i could be wrong here but it felt that the author, after writing Bloodlands had a ton of info on Stalin and Hitler regimes. He found that the 2016 American climate showed certain early signs of it and used those observations to call out the traits of a would-be tyrannical state. Now I understand this move, and it also makes sense. As a historian you've spend years reading up stuff and it doesn't need to be used in only onebplace. But (and it this a big but) if your premise is to show the tell tale signs of fascism and tyrannical rule shouldn't it go beyond just two countries?

This book pulls examples predominantly from Russia and WW2 Germany. And while it address America for most parts, he could have used the growing rise of right wing fascism from countries in South American, African and Asian continent for there are plenty. The Russian and German rule and their implications are already widely known. But wouldn't it make more sense to use lesser known and more subtle states that have this tyranny to hint at cautionary signs?

Modern tyranny is terror management. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that authoritarians exploit such events in order to consolidate power. The sudden disaster that requires the end of checks and balances, the dissolution of opposition parties, the suspension of freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Do not fall for it.

This book was disappointing. It was less a thesis on tyranny and more about comparing the current president to Hitler, something we already hear ad nauseam in the media. The same media the book criticized oddly. If you want a book to learn about tyranny look elsewhere. If you want a book the reads as a hit piece against the current administration then this is for you.

Great choice for combating election/ general life fatigue. This is a very grounding read that helped restore focus and inspiration for protecting our democracy.

Short and gives good examples of what you can do to fight against the creeping authoritarianism of this administration.

This is one of those special books I come across so very rarely; the type of book that's deceiving short but incredibly rich, succinct, and asks for a second reading in the not too distant future. Snyder fuses history (mostly 19th and 20th century), and current world/cultural affairs into an insightful 128 pages, and presents the reader with 20 ‘lessons' that history can teach us about tyranny; everything from not blindly obeying powers at will in advanced, to ‘being kind to our language' (avoid shallow reading, educate yourself, read books), to listening out for dangerous words, and being on guard for one-party states.

I especially loved his thoughts and critique on common sensationalist media (none of which can be claimed as ‘new' arguments - but I like hearing different thoughts on such matters) and his call to go deeper by making up your own mind, putting the internet off to the side, picking up books and long form, well trusted editorials and journalism pieces, and contributing to the discussion in your own language:

“Politicians in our times feed their clichés to television, where even those who wish to disagree repeat them. Television purports to challenge political language by conveying images, but the succession from one frame to another can hinder a sense of resolution. Everything happens fast, but nothing actually happens. Each story on televised news is ”breaking” until it is displaced by the next one. So we are hit by wave upon wave but never see the ocean.”

“If young people do not begin to make history, politicians of eternity and inevitability will destroy it. And to make history, they need to know some. This is not the end, but a beginning.”

1. Do not obey in advance. Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You've already done this, haven't you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom.
2. Defend an institution. Follow the courts or the media, or a court or a newspaper. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you are making them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions don't protect themselves. They go down like dominoes unless each is defended from the beginning.
3. Recall professional ethics. When the leaders of state set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become much more important. It is hard to break a rule-of-law state without lawyers, and it is hard to have show trials without judges.
4. When listening to politicians, distinguish certain words. Look out for the expansive use of “terrorism” and “extremism.” Be alive to the fatal notions of “exception” and “emergency.” Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.
5. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that all authoritarians at all times either await or plan such events in order to consolidate power. Think of the Reichstag fire. The sudden disaster that requires the end of the balance of power, the end of opposition parties, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book. Don't fall for it.
6. Be kind to our language. Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. (Don't use the internet before bed. Charge your gadgets away from your bedroom, and read.) What to read? Perhaps “The Power of the Powerless” by Václav Havel, 1984 by George Orwell, The Captive Mind by Czesław Milosz, The Rebel by Albert Camus, The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, or Nothing is True and Everything is Possible by Peter Pomerantsev.
7. Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy, in words and deeds, to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. And the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.
8. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.
9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.
10. Practice corporeal politics. Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them.
11. Make eye contact and small talk. This is not just polite. It is a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down unnecessary social barriers, and come to understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.
12. Take responsibility for the face of the world. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.
13. Hinder the one-party state. The parties that took over states were once something else. They exploited a historical moment to make political life impossible for their rivals. Vote in local and state elections while you can.
14. Give regularly to good causes, if you can. Pick a charity and set up autopay. Then you will know that you have made a free choice that is supporting civil society helping others doing something good.
15. Establish a private life. Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have personal exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. Authoritarianism works as a blackmail state, looking for the hook on which to hang you. Try not to have too many hooks.
16. Learn from others in other countries. Keep up your friendships abroad, or make new friends abroad. The present difficulties here are an element of a general trend. And no country is going to find a solution by itself. Make sure you and your family have passports.
17. Watch out for the paramilitaries. When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching around with torches and pictures of a Leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-Leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the game is over.
18. Be reflective if you must be armed. If you carry a weapon in public service, God bless you and keep you. But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things. Be ready to say no. (If you do not know what this means, contact the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and ask about training in professional ethics.)
19. Be as courageous as you can. If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die in unfreedom.
20. Be a patriot. The incoming president is not. Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come. They will need it.

–Timothy Snyder, Housum Professor of History, Yale University, 15 November 2016.

Timely.

Never before have I learnt so much from so few pages. Everyone must read this book.

Pocket guide to wokeness.
Chapter (Lesson) 9, Be Kind To Our Language has a nice reading list.

There is nothing like feeling anxious about the political situation in one's country and reading a book in hopes of relieving said anxiety and finding oneself feeling more anxious. That is how I feel about this book.

I'm not saying that I shouldn't feel more anxious; I am saying I am not sure I can cope with feeling any more anxiety. Timothy Snyder takes a look at acknowledged tyrannies of the twentieth century, primarily Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, and compares their actions to the actions of our current US president.

Is he overreaching? Yes, undoubtedly. In some cases. It is clear to me that Snyder has an agenda. He shares his deep concerns about the current administration in the US, and he offers tools to cut through to the truth. That doesn't make his suggestions easy; when was investigating and looking for truth ever easy?

I urge readers to look carefully at this text as well, with a critical eye, watching for bias, searching for exaggeration, carefully keeping an eye on our government as well as an eye on those who would set themselves up as watchdogs of it.

Excellent and important. Need to remember to reread my highlights on this one periodically.

For such a small book, I found it a bit hard to get through. It was trying to show things to be mindful of in this modern flavor of autocratic rule in the U.S., but I found it similar to a in-depth web article.

A timely, slim volume that offers perspective on our current political system. If you're looking for a starting point, this is it. If you're more familiar with the concepts of tyranny, nationalism, authoritarianism, and democracy, then this is a great book to pass on to friends.

Please give my review a helpful vote on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/review/R3PWF91AJ7FK9G/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Post-script: January 20, 2020 - The transition from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration occurred - as I predicted - without the imposition of a dictatorship - as I predicted.

Snyder's book now stands proven by history as an exercise in hysteria.

On the other hand, given the statements by those with power and influence over the new administration about purging, re-education camps and truth commissions and the economic assaults on free speech platforms and Trump supporters, Snyder's hysteria certainly fit in with or channeled the authoritarian tendencies of the left circa 2016-2021.

The book seems timely today, unlike 2016.
_________

A sad example of how ideology distorts scholarship.

I purchased this expecting a thoughtful discussion about the lessons that an academic can draw from 20th-century totalitarianism. I was hopeful about something insight and depth from the author of Bloodlands, which did a really good job of bracketing Nazism and Communism into a coherent narrative.

This is not that book. To save those who might not know, author Timothy Snyder's central thesis is that the current Republican President is Literally Hitler. Of course, this should probably not come as a surprise. Every Republican president is Literally Hitler during their tenure, and then they are rehabilitated as the Model of Bipartisanship to be used against the next Republican President who is Literally Hitler. George Bush is now in the middle of rehabilitation as the Model of Bipartisanship, but there are those of us who remember that not so long he was Bushitler.

I expected better.

I wanted to give Snyder some credit for some his observations. Some of his points about tyranny are classic and memorable.

Unfortunately, I have to wonder where he was for the last eight years. During the last eight years, many people of faith have felt that they were under the heels of a tyranny that threatened to divide us from the rest of America and make us give up our freedom of conscience in order to avoid governmental oppression. The 2016 presidential campaign began, let us remember, with the perennial Democrat shill George Stephanopolous asking an off-the-wall question about contraception. Pretty soon, we saw a presidential campaign largely framed around the idea that Catholics were UnAmerican dissenters who irrationally refused to pay for contraception. The Little Sisters of Poor were required to toss a pinch of incense to appease abortion lest they face draconian penalties that would end their historic mission of caring for the poor. Likewise, we saw the government centralize and make a grab for a substantial part of the economy with that mis-named Affordable Health Care Act, which carried with the unprecedented intrusion into personal life and personal decision-making by requiring that Americans divert upwards of 20% of their income into the purchase of health insurance to the enrichment of insurance companies.

Although any of this could be described quite easily as “fascist”, we heard nothing from Snyder.

Likewise, the last eight years have seen an unprecedented normalization of hostility to free speech, as colleges have instituted speech codes and rules against triggering and have assaulted and intimidated people who didn't adhere to the progressive line.

But, again, nothing from Snyder.

During the last presidential campaign, we saw videos of the loser's side attacking, hitting, punching throwing things at, and assaulting those on the president's side. We've seen riots in the aftermath of an election and attempt to get Electors to violate their oaths.

One might have seen in this the image of Brownshirts and the destruction of democracy by ignoring the spirit of the law, but, again, nothing from Snyder.

Similarly, we remember that under the former president, the IRS was used in an unprecedented way to harass and target conservatives. One might view this as an unhealthy fascist tendency.

But, again, crickets from Snyder.

It is an interesting feature of Snyder's slim book - which is easily read in a single sitting - that it is so conservative. For example, Snyder gives the very good advice that “institutions should be defended.” Quite right, but notice this from his book:

“It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about—a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union—and take its side.”

That is good advice, but I was amused at what his advice omitted. My amusement stemmed from my lengthy reading into the Kirchenkampfe. Snyder omits “churches.” Obviously, churches were a major institution in the resistance against totalitarianism, although Snyder seems to omit this point. In a later section, he manages to explain how Polish workers allied with atheist scholars to bring down Polish Communism without mentioning John Paul II or the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church gets one reference here when Snyder observes:

“The one example of successful resistance to communism was the Solidarity labor movement in Poland in 1980–81: a coalition of workers and professionals, elements of the Roman Catholic Church, and secular groups.”

“Elements.” As if the Primate of Poland, the Bishops of Poland, and the Pope were just “elements.” And this is from a history professor.

I have to wonder about this. Is it just the case that a Yale professor lives in such a secular bubble that he edits the data to form his arguments? Or is it the case, that he wanted to stay away from the tyranny of the prior eight years? Or is he simply an urban elite entirely out of touch with the country that voted for the president? I found this to be a not very edifying example of scholarship.

So, Snyder is strangely quiet about one kind of institution, but he is very conservative in his demand that everyone pay proper deference to the press and support it with money and loyalty.

And here again one wonders where Snyder has been for the last sixteen years. It has come to the point where everyone knows that the mainstream press is an arm of one political party, which isn't that of the current president. Even Communist China has pointed out that the media was biased in favor the loser. The press has an approval rating lower than that of a cold sore because people have seen the press blatantly misrepresent facts. The time is long gone when the press can't be fact-checked in real-time and stories that were run during the prior administration can't be found by a simple internet search and set against current stories to show the slanting and bias of press coverage.

On the other hand, the most independent and professional reporting is often found among amateur bloggers who have real experience, and, while they may have a bias, are not pretending that they don't.

Snyder would properly have compared the modern mainstream press to the Gleischaltung version of the press that existed in 1933 Germany if he wanted to make a fair comparison.(Given the revelation through Wiki leaks that there were media members who running their stories past the Clinton campaign, Gleischaltung is not too strong a word.)

Here is another example:

“17 Listen for dangerous words. Be alert to the use of the words extremism and terrorism. Be alive to the fatal notions of emergency and exception. Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.”

How about “racist”? Or homophobe? Or Islamaphobe?

Such things do exist, but it seems to me that Snyder is entirely unaware of how “dangerous words” are used by his tribe to stifle speech and mark people as “outcasts.”

Here is an example where Snyder goes unhinged:

“14 Establish a private life. Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware on a regular basis. Remember that email is skywriting. Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less. Have personal exchanges in person. For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble. Tyrants seek the hook on which to hang you. Try not to have hooks.”

This may be good advice, but Snyder is injecting poison into the body politic by teaching people that they are presently at risk.

Of course, those who are not on the left have known this for a while. Brandon Eich was fired by Mozilla because of a progressive campaign that was manufactured on the outrage that Eich had dared to participate in politics by donating to one side of a California Initiative that was passed.

Sadly, we are at a point where private citizens are targeted for things they say on Facebook, and the people who target - on both sides - justify their mean-spirited actions by saying that their target was a bad person because the person voted this way or that or violated some piety or other.

I was disappointed in some rules that Snyder didn't offer. Here are a few:

1. Beware of those occasions when someone you like begins to cut away at the spirit of restraint that previously existed. Hitler might not have been able to get his Enabling Act if Kurt von Schleicher had not led the way with his own efforts to circumvent the Reichstag. Likewise, although Democrats cheered, and the media was silent, when Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option, it did set a precedent now that the Fascists control Congress. Similarly, there was loud cheering for the former president's use of executive decrees, but what precedent did unilaterally changing immigration law set for the new president?

At various times during the former president's administration, I was put in mind of the dangerous precedents he was setting, not unlike that of Schleicher. See

2. Beware of the Coordinated Press. The press has to be truly independent. If it becomes a lapdog for one party, it cannot fulfill its job of being a watchdog. A population that has seen it be a lapdog for eight years will probably not pay it much attention when it continues to serve the interest of the party that is out of power.

3.Beware of Charismatic Leaders who are called the Lightworker and make vapid claims about “Hope and Change” and being able to stop the rise of the oceans.

4. Beware of opponents of federalism and advocates of centralizations. Hitler eliminated the federal states and centralized power, such as coordinating political and economic power, such as creating a centralized health insurance system.

Snyder is histrionic. The former president may not have seemed like an authoritarian, but to those who were put to the choice of religious convictions or penalties, the former president was very authoritarian. Nonetheless, only those on the fever-swamp did not believe that the former president was not going to surrender power to his successor. The current president seems to have an authoritarian personality - some might say New Yor personality - but his policies tend away from authoritarianism. Eliminating the ACA is a pro-federalist position. Reducing the size of government is anti-authoritarian.

Certainly, the media will be there to expose him.

And does any sane person really think that the president will not surrender power to his successor exactly the same way that the former president gave up power?

Snyder is doing no one any good with this paranoid fantasy.

We survived the former president as a democracy. We will survive the current president as a democracy.