On Tyranny

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?