In On Tyranny, Timothy Snyder presents various strategies that authoritarian governments use to gain power and ways that citizens can resist them. Donald Trump’s election to the American presidency in 2016 is what motivated Snyder, a renowned historian of authoritarianism in 20th-century Europe, to pen the book. According to Snyder, Donald Trump poses a unique and unprecedented threat to American democracy: because of his political style and ideology, indifference to facts and the rule of law, and ties to Russia’s dictatorial regime, Trump risks destroying the institutions that have sustained American democracy for centuries and establishing tyranny in their place.
Snyder argues that the American system of government is already remarkably fragile before Trump—in many ways, it is closer to an oligarchy than a democracy, and it has numerous characteristics that make it ripe for takeover by an authoritarian government. The most dangerous structural flaw in American government, Snyder argues, is that it is almost entirely controlled by the rich, who sway elections and determine policy with massive, unrestricted donations. Like many corrupt governments of the 20th century, Snyder notes, the ruling Republican Party only has minority support and represents the interests of a tiny economic elite. While Americans might consider their country a democracy ruled by the people, in reality it has many characteristics of a Russian-style oligarchy, ruled by and for a wealthy few. Donald Trump, whose campaign was overwhelmingly funded by the rich, risks pushing the nation even further in this direction and concentrating even more power in private hands. A second reason that Snyder sees the American political system as fragile is that the American media, especially on the internet, has already lost its foundation in facts and commitment to revealing the truth—instead, it largely treats politics like a spectacle or television show, a source of entertainment rather than a series of consequential decisions with implications for people’s lives. This “post-truth” environment is very advantageous for tyrants, who win when they convince people to make political decisions based on feelings rather than reality. The same is true for the privatization of violence: Snyder emphasizes that authoritarians generally use private paramilitaries and secret death squads to terrorize their populations and circumvent the rule of law. The United States already relies heavily on private paramilitaries and security forces to conduct its wars and run its prisons, Snyder notes, and Trump has explicitly advocated ordering such groups to use violence against declared “enemies,” like immigrants and his political opponents. From Snyder’s perspective as a historian, this shows that the United States is just a few small steps from falling into tyranny.
Snyder believes that Donald Trump uses classic antidemocratic and fascist techniques to take advantage of the existing fragility in American government and civic life. Through these techniques, he specifically seeks to undermine the tolerance, sense of shared factual reality, and institutional checks and balances that are cornerstones of American government and civil society. First, Trump attacks the basic democratic concept of tolerance: the idea of a multiparty system in which opposing groups share power and consider one another fellow citizens (rather than enemies to be annihilated). Rather, he openly attacks and advocates violence against political opponents, creating a culture of dehumanization and fear that threatens democracy by suggesting to people that their government is not legitimate if it is run by their opponents. Trump also attacks the basic facts that people must agree to in order to meaningfully govern themselves. Snyder notes that 78% of Trump’s statements during his campaign were false, that he advocates clearly contradictory policies (like cutting taxes, increasing spending, and reducing debt all at the same time), and that he repeatedly focuses his followers’ attention on identity and loyalty instead of policy and logic. In short, Snyder argues, Trump tells his followers that they can believe anything that makes them feel good, and then he uses this as the basis for a “post-truth” campaign that makes no substantive promises and advances no clear principles. Finally, Trump openly plots to undermine governmental institutions and traditions. Even before Trump’s inauguration, Snyder notes, he defended Putin-style “terror management” methods as a way of seizing and accumulating power. This makes it even more clear to Snyder that, even if Trump is not a dictator yet, he wants to become one.
Snyder structures his arguments around historical examples rather than Donald Trump’s specific actions and proposals so that his readers can see the clear parallels between the contemporary United States and past democracies that have collapsed into oligarchy, authoritarianism, and/or tyranny, like Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and 21st-century Russia under Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, this book never would have existed had Donald Trump not come to power: Snyder’s general outline of tyranny and strategies to combat it are specifically directed at Americans living under Trump’s historical presidency, which Snyder believes could quite literally spell a permanent end to the democratic ideals enshrined in the United States Constitution and the beginning of an era of lawless dictatorship. Many Americans may find Snyder’s argument shocking and outlandish, and Snyder explains this tendency by noting that most Americans are taught to think that democracy is inevitable and American institutions are strong enough to withstand any attack. But Snyder emphasizes that this is not true: just as democracies have collapsed over and over throughout history, the American system is already on the brink of collapse, and Donald Trump has clearly declared his intention to push it over the edge and turn the nation into a “fascist oligarchy.”
Related Themes from Other Texts
The Collapse of American Democracy ThemeTracker
The Collapse of American Democracy Quotes in On Tyranny
The European history of the twentieth century shows us that societies can break, democracies can fall, ethics can collapse, and ordinary men can find themselves standing over death pits with guns in their hands. It would serve us well today to understand why.
Does the history of tyranny apply to the United States? Certainly the early Americans who spoke of “eternal vigilance” would have thought so. The logic of the system they devised was to mitigate the consequences of our real imperfections, not to celebrate our imaginary perfection. We certainly face, as did the ancient Greeks, the problem of oligarchy—ever more threatening as globalization increases differences in wealth. The odd American idea that giving money to political campaigns is free speech means that the very rich have far more speech, and so in effect far more voting power, than other citizens. We believe that we have checks and balances, but have rarely faced a situation like the present, when the less popular of the two parties controls every lever of power at the federal level, as well as the majority of state houses. The party that exercises such control proposes few policies that are popular with the society at large, and several that are generally unpopular—and thus must either fear democracy or weaken it.
Because the American federal government uses mercenaries in warfare and American state governments pay corporations to run prisons, the use of violence in the United States is already highly privatized. What is novel is a president who wishes to maintain, while in office, a personal security force which during his campaign used force against dissenters.
After the Second World War, Europeans, Americans, and others created myths of righteous resistance to Hitler. In the 1930s, however, the dominant attitudes had been accommodation and admiration. By 1940 most Europeans had made their peace with the seemingly irresistible power of Nazi Germany. Influential Americans such as Charles Lindbergh opposed war with the Nazis under the slogan “America First.” It is those who were considered exceptional, eccentric, or even insane in their own time—those who did not change when the world around them did—whom we remember and admire today.
Fascists despised the small truths of daily existence, loved slogans that resonated like a new religion, and preferred creative myths to history or journalism. They 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.
Post-truth is pre-fascism.
“What is truth?” Sometimes people ask this question because they wish to do nothing. Generic cynicism makes us feel hip and alternative even as we slip along with our fellow citizens into a morass of indifference. It is your ability to discern facts that makes you an individual, and our collective trust in common knowledge that makes us a society. The individual who investigates is also the citizen who builds. The leader who dislikes the investigators is a potential tyrant.
History, which for a time seemed to be running from west to east, now seems to be moving from east to west.
Until recently, we Americans had convinced ourselves that there was nothing in the future but more of the same. The seemingly distant traumas of fascism, Nazism, and communism seemed to be receding into irrelevance. We allowed ourselves to accept the politics of inevitability, the sense that history could move in only one direction: toward liberal democracy. After communism in eastern Europe came to an end in 1989-91, we imbibed the myth of an “end of history.” In doing so, we lowered our defenses, constrained our imagination, and opened the way for precisely the kinds of regimes we told ourselves could never return.
Both of these positions, inevitability and eternity, are antihistorical. The only thing that stands between them is history itself.
