The Verdict: So close, yet so far. Sadly, On Tyranny is hackneyed partisanism under the guise of a serious work, and not really worthwhile reading for non-partisans and anti-authoritarians who can look at recent events with some degree of objectivity.
Full Review: I really wanted to like On Tyranny, since the subject matter is so important, but the author makes the concept of tyranny almost laughable via his gross misjudgment of contemporary events, which undermines the entire work.
It's a shame, because there are some real gems in this book. Consider the following: "We certainly face, as did the ancient Greeks, the problem of oligarchy - ever more threatening as globalization increases differences in wealth."
Full Review: I really wanted to like On Tyranny, since the subject matter is so important, but the author makes the concept of tyranny almost laughable via his gross misjudgment of contemporary events, which undermines the entire work.
It's a shame, because there are some real gems in this book. Consider the following: "We certainly face, as did the ancient Greeks, the problem of oligarchy - ever more threatening as globalization increases differences in wealth."
Snyder is so close here if he is implying that oligarchy might be a real source of contemporary tyranny. But rather than go deep and explore the tendency of democracies to degenerate into oligarchies and what it means for us today in light of globalization, Snyder goes shallow.
It becomes clear to the reader that this book was written in 2017 because the author, absurdly, believed that Trump was going to suspend elections in 2018. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Trump, but that he was the next Hitler waiting for the next Reichstag Fire to install himself as furher is not one of them.
This perspective on the suspension of democratic elections is even more patently ridiculous with hindsight, since there was never any suggestion that Trump would even suspend elections in 2020, when there was arguably an actual emergency in the form of Covid-19, let alone in 2018 when there was no ostensible emergency. And the author warns us that tyrants always use emergency powers to their benefit in order to consolidate their power! This is often true for real tyrants, but it is not true of Trump simply because he is not one, at least not when it comes to the laughable idea of him suspending elections.
(As an aside, Trump's 2020 lockdowns and other Covid polices, some of which continued into or worsened during the Biden era, were the most authoritarian events of my lifetime, although initially there was bipartisan support for them. One could make the tyranny argument based on these factors, though I doubt this author would.)
Moving on, we are also told that Trump was dangerous because he criticized the media. Need I say that criticizing the media is no indicator of tyranny. Corporations and institutions are never beyond reproach and they are also subject to the Iron Law of Oligarchy in the way that all complex organizations and democracies are. Moreover, derelict journalists are often an essential accessory to the authoritarian state. Many were executed right along with Nazi officers at the Nuremberg tribunal for example.
This assertion that criticizing the media is somehow a bad thing is likely predicated on the (mostly false) assumption that we still have a free press. Yet I (and many others) have been arguing since before Trump got elected that we in fact have a derelict, captured, corporate press beholden to various advertisers and special interests.
I have tried to make it clear in my writing that much of the corporate media have been derelict since long before Trump took office, and I think that this is clear to us anti-authoritarians and nonpartisans who can look at current events with some degree of objectivity.
On Tyranny is hysterical pearl clutching claiming Trump was going to suspend elections in 2018. Did he do that? No. Did Trump suspend elections in 2020, even during the pandemic? No.
Overall, it is hard to take seriously a scholar who so grossly misjudged recent history and peppered a work on such an important topic with absurdity. On Tyranny is a hard pass.
~
Update 2026: I am closing comments on this post. I read this book in 2021 and didn't agree with the author's conclusions. I haven't changed my mind. Trump is never going to cancel elections or imprison Jews in concentration camps. It's just not going to happen. He isn't Hitler. He isn't Benito Mussolini. These men were responsible for the deaths of millions. I can't believe I have to actually even say this. It's so irresponsible to compare them in this way. Anyone saying this is deeply unserious and out of touch with reality to compare Trump to Hitler. Get a fucking grip.
Please stop begging the question and assuming Trump is fascist based on a superficial definition of fascism. I haven't seen one convincing argument in the comments that rests on a sophisticated understanding of fascism. Here are the counter arguments:
Trump is a populist; he is not a fascist. How do I know he isn't fascist?
Finally, it's worth noting that this is literally the only post I have made on this site in over 13 years that even mentions Trump. My work has always been focused elsewhere. I'm not required to give Bolsheviks, who apparently have nothing better to do, a platform to perpetually debate this issue. Comments are closed. Good day to you.
~
Read Next:
How the Left-Right Political Spectrum Deceives Us
How Political Parties Dumb Us Down
2 Less Obvious Reasons For Journalistic Malfeasance
It becomes clear to the reader that this book was written in 2017 because the author, absurdly, believed that Trump was going to suspend elections in 2018. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Trump, but that he was the next Hitler waiting for the next Reichstag Fire to install himself as furher is not one of them.
This perspective on the suspension of democratic elections is even more patently ridiculous with hindsight, since there was never any suggestion that Trump would even suspend elections in 2020, when there was arguably an actual emergency in the form of Covid-19, let alone in 2018 when there was no ostensible emergency. And the author warns us that tyrants always use emergency powers to their benefit in order to consolidate their power! This is often true for real tyrants, but it is not true of Trump simply because he is not one, at least not when it comes to the laughable idea of him suspending elections.
(As an aside, Trump's 2020 lockdowns and other Covid polices, some of which continued into or worsened during the Biden era, were the most authoritarian events of my lifetime, although initially there was bipartisan support for them. One could make the tyranny argument based on these factors, though I doubt this author would.)
Moving on, we are also told that Trump was dangerous because he criticized the media. Need I say that criticizing the media is no indicator of tyranny. Corporations and institutions are never beyond reproach and they are also subject to the Iron Law of Oligarchy in the way that all complex organizations and democracies are. Moreover, derelict journalists are often an essential accessory to the authoritarian state. Many were executed right along with Nazi officers at the Nuremberg tribunal for example.
This assertion that criticizing the media is somehow a bad thing is likely predicated on the (mostly false) assumption that we still have a free press. Yet I (and many others) have been arguing since before Trump got elected that we in fact have a derelict, captured, corporate press beholden to various advertisers and special interests.
I have tried to make it clear in my writing that much of the corporate media have been derelict since long before Trump took office, and I think that this is clear to us anti-authoritarians and nonpartisans who can look at current events with some degree of objectivity.
On Tyranny is hysterical pearl clutching claiming Trump was going to suspend elections in 2018. Did he do that? No. Did Trump suspend elections in 2020, even during the pandemic? No.
Overall, it is hard to take seriously a scholar who so grossly misjudged recent history and peppered a work on such an important topic with absurdity. On Tyranny is a hard pass.
~
Update 2026: I am closing comments on this post. I read this book in 2021 and didn't agree with the author's conclusions. I haven't changed my mind. Trump is never going to cancel elections or imprison Jews in concentration camps. It's just not going to happen. He isn't Hitler. He isn't Benito Mussolini. These men were responsible for the deaths of millions. I can't believe I have to actually even say this. It's so irresponsible to compare them in this way. Anyone saying this is deeply unserious and out of touch with reality to compare Trump to Hitler. Get a fucking grip.
Please stop begging the question and assuming Trump is fascist based on a superficial definition of fascism. I haven't seen one convincing argument in the comments that rests on a sophisticated understanding of fascism. Here are the counter arguments:
Trump is a populist; he is not a fascist. How do I know he isn't fascist?
- You are allowed to publicly criticize Trump without fear of censorship or imprisonment.
- He appoints Originalist judges who are strong supporters of Constitutional rights like free speech, whereas fascists and authoritarians always favor censorship.
- He doesn't support restricting firearms ownership as fascists have always done historically.
- He doesn't have paramilitary forces. No, enforcing immigration laws written by bipartisan legislators and signed into law by Democrat presidents including Bill Clinton, is not fascist!
- Trump doesn't hate Jews or advocate for revolutionary racial violence. If anything, Trump has been super deferential to Jews during his administration.
- Trump is actively working to reduce the size and power of government through DOGE, whereas fascists have always favored a large centralized authority. Using the state to reduce the power of the state is not fascism or oligarchy, nor is commitment to cutting fraud, waste or a balanced budget.
- Even regime change abroad is not necessarily fascist or unprecedented for US presidents in the last 30 years. Are we willing to also call Obama a fascist for overthrowing Ghaddafi, or Bush a fascist for overthrowing Hussein?
- Trump was democratically elected and he carried the popular vote. And, unlike the Democratic party, he was actually chosen by voters in a primary, not undemocratically installed by donors and party insiders like Harris.
Finally, it's worth noting that this is literally the only post I have made on this site in over 13 years that even mentions Trump. My work has always been focused elsewhere. I'm not required to give Bolsheviks, who apparently have nothing better to do, a platform to perpetually debate this issue. Comments are closed. Good day to you.
~
Read Next:
How the Left-Right Political Spectrum Deceives Us
How Political Parties Dumb Us Down
2 Less Obvious Reasons For Journalistic Malfeasance
