How Trump's Grift Makes Him a Failure: Professor | The Daily Beast Podcast

There are fascist elements to this, but they also lack some traits, like fascists, for example. One must say that there are many horrible things. involved, like aggression and atrocity. But the fascists weren't in it for the money. Right. They weren't like this wasn't. And these guys are in it for the money. And so it's like they have fascist moments, but they're distracted by the desire to die. incredibly rich. Welcome to the Daily Beast podcast. I miss you, Daugherty.

I'm executive editor of The Daily Beast, and I am in for Joanna Coles. And I'm delighted to be. because we have an amazing guest today, the historian Timothy Snyder. But before we get started, please can I urge you to hit subscribe, join our army of subscribers, 654,000 of you and counting. Thank you to everyone of us. Please help us get to 700,000. You can also join us as a friend of the beast, which is full 99 a month. There are amazing benefits. There are live streams, exclusive content, even better.

Special Chrome on your profile. What more can you ask for? We are independent media. Every bit of your support helps us get guests like Timothy Snyder. He is a renowned historian of authoritarianism. He has studied Hitler, Stalin, Putin, huge cast of villains. But he is also a believer in America. who's a moral vision of the movement we are in and how we can overcome it. He has written two books which should be on. everyone's shelves on tyranny, which I'm holding up now, and on Freedom.

Doctor Snyder, welcome to the Daily Beast podcast. Our listeners and viewers have been requesting you for months. Maybe years, and it is great to have you with us of so many things to talk about. You have studied tyrants and you have written about freedom and about tyranny. But the thing that has caught my eye recently is you're putting forward. a new theory, which you're calling superpower suicide. I was wonder if you could explain what what you think. is happening with the United States, with the United States government?

Or is a superpower suicide? Yeah. This came. this came to me because I was I was meant to give a very serious. talk at the Council on Foreign Relations. the other day, and it was a very serious talk. But I was as I was preparing with my colleague Anne-Marie slaughter, I realized that this is what we were really meant to talk about. We were meant to talk about just how it is. that we're choosing to be so much less powerful than we could be. And so a lot of the stuff I talk about is ethical. This is not an ethical. This is this is an analytical claim.

And the analytical surprises. that a great power would do so much so quickly to make itself so much weaker. And as a historian, I find that unusual right there. All kinds of stories about the ends of empire, you know, from the Romans, the Habsburgs or whatever. But it's very hard to find tyrants or aspiring tyrants. deliberately sabotaging the power of their own country. Right. And that you're obviously referring partly to Iran. here and the. Yeah, sequence of events in the Strait of Hormuz and so on.

But it's more than that. Yeah. No, I mean, that's right. That's what prompted the thought, because it's not that usual to fight a war. for no reasons that you can give lose the war. and then try to distract everyone with a bunch of genocidal rhetoric about the war. That's unusual, but I think, serious as it is, it's. symptomatic of something which goes deeper. So what I mean by what I mean. by the superhero suicide is that there's a whole combination of things.

you can think of as the basis of the power of the state, right? Like a that there is a state. and not just a coterie of oligarchs who are making a bunch of money, be that the state has some kind of ideology, some kind of voice, of some kind of reason for being. I don't think Trump is giving us anything like that. See that you can have allies. I mean, even the most cynical, calculating allies that super powers in the past. or empires in the past, they would change allies, but not for no reason. I mean, not. because they were annoyed or they got up on the wrong side of the bed or whatever. Dealing with your adversaries. We can't deal with them.

We lost the trade war to China, and we're rewarding Russia for who knows. what all the time. You know, going on the. fiscal basis of power, they have no sense of where they're going to collect taxes. They want to keep increasing. They want to keep increasing the defense budget, but they have no notion of where they're gonna get taxes. They just they don't leave. They're not even really thinking about it. It's completely irresponsible. And then another one is energy. Like if you think of the transitions over time, like how powers rise, it has to do with being on the right side of energy technology. But instead of being on the right side of the green energy transition,

we're choosing to do this archaic thing, this really out of this stick thing. of just preferring that, preferring oil and natural gas completely irrationally. So, I mean, you can just assume time. Yeah. Go ahead. Forcing up oil prices. Yeah. Which yeah. Which appear to be directly in like directly going. against what you want to do if you're relying on oil and gas. So yeah, I mean that goes back to like that, that goes back to point one of like what is a state. Right. Because whether you're like whether you're Clausewitz.

or whether you're vapor or whatever, you think there's some kind of. irrationality around the state. and the complete inability to think beyond your own whimsy. Right. Like, I'm going to do this war because it's going to feel good when I do it. But not being able to think about the second and third order effects, but. also not having bureaucrats or advisers around you who say, you know, Mr. President, there will be second and third order effects like that's. a sign of the absence of a state that there isn't. There aren't those layers. There isn't a process which might lead you away from your momentary whimsy.

And you've, you've you've studied. people who are genuinely tyrants and people who are aspiring tyrants. Is there a parallel for this? I mean, it doesn't sound like there is. Yeah. I mean, history is not there because things repeat. It's there because of their patterns. And it can also it can. it can push our imaginations in various ways to help us see what's going on. But I think I agree with you. I'm having a hard time with this. Like, you can think of them like there are fascist elements to this,

but they also lack some traits, like fascists, for example. I mean. One must say that there are many horrible things. involved, like aggression and atrocity. But the fascists weren't in it for the money, right? They weren't like, this wasn't. And these guys are in it for the money. And so it's like they have fascist moments, but they're distracted by the desire to, you know, die incredibly rich. And fascists understood they needed to win wars.

Right. And whereas these guys don't I mean, they like to talk about winning, but. they don't have the wherewithal to think about what it actually means to win a war. So I think the fascism comparison helps, but it's like these guys are failed fascists. You know, they they, they want somebody else. to do the work of fascism for them. They want to delegate it. Right? They want to do the prancing and the preening part, but they don't want to do the other part. When you say they could be talking about, yeah, I'm talking about Trump and Vance. First of all, I mean,

I mean, the, the person who matters in the war story and the person. who is most responsible for the superpower suicide has got to be Trump himself. Right. But then there are the people around him. In terms of this war, Hegseth, obviously. Right. I mean, there's somebody who seems to be clearly imprisoned in a set of ideas. about how the world works, which are demonstrably false. He seems that he seems to be, you know, substituting a kind of. apocalyptic rhetoric for any kind of real thriving.

or power of the state that we're talking about. And presumably you you spoke about wealth and presumably. talking about Jared Kushner instead of why, why would you if you are a powerful figure who wants. who aspires towards some sort of. single person rule. Why surround yourself by people who are not good at it? I mean, one of the things that strikes me, having read, I'm sitting here, I should say for people who are not who are listening, but on YouTube, you can see I'm sitting with a copy of On Tyranny in front of me.

It's a book that's brought immense fascination, comfort to people. Perhaps on freedom has brought more comfort. But one of the things that strikes me in reading this and, you know, Bloodlands and other works, you know, other parts of your work is. these autocrats tend to be surround tend to find people. who help them do their work for them, who are evil but effective.

And to what to what end would you not want that. if you are aspiring to being some sort of, king emperor? That's another great question. I've got two kinds of answers. The first is. going back. also leaning on your previous question about what's different, what's the same? It is different. in the US that we have this ideological tendency. which is so anti-state, so it's not that,

you know, whether you look at the far left, the far. right, historically the communists, it's not that they didn't believe. in the state, it's that they thought that the party should be over the state. Right. There were bureaucrats and they wanted the state to be functional. And then likewise with the fascists or the Nazis, they wanted to bend the state to their ends, which were. Exactly. And they succeed. Holocaust or. Yeah, the conquest of foreign lands. But yeah, but they didn't want a state to be weak. They wanted they didn't want to. They didn't want to fire all the bureaucrats. They wanted to fire some of them, you know, but they and they wanted to.

they want to insert their people in critical places, but they weren't trying to weaken the state. And that's different about the US. We do have this ideology. according to which, you know, liberation just means wrecking the state. And for 100 reasons, that's incorrect. But just as a matter of fact, we do. And I so I think that's part of it. You know, the the notion that it's somehow liberating and inspiring. and even fun to do what Musk was doing and do it what is still doing, which is just basically making the American state. not work, but putting us in the Woodchipper Rs.

Yeah, taking taking a sledgehammer to some other department. And that's rhetoric he used, by the way. I'm just, you know. Yeah. Let me tell you about one skin. There is skin care company that's serious about science. And that OS1 peptide. helps target the root causes of skin age. I've been using the OS one face moisturizer and I find it. super easy to use. It's got a nice nutty smell and it's effortless to layer. because it's lightweight and it absorbs fast.

Well, regular viewers can be the judge. How does my skin look to you? I've never had to ask for this, by the way. I really like their sleek packaging. It's kind of easy to pack, and it's boon from over a decade of longevity research. One skins OS one peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. So for a limited time, try one skin with 15% off using code.

based at one skin.co/beast. That's 15% off one skin eco forward slash beast. And be sure to use the Code Beast at checkout. After you purchase, they'll ask you why you heard about them, so please support our show and tell them we sent you. And then on the. on the practical side, making tons of money. for yourself personally is inconsistent with the function of the state. And so if you're putting, I mean, I don't think it's unfair to say that if you're putting Steve Wyckoff.

or Jared Kushner or Donald Trump, for that matter, in front of a choice. in the choices you would like to have a thriving American civil service. or you'd like to have $3 billion, I think is pretty clear. You know, which those which those men I think they have. There's a record, let's say, an empirical record about which they would choose. And so with Trump. is sure he would like to have lots of power, but I think he's the people who are naturally around him. are chaos makers who tend to see the disruption,

to use a word they like, as an opportunity to take lots of money. Right? And by taking the money they create follow disruption, obviously. Yeah. But and they stop going through until and he gives 20 lessons. at a very succinct fashion, which I think is probably. why it's brought a measure of comfort to people. And one of the things that that struck me in, in one lesson. and I'm going to turn to page 45, for those of you watching, you were talking about Pete Hegseth and one of one of your licenses.

Be wary of paramilitaries and the takeover of when when the governments monopoly. on violence and the parties and the party moves and takes over that monopoly. One of the things that struck me that, you talked about Hegseth. and his ideas is you said an ideology of exclusion has to be incorporated. into the training of armed guards, that there has to be a mentality given to. to people who have the instruments of violence. And you say these first challenged the police in the military.

and then penetrate the police in the military. and finally transform the police and the military. One of the things that strikes me about Hegseth. is that Wyckoff and, Kushner and Trump himself. have a track record, clearly, of seeking to become richer. But Hegseth appeals, as you said, to have ideas. Is that more dangerous? I think, but also he has control of the military, to some, to some extent, as secretary of defense,

it's I think there's like there's a theme in your questions, which is which is which underlying theme, which I think is very smart, which is trying to get the the malice and the incompetence together. And I think there's a tendency I'm just taking a step back, like there's a tendency in the American conversation to say, well, it's just incompetence. Or, you know, for some folks it's just malice, but there's no reason why it can't be both, and there's no reason. why it can't be both inside a single person, or there's no reason why there couldn't be a kind of, you know, balance of labor between the between the malice and the incompetence.

So Hegseth is incompetent as a military planner. I read his books. He doesn't know anything about the history of the war. He doesn't actually know anything about the execution of war. He has notions like that. If you just get the black people and the women out of the way, then the smart white guys are going to make the right decision. You suspend or at least. loosen rules of it. Rules of engagement is one of his. That's the that's in your. Yeah, yeah. And you completely understand and understand what rules of engagement are. And he thinks that the whole he thinks that war is just as he put it,

when he gathered the high commanders of the U.S. armed forces together foolishly in one room in Virginia, he thinks that your job is to kill people and break things. But that's not your job. Your job is to your job is to carry out successful operations. in the service of tactics, which are part of a larger strategy, which which aims to fulfill a policy. He doesn't understand any of that. Right. So he didn't. So he's incompetent, but he's also malicious in the sense that he doesn't. And again, this is in his books. He doesn't really believe in the Constitution. He doesn't really believe in separation of powers.

He doesn't really believe in the pluralism of religious faith. or the absence thereof. He thinks that we ought to be a theocratic state. And, and so and therefore it would be right to use the armed services. against other Americans, because there's a right from his point of view. What's right is his version of Christianity and his, you know, his version of who belongs and who doesn't belong. I want you to go through some of the lessons that you draw in on tyranny and just. I'm not saying. rate 1 to 10 where we are necessarily, but, you know, it's very noticeable that,

among the themes that you that you identify, one of them that's become. very famous is do not be in advance. the idea of anticipatory obedience. How far along the road do you think we are on? That's the idea. Yeah. Thanks for that. I mean, there's a there's a logic to the book, which is that. number one has to be followed, or else the rest of them don't make any sense. So some of the others you can pick and choose among.

But if you if you do obey in advance, then none of the rest of the lessons are going to make sense to you. And it's not just a logical point. It's a sort of sociological observation. Like I'm around Americans all the time and other folks all the time, and I. and you can see when, when, when, when people are, when people have normalized, when they have obeyed in advance, when they've decided that, you know, each day the things that happen, I'm going to justify those things. You can't really talk to them about further steps of resistance. I mean, they might say, I don't like this. I'm uncomfortable. But none of the further. steps of resistance actually makes sense to them inside.

Whereas if you if you just because they've already gone in the opposite direction. Yeah. Their mind, their minds or their mind is already a normalization engine, like that's what, that's what their mind is fundamentally doing. And therefore if you say, okay, well if you don't like it, how about joining the protest? Like they'll find some reason why they're not going to do that. Whereas if you do follow lesson one, then the whole menu of the rest of them are available to you. So I think I think number one is, is sort of permanently relevant. Whether you're just, you know, we going to resist a little bit. or whether you want to go into some kind of full blown opposition.

Number one is, is, is is necessary all the time. And what I've, I mean, I wrote this book almost ten years ago now, and. I was thinking of a certain moment, you know, right after Trump's first election. But I realize. people come to the idea that they should do something. for their own reasons over time and like, one should respect that. And so there's a moment where people realize, oh, okay, I got to start by saying this is not normal. Yeah. And that's where the pain advance comes in. So you, we actually we sometimes see finally no.

Trump voters saying, oh, I didn't realize this was what was happening. I how do you get how do you how do you address that was sort of. that sort of person who voted for Trump and is now. this is an example this morning. We've been told this in Colorado. A retired Air Force captain told the Associated Press that she had voted. for him, and each time I know felt that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing. and that it was like, I think her quote was voting.

for the president of the school council because you were going to get free pizza. And in fact, there was no free, no free pizza. I suppose most. people would say, you probably guess, but how do you. how do you've we've obviously he's at a low point in the polls. There are clear signs of unpopularity. And I want to talk about a couple more of those. But how do you give that message about these are people who did obey. How do you get to them? No, I'm stuck in the pizza analogy because I'm thinking like, it's.

not that you didn't bring the pizza, it's. that the pizza delivery guy was actually a robber and like, you know, broke into your house and took your family jewels. You know, that's that's that's the analogy, right? You thought you were ordering pizza, but in fact, you know, what the heck? A guy named Don came to your house and took all your stuff and laughed at you. That's what happened. Yeah. I mean, and then demanded five stars on Yelp. Right on. The, of the,

the I think so, Americans. I mean, we're, like, lovable in many ways, but we don't really have a sense of time. Like, we don't remember things very well. And I think the dominant way, you know, in the US, in us is not to say to people. in effective ways, not to say like, you know, two years ago, you did this in three years because, you know, people do change their minds a lot in this country. And I think the most important thing is to, like, figure out what it was. that changed their mind. And then and then talk about that with other folks, because you looked.

at that like that road to Damascus or whatever, you know, like, what is it? What was that? I find that, like, what was the thing and then, then that thing, maybe you can help you talk to other people who might be on the verge. of a similar kind of change of, of mind, but I mean, in terms. I mean, you're going to get to this, but in terms of the practical politics of it, it's pretty important. It's pretty important to have that set of people. and to give that set of people a chance to speak.

Well, what is the practical politics I want to talk to you about? I actually was we were recording this, the day after Virginia. voted very marginally, but still voted, for a read. That's a midterm redistricting, which will if it goes, if it goes past their. Supreme Court and people vote in line with broader expectations, is likely. to transform it into having one single Republican member of Congress. as a as as opposed to the six, the five it currently has.

And there appear to be tides of popular opinion. that are moving against him, against Trump and against MAGA. There there is, you know, there's endless. polling about the possibility of a wave election. The Senate may be in play. What what's that doing in the mind of it? But first of all, what's that doing in people's minds? Does that give people permission to rethink where they are?

That's really interesting. I think the answer is yes. I think clearly the answer is yes. I do feel like there's a moment. where the ice breaks a little bit and there's still big chunks of ice, you know, in the flow, but like it's it people are wobbling a little bit. and looking around, I think we're in we're definitely in that kind of a moment. I think it's very important if you have been in. the opposition of any sort to, to the president, not to just watch this moment, but to take advantage of it, to do more.

talking, to do more protesting, to try to push things along. I worry a little bit about folks on the Democratic side who still believe. in some kind of determinism, you know, like they won last time. So we're going to win this time and look at the polls. and things have to follow the polls. I'm deeply convinced that this election has to be not just a victory. and not just a big victory, but a big a big victory, which is won for unconventional reasons as well as conventional ones. that if we just go into this election saying, well, look, we're going to win on affordability,

I think that's going to be very bad for the Republic. Honestly. I think that if you have to say we're going to, we won not just because of affordability, but because people connected. affordability to abuse of power, and they connected. abuse of power to the attempt to get rid of our democracy. Because if you have that kind of logic, then you have a legitimation. to go after bigger things after November, which I think we have to do. And those are what those what do you mean by bigger things? You mean criminal investigations? Yeah, absolutely. And I think that has to be part of the campaign.

That's another thing which worries us, which you haven't asked about Hungary. I bet you're going to be exactly anticipated where I, where I was going. Yes. Let's face it, after a night of drinks, it can be hard to bounce back. But that's where Z biotics pre alcohol probiotic drink comes in C Biotics free. alcohol probiotic drink is a genetically engineered. probiotic invented by PhD scientists. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.

It's a buildup of this byproduct more than dehydration. That's to blame for rough days after drinking from the fairways. in Augusta to the first pitch of baseball season. and the start of festival circuits, April is a sprint of outdoor celebrations, so don't let a rough next day keep you on the sidelines. Drink alcohol to stay ahead of the game. and make the most of every sunny Saturday. Go to Z biotics.com/daily Beast to learn more.

and get 15% off your first order when you use Daily Beast at checkout. Zee biotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied. for any reason, they'll refund your money no questions asked. So remember to head to Z biotics.com/daily Beast. and use the Code Daily Beast at checkout for 15% off. But want. And there are many things. There are many interesting lessons to draw from the success of Meijer in Hungary.

and the defeat of Orban, but one of them is that he completely, unashamedly. and without reservation the entire time, talked about the law. and the rule of law and the need for people. to be to be punished if they broke the law. Right. So it's not retribution, it's about the restoration of the rule of law. And I think, I think a lot of Democrats are a bit shy about that. And I think there's a certain, you know, certain hope. that, like, history will just take its course and the people. that bad things will kind of fade away into the background. But they didn't last time. They did not fade away into the background last time. You know, all the people who invaded late,

they will invade the Capitol, were pardoned. They went on to commit other crimes. They're still doing terrible things, Mr. Trump. There are regular new, new crimes committed. It's it's almost a trope of, yeah, it's like a beat on its own. Like you be a reporter and that could just be your beat. You know, the and then, you know, Trump seems to be president again. So like the history didn't take its course. And I think there has to be a certain amount of willingness to say, look, people, if you do try to rig it in November, there are going to be consequences for you. You know it, it may be in January the next year, but eventually if you break these laws,

they're gonna be consequences for you, partly because it's the right thing to do, partly to deter, right, and partly to show that you're confident. Because if you if you're unwilling to say that the law of the land applies. in your land when you're about to win a big election, then you don't really look like you're very confident, right? One of the things that, or Biden's victory, sorry, or Biden's defeat rather, was held up by people on the right. And they said, guys like you, I think quite often named.

you actually said they said they said the Orban was a tyrant, but he's accepted. He's accepted that he has lost. That seemed to be a sort of coping mechanism, first of all. But how do you how do you deal with that sort of thinking that. that people find a way to excuse what was undoubtedly. a regime that a team that attempted to take sole power? Yeah. I mean, I think pretty much every. Well, okay, I'm not sure who is saying that, but the people on the right,

the permanently online right, I think is how I would put it. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, okay, so I'm not sure I can I will say what I think. I'm not sure it's going to be found convincing. because I think as you say, that is a rationalization. Right. So Orban losing has a moral and psychological significance. to people who are on the far right, to an extent, which I think it's hard for other folks to understand because we. people on. the center, on the left tend to be much more is is weird, but is true much more America oriented to the point of being provincial.

Whereas folks on the far right are living in a much more cosmopolitan. Or to use their word, globalist setup where the all the. This is like Bannon having his training school in in. Rome and yeah, the kind of procession. of foreign figures not quite sure what to call them tomorrow. Yeah. I mean, so they're like they're in this cosmopolitan thing. where none of their memes are American, like, all their memes are borrowed, they're all workshopped. and like some on a boat, you know, somewhere in the Mediterranean.

Right. And their money and their money. comes from Russia, or a lot of it came from Russia via Budapest. So whether they realize it or not, and some of them do, and some of them. don't, they're in this kind of, you know, it's not America. There is this like transatlantic soup of memes and money and, and, and networks where Orban, Orban was the center of all of that. Right. And so they some of these folks may not know why they're hurt, but they are hurt. And some of them do know why they're hurt, but they're hurt. And so then obviously, when you're hurt, you're going to come up. with something of like, well, I'm not I didn't really care about Orban,

you know, which is what both Putin and Trump basically said. Like, we care a lot, we care a lot. We care a lot. Actually, he was never that. Yeah, I never really loved you, you know, like that sort of thing. Right? Like that's that's basically so it's a. there's a psychological dynamic here, which I don't think I can. maybe break through to. But for folks who are being serious about this, about the politics. of this, the lesson is. there is a thing called, and the political scientists. have a good term for this, which is competitive authoritarianism. Steve Levitsky and Luke and Wei have a good article about this.

There is a thing which is called competitive authoritarianism, in which. the authoritarian stereotypically controls the media. Gerrymanders has more dark money on his side, gets the foreign potentates to come. You know, like vanced. It gets the foreign grifters to come and support his own grift. Where so where you're going uphill and you are going uphill, but you can still win. And that's that's the thing to understand. So we are also in competitive authoritarianism. It's not as bad as Hungary, but that's clearly where we are. The media is unfair. The media landscape is wildly unfair to the opposition.

They do try to intimidate political opponents. They do have more dark money on their side, etc. but you can still win. And that's the big lesson. Like the thing that demoralizes, the thing that demoralizes a Vance or a Trump. should also be the thing that energizes you. if you want them to lose, because this is another historical example. of how competitive authoritarianism can in fact, fall. But it doesn't fall. And this is where it goes back to about the Democrats. It doesn't fall just because you're leading in the polls, right? And it doesn't fall.

just because you I mean, to use a phrase, which I hear a lot and I don't like. it doesn't it doesn't fall because you get through to November. because, like, you twiddle your thumbs and just imagine it falls. because you organize locally, you have protests. You get people to believe that their vote is some kind of meaningful transformation. or part of a meaningful transformation, and then you win so big. And this is crucial. You win. So big that and you've already demonstrated mobilization. potential such that an Orban who, of course,

was thinking about various stunts to stay in power, is deterred from doing so. So putting that in American terms, what do people. what do people need to do now if they want to see that. similar scenario play out in November, which of course, but not be a change of presidency, but would be a change of the House and the Senate. What are the practical things if you're watching this, if you're watching this, that's going to be at home, wherever you are, what should you be doing? Should you how do you talk to your neighbors?

Do you try and find, and disillusioned Trump voters? What what practical steps should you be taking? Yeah. Well, number one, you know, vote. number two, take part in voter registration efforts. Number three, take part and get out the vote efforts. Number four, find the local NGOs in your state that are working on get out the vote. That's really important. Number number five, if you're going to be a donor, look for elections that are close around the country. Especially in purple states.

Look at organizations like, nope that have chosen candidates. and local organizing groups. And if you have a little bit of money, support those marginal seats. That's on the voting side. And then there's the protest site. If there is a protest and you you agree or overlaps with your views in any way, go protest because it activates. other people, it helps shift overall public opinion. It helps to break that ice a little bit more, but also the mobility. The possibility of mobilization is necessary for an are conditions.

to be sure that a democratic election will go all the way through. So like if you're in doubt about whether like if you're in your region, there's. something going on on May 1st and overlaps your views like do that thing. if there's there will be another big knockings protest. We now in the election take part in it. And also this is really important, the unsung heroes in this whole story. And we talk about voting and we talk about and if you kind of force us, we'll talk about protests. But what we don't talk about is local organizers. like your local indivisible chapter or your local 5051. chapter, or your local chapter of whatever it is, it overlaps with your views.

Find out what that is and where it is and just do something between now. and November. It strikes me that one of the ways you're seeing this is just talk about. the normal. You're normalizing that people go and protests that they've there is. there's a sense that there's a presence of people who oppose Trump. It's kind of like the flip side of the MAGA movement, and it's red caps and it's it's ubiquitous presence in some places. You know, few everybody I think has been to that.

We have sitting here in New York, not surprisingly, there's not many MAGA flags around, but go elsewhere in the country and they're very visible and present. And it struck me that one of the analogies that you draw. is to the Czechoslovakian, shopkeeper who just puts up the sign, of fealty to the supreme leader and it just becomes normal. Yeah. So you you're trying to do the opposite. Yeah, I think I mean that you're referring to how.

those, say, the power of the powerless, which is, which is something I teach and have taught for decades. and which popped up in, the Canadian Prime Minister Carney's speech at Davos. and is having a kind of revival, which, I have to say, I'm really happy to see. how talks about the Panorama, just what the overall panorama like. What do you what do you see, what you have consciously take. And when you're, you know, when you're walking down the street, whether it's in New York. or whether it's in, whether it's in Georgia or somewhere else. And that really does matter. Like as, as we the political being, I mean, we're not just.

rational political beings who are thinking about gas prices or whatever. We are also people who are taking stock of what other people are doing. the way we function is that we we take in these like we can take. in the pulse of what's happening around us. And so you have to be part of that pulse. Like if you believe that something is off. and that something needs to be changed, you have to show that a little bit. And it isn't like it's a disheartening thing about the US. in the last couple of years, which has to change. There was so much involuntary taking down of signs. and so much a voluntary taking down of banners.

and so much like people who had signs on their yards that said something. Often we went down universities, a lot of this stuff, like the things that people might have believed in, like like toleration. or justice or whatever, they took, the signs went down that was that visible. Right? And, it's visible like if you leave the US and go another country and come back, it's like one of the things you notice, like, where did all that stuff go right now, I'm not saying has to be the same stuff. or we have to replay, you know, the first half of the 2020s. Again, I'm just saying there has to be something. One thing I was struck by recently was, Georgia, where,

the vice president had a turning Point USA rally. And, I mean, as far as I could tell. from the photos of the basketball arena, he had about 2500 people there. Yeah. And there's an academic, from the University of Georgia who says he did a pretty robust count. And that's exactly the number here. Oh, okay. That's great. So you came up with just above 2000. And I think the capacity is 10 to 12. I think as a, you know, normal, a normal college. basketball arena or big, a big college basketball arena, obviously.

But, yeah. And the point. So whereas the no. King's rally in Athens, Georgia was 4000 plus. And so it matters that there was that no King's rally. I mean, not just so I can say that it was twice as big as the Vance rally, but because people in Athens, Georgia, are going to notice that they're going to. they're going to notice those things. One of the things that's been said. about new kings and again, this was, you know, I thought with the online right. Turns out, I hadn't quite realized until we were talking how much I follow it, but, I'm glad. I'm glad I've been helpful.

Yes, I it is always good to learn something. Maybe we don't need to change my habits here, but one of the things in the online right was, oh, everybody in the New Kings. Oh, they're all old. Oh, well, you know, where is Gen? Where is Gen Z? Where are the millennials? And oh, it's so white. And I it struck me that the number matters clearly. But also I would imagine. getting a cross-section of, of humanity. Yeah. I mean, so the first thing I'm going to say is that and, you know, this,

but it's really important. The only way you get to that number, you know, let's say 8.5. million is by having thousands and thousands of local organizers. And I'm going to stress there again, they're the unsung heroes and heroines of this whole story. Like when we're in New York. or in Washington, you know, we we we tend to think, okay, there's voting. And then there's like, oh, there's a protest, let's report out for one day. But in order to make those protests happen, those organizers have to work for weeks and months ahead of time. And and it's the same people who do the protests is the same people.

who are doing voter registration. and get out the vote and protecting immigrants. and all the other local civil society stuff. And then in addition to that, they're also taking on their shoulders these big protests. And so that one of the things. that protests allow us to do is they allow us to say, or at least to notice, although the press doesn't always do this, to notice that there is this whole. layer of American civil society, which is already at work, and those folks who are at work, I can assure you, are quite diverse. And and they and they trend very young.

Yeah. So like if I go like I went to Cincinnati last time, for No Kings. And so the organizers were, I mean, not only so flouted them, but they were a lot younger. than, you know, a lot younger than I should have been, a lot younger. I like I like somewhat younger. Yeah. I mean, a lot younger than, you know, me and you and and so there's, there's. that which is important. And so I just the second thing is with, it is actually important that a ton of people show up. no matter what they look like. Right? So no matter what the composition is, you can always say, oh, too old, too young.

to, you know, shoe black to white, whatever, whatever it whatever. Like if it was to black. Assure me, I can assure you that the right would also objections to that sure idea. that the online right is like seriously concerned that like. suddenly there's concern that there's who the white people. are represented in something. I mean, that seems to be, you know, an insincere thing. And also going back, I think you've rumbled them, going back to going back to Hungary. I think it's also psychological. Yeah. Because. the I mean, the entire Tea Party movement, the entirety, all of the protests.

took place and the entire Tea Party movement would fit into one. Philadelphia. No. King's protest. Right. So it's not comfortable for them that they don't have this. and that the other side does. And so they're going to be looking for stuff like this. But on but like bracketing where it's coming from. Now, talking about the demographic constitution of the thing. I think is great, whoever comes. Right. So if it's a lot of white people, I think great, because, you know, the last time. civil rights, there could have been more white people involved in civil rights. So if like, white people want to come out for voting and justice, good.

You do that. White people. Right? That's you do that. And then if other. folks like if African-Americans, then. and understandably take a moment to say, is this actually so serious? And then come along later, that's great. Whenever they come along, they come along. That's absolutely terrific. So I would say that from inside, like when I look around it. from the inside, I see much more diversity than perhaps is claimed. But whatever it is, it's great that people show up. And if some people show up, that actually. makes it more likely that other people show up.

One of the things about Dr. King's was it was very obvious that people were bringing American flags. and trying to take back that sort of, symbolism. And one of the things you talk about is language and the use of language under. under tyrannical regimes, under aspiring tyrannical regimes. And, you know, Trump has tried to capture the what patriot? He tried to capture the term of un-American. How do people get that back?

Yeah, that's a great question. And I think it is. I think it is essential because this is this is national level politics, right? I mean, it's it's perfectly legitimate. to care about other countries and it's perfectly legitimate. to be to have concerns of other parts of the world. But a, you know, congressional election and presidential election, these are national politics. And Trump is a particularly American figure. who doesn't actually play in the rest of the world very well. And so these are our problems. And so we need to we need to be framing them. within the within, you know, the United States. And that means and that means using American symbolism.

And it has I mean, speaking of things shifting, right, like on the right, they use these they use various kinds of flat. I mean, I find this like, I mean, as an American, as a Boy Scout, like all kinds of things. I find it troubling when people change what the American flag looks like and like. change the number, it change the stripes, or I find that troubling, like, as a just as an American and I like it as an American. When people show the flag in the sense of I'm trying to give this flag. some positive meaning, you know, like I'm trying to, because this is at the end of On Tyranny.

Or I make the distinction by nationalism and patriotism and by patriotism, I mean loving your country in the sense of wanting to be its best self. Right? I think that's something. I mean, I want to speak for everybody. There are a lot of people with flags, but I think it's something like that. when people take a flag to a protest that I want this. The country is not its best self right now, but I want it to be its best self. As far as taking it back. I mean, I'm not a great tactician about this stuff. I there is something that we've already talked about which is really striking. I wish would, I wish would penetrate a bit more, which is that the coterie of oligarchs.

with, you know, who provide Trump, who are Trump's every day. psychological, social, epistemic environment, that coterie of oligarchs and wannabe oligarchs are people who have interests. all around the world, and a number of them are just simply not American at all. I mean, that's a criticism. Like, you're not American enough. I mean, Vladimir Putin is not an American, and it's not clear that there's anybody. who's more important to Mr. Trump's inner world than than Vladimir Putin. And I think the fact that, you know, that the and I think it's.

I think it is breaking like I think. people do realize that just literally wrapping yourself in the flag. doesn't mean that you're concerned, like you can overplay that symbolic stuff. And I think Trump may be overplaying it. And the shift that he's made, you know, from wrapping himself in the flag to wrapping himself in Jesus's wardrobe, you know, may be a sign that he's, like, trying to move on to something else. in which he equally doesn't believe. Right? Like, well, he doesn't like he doesn't believe. He doesn't believe in America. Like America is just a scam to him. Of course, he has also doesn't believe in Christianity.

It's another scam for him. But it's interesting that he's moving on from one scam to another one. So there's going to be a big, big event this weekend, and it's going to be the white House Correspondents Association's dinner. And I raised this not because, you know, the media can be obsessed by the media, but it's actually going to be quite a rare moment. that, first of all, Donald Trump has never gone to this thing which has become. part of the national conversation over the years. It used to be a very, you know, low key event that presents came to nobodies very interested.

It then went showbiz. I know it's become a kind of movement. What's your advice? I just say full disclosure. The Daily Beast will be there. I will be there. But what's your advice? Should we have gone? And now that we're going, what should we do? And what are the for the what was the sort of I'm. What are. we are we anticipate are we being in advance by being there. or is this an opportunity to show that Donald.

Trump is not the tyrant that the voice of the people is? I know this is a very complicated moral question, because I'll just be honest. I think all of us at The Daily Beast are going have wrestled with it. Okay, I'm going to confess I hadn't actually thought about it, and it wasn't like that. It's not central to my world. So no, I do not that I would not anticipate that. Yeah. But I mean, top of your mind. So I'm going to say something general and maybe I'll get around to saying, I think, just to perhaps frame it in context. Yeah, it's kind of a dilemma.

that a lot of people find themselves in generally, of how do they. how do they talk to their Trumpian neighbor? Yeah. At the most basic level, or when they are working for maybe they work. for a police department, maybe they work for part of the federal government. How do they engage? Well, what's what's the path forward? How should. how should we frame that ethical thinking that is so central to your work? Well, I think I mean, I'm not sure how this is the same question, honestly, but the answer to that question, I think, is that you talk about.

the things that you care about, that you're really personally, that you personally care about policy issues that you care about. So if you care about having hospitals nearby. and your kid couldn't get to a hospital nearby, you talk about that, right? And and you don't not talk. about the things that you care about, and you talk about them in a humane way, where somebody who's political beliefs might be different than yours, they would still kind of agree that when your kid's leg is broken, you should be able to see a doctor, and that I think that's the thing. Like, if you really care about it, if it connects to you. and it has something to do with policy, you do talk to your neighbor about it. Even if you know that they voted for Trump, you don't stop doing that.

You don't self-censor. with like a dinner like this where I take it, you know, you and your colleagues will be seated in silence the whole time. and not really have any opportunity to interact with anybody that appears to be. And you'll be asked, you know, essentially it's you, correct me. But like, it's just a matter of whether you clap or don't. clap is like I think that's probably that's probably the case. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there I don't see how there's like an opportunity to engage, particularly. with anybody you won't be engaging with, with Trump. So I'm not sure how it's the same question. I mean, I don't think I would have gone but like I have it in all these things.

Hang on. Whether you have an opportunity to engage or not. Right. And so maybe as a journalist, your offer to you. engage is afterward when you write something right. that so in that there might be a justification for that. like always a justification for reporters to go places. where people don't want them to go if they're actually reporting. Right. And I would just say that. That's right. That's exactly our. Yeah, our intention. We will be there. We will be telling it to the Daily Beast readers and viewers. and telling them what we saw and what we didn't see.

And that's very much our intention. Yeah. So the general thing I wanted to say about this is that, I mean, you guys are. you guys aren't part of it in this way. But like, I generally I think we write too much about Trump. and not enough about other people. And like I give it, I even have a terrific German newspaper. the other day, and there were 13 questions in the first 12 hour about Trump. And I said, okay, guys, now there's. there's something basically wrong about the way you're interviewing me here. Like, there's and there's because in. you are helping to keep him in the center.

This is my answer. Like they asked the 13th question, which was about Trump. And I just answer this way that in fact, Trump is quite weak in many ways. He's not just he's flawed and we could criticize him. He's also weak in many ways. But what he's good at is staying in the center of attention. And one has to be very careful in the media that one isn't. You know, he doesn't become his accomplice. You know, in all of that, especially going back to your earlier questions. right now, when I think the real story has to do. not only with what is wrong with him, but what is not working in his milieu,

among his voters and his policies, etc., which kind of takes us back to the suicide of the superpower that part of it. is the weakness of the leader is one of the things that kind of. sets seems to set this moment apart. Yeah, I think that's I'm trying to think I've been trying to find a right way. to say this, because it's not just that Trump is weak as a leader, it's that he. he he solicits the weakness of others, right?

He turns other. He makes people around him weak. And so the consequences that whether you agree or disagree. with the, with the policy goals or think they exist, you don't actually have people around Mr. Trump who are obstinate, who are stubborn, who are determined to wear a thick skin to a patient. Right. That just that doesn't exist. What you have is people who are compliant, who are used to. who are used to changing, like so if you can, if you can change your entire view.

180 degrees because Trump has a mood, well, you will also change your view 180 degrees when the ayatollahs have a mood, right? Or when Putin has a mood. Right? Right. Because you're just you're just not in a world where, you know, in if Trump. if Trump bends because the Iranians have them over their knee, which they do, you're going to bend to, right? I mean, you'll find some. you'll find some way to comfort yourself. and you'll say some wild thing to the press, but you're going to you're going to bend to. And that's what they do. They bend. Don't realize. that there's been a fascinating conversation. Okay, one final question.

And I'm trying not to ask about Trump because you're right. Like in some that you Buxton and some ways. Yeah. So it's I never take on somebody with more PhDs. But what if what. I'm asked what what do you say to your neighbor if you are one and one. not with your neighbor, but with a really significant and senior person? Trump. Stephen Miller, J.D. Vance, what is the thing that would allow you. to elicit some sort of change among among those sort of people?

Yeah, it's. so I'm not I'm not going to dodge it because there's going to be a preface, which is that I think there's a reason why those conversations are impossible. And the reason is that the I would talk to I mean, not that, you know, I would talk to them, I would talk to Joe Rogan. They're very few people I wouldn't talk to. But there's a reason why those conversations don't happen, which is that they're afraid. Yeah. They were afraid to have this conversations in public. They're afraid to have those conversations in, in private, right. With people like not just me, but with people like me, with people who are articulate,

who are, but who clearly care about the future of the United States. So there's a reason why those conversations don't happen. I'm going to say the reason is entirely their fault, because I would do it. They won't. So if I were speaking to somebody like Vance, who has a long future ahead of him in some form or another as as an American, I would be trying to coax him back to some version of caring about where. he's from and the people who are from where he's from, because he's. moved a long way from there, deep into oligarch land.

and he spends and he spends his considerable mental energy. coming up with crackpot justifications. Sorry, this is not how I would talk to him, but it's like this is the case. He spends his considerable mental energy coming up with justifications. for why it's okay for American social media companies. to spread their brand of fascism around the world, and that is so far away. from being concerned about, you know, because things are tough in a lot of southern Ohio, you know? So that's what I would try. I don't think it would work, but that's that's where I would go.

because he and I are from basically the same place. And, you know, we know a lot of the same things and there are ways to care about that. But it's just it's not caring about those people to become essentially. someone who who is a spokesperson for an oligarchy, which is largely an international oligarchy. and whose interests just are completely not constant. So you're I'm showing how it's hard for me because I would do it. and this is what I would appeal to, you know. But I'm not I don't know that this appeal would actually go anywhere.

I mean, there's a different question about folks who are not in the inner circle. Well, that was what I was actually having said. That was my last question. I would slightly take that back and say, yeah, if you go slightly farther out, is that where there's hope? Yeah, I mean, there's a look. I mean, in the United States military, there are lots of folks. whose political views are and many things would be very different than mine. and perhaps many of your listeners. or readers, but who undoubtedly are concerned.

about the future existence and security and safety of the United States. And that is a that is certainly a reason for hope. And I don't have and occasionally I do talk to folks like that. And, you know, that's a very easy conversation. to have because I would in whatever, whatever we end up thinking about, and I have strong views about this, about whatever. we think about social media or health care or the redistribution of wealth. None of those things can be achieved without a robust rule of law democracy. And so if folks can go.

along with the notion that there should be. a robust rule of law democracy, then we can get to other things. And there are still a lot of people. I mean, there's been a purge, there have been various purges, but. there is still a strong sense among important branches. of the government that there should be a robust rule of law democracy. Well, I think that's an incredibly hopeful moment to to thank you for coming. Okay. That's good. I just want to say my my hope was that I know there's a it's an end. I mean, my hope doesn't reside in people continuing to do. the things that they're doing.

Respectable and decent though these things are, my hope resides in people in the next six months or so, doing some things. that they haven't done before. I mean, you've given an amazing roadmap to protest, to talk to, to talk to people, to understand how to get inside, the things that make people believe in a better future. Yeah. That's it. It's not just resistance. It's about thinking about how it could be better. Doctor Snyder, thank you for coming. My pleasure, a pleasure. Thank you.

That was such a fascinating interview. So much to think about. There is so much practical advice in there. At a time when sometimes it seems hard to know what to do. And you should also check out Timothy Titus Substack. He is at Snyder Dot Substack, Aecom. It is well worth, a view and a visit if you enjoyed the interview. even a fraction of how much I did, please share it with your friends. Please get in the comments. We love hearing from you. and if you haven't subscribed, please hit that button.

Help us to get 700,000. It helps more people hear from us and therefore our brilliant guests. Joanna and I will be reporting back from the white House dinner, which will be a fascinating event. And don't forget, you can join the Beast family friend of the beast membership is. just for 99 a month for all the benefits, I think with live streams with you. And of course, I'm happy to say we'll be back for our next episode. I'm only keeping the chair warm for. But thank you to our production team. Definitely. What should we know? Ryan Murray, Rachel Pastor and our brave Legal Eagle,

Neil Rosen, host who makes sure that we do not bend or bow.