We have a quai secret police which is

shooting people in the streets and that

as a politician you know whether you're

a senator or a governor it's your job to

it's your job to frame that rather than

to wait and see how it gets framed. You

know you have to aim for a big victory

in 2628 which affirms values right like

you take this as an opportunity to talk

about what you think is good and what

you think is right and what you think

the American republic should be. At the

end of the day, you're not going to get

big victories just by being against bad

things, no matter how bad they are.

I'm

>> very much appreciate your time and what

must be a period where your time is in

great demand. Um, let's start. Can you

describe a little bit about the moment

you believe we're in and any analogies

to past historical events and how it

informs the current moment? the moment

that we're in, like all moments, is

open. You know, I'm I'm a historian. I'm

not like I'm not a determinist social

scientist. I don't think there are like

overarching laws of any of this stuff.

And one thing you definitely learn from

the history of authoritarianism is that

there are conjunctures like there are

sets of circumstances where what people

do matters a lot. So I guess I would say

we are in one of those moments where if

we choose to see it, it's clear that the

people who are running the United States

of America would be very happy to carry

out by way of propaganda, occasional

violence um and threats an authoritarian

regime change. That's just totally

obvious. And the question is whether one

chooses to see that and to make

preparations and to react accordingly.

The moment we're in is one where if we

just let things go, we will get a change

of kind of government or we'll get a

break up of the republic as people try

to change the government if we do

nothing. But we're but we're also facing

people who can't take a punch, who are

imminently beatable and and who are

essentially counting on us to be fooled

over and over again.

>> Well, you said something interesting

there. Can't take a punch. Say more

about that.

Um, I mean, isn't it sort of

self-evident like the 95% of what the

Trump people do is based upon bluff and

anticipatory obedience from our side. If

so many of our bureaucrats and oligarchs

hadn't gone over at the end of last year

and the beginning of this year, we'd be

in a completely different place. But if

you push back a little bit, right, if

you're Denmark and you push back a

little bit or if you're Minnesota and

you push back a little bit, then they

pull back um because they're essentially

counting on a lot of a lot of verbiage

and a little bit of violence to be

enough to bully you. And if it's not,

they're not quite sure what their next

move is.

>> So, just to set some context, and I

realize this is probably obvious for

most of our listeners, but two US

citizens have been killed in Minneapolis

this month during federal immigration

operations. Renee Nicole Good on January

the 7th and Alex Prey on January 24th.

The videos have ignited a national

argument about force, legality, and

political violence. Um, Timothy, when

you zoom out, does this feel I keep

saying this is a red line and an

inflection point, and I keep being

wrong. Does this feel to you like an

actual inflection or a turning point?

>> It does. And I will turn a little bit

back to a part of your first question

that I didn't answer, which is

historical comparisons. It reminds me a

lot personally of the moment in early

2014 when Ukrainian protesters were

killed for the first time. And each time

one person was killed, then the regime

made this effort to describe this person

as a hor, you know, as as a terrorist,

as an extremist, as and so on and so

forth. And then it would turn out that

very quickly it would turn out that like

it was a mom or it was a dad or it was a

student or it was somebody who was just

trying to do the right thing. That it

reminds me of that a lot. And the the

Ukrainians were actually able to win in

that situation. I mean, they had the

they have the bad luck of being next to

Russia and Russia could invade. We don't

have that problem, right? Nobody's going

to actually invade us. So, that was a

turning point like because in this

barrage of lies, in this attempt to

create total unreality around us, most

of us still recognize the difference

between life and death. And most of us

are still capable of appreciating a

human being in her or his, you know,

particularity rather than being

immediately willing to accept that this

person was quote unquote a terrorist or

quote unquote an assassin. So it is a

turning point. Um it's a turning point

where it's not just that you say, "Okay,

we can't have a republic if the federal

government is going to gun people down

on the street," which is true. It's also

a moment when you can be reminded of the

very basic things like the the dignity

of the individual which are at the

foundation of having something like a

republic. I thought of you in a specific

moment and I want to get your reaction

or understand your reaction in the

moment I'm thinking of and that is when

Secretary Gnome immediately went on air

and described Mr. Prey as a domestic

terrorist and said that he was there

brandishing a weapon and there to

massacre

uh federal federal um agents. And I

remember thinking it reminded me of um

the Orwell 1984 book where something

along the lines I said and their last

their final act was to ask us to not

believe our eyes and ears. I don't think

I'd ever seen something so brazen in

terms of a lack of respect for the dead

or an assumption that we were willing to

ignore our powers of observation. I

really thought of it as and I'm trying

to separate my emotions which is

difficult from powers of observation but

I had never seen anything like that from

our government. I' just be curious what

Timothy Snder thought when you saw that.

>> I mean I I think our reactions were very

very similar. what I thought was

I guess I mean I guess kind of start

where you start which is the respect for

respect for the dead. I mean before you

say anything about the dead you should

think learn something about their lives.

Um, and you know that like that part

where I mean this like you know none of

us is perfect, right? But the but when

we die like that's a moment where those

of us who know us and don't know us have

a chance to demonstrate what's good in

them by finding something which is good

in us. And to miss that chance so

completely and horribly and to do the

opposite and to consign, you know, one

human being's very specific memory to a

general category is terrible in itself.

And for that general category to be

something that's a lie is even worse.

And for the lie to be a slander is is is

even worse. So, I mean, as horrible as

these deaths are, the reaction to them

is is just as damning, I would say,

because if you're going to lie about

things like this once, you'll lie about

things like this over and over again.

And it reveals that there are no

restraints on you. Like, if there are

any moral restraints on you in your

pursuit of power or in your obedience to

those who are pursuing power, they would

show up at a time like this. And if if

they don't show up now, they're just

never going to show up. There's nothing

which is going to cause you to be a

decent human being. if you can't be a

decent human being when people under

your orders kill someone. The thing

that's different this time and or that I

view as different and I'm curious how

you've tried to incorporate it into why

this might be a different moment is

quite frankly technology specifically

cameras on phones and that is if if we

didn't have video footage of both of

these deaths from multiple angles I

think the conversation or the

opportunity for white space that might

be filled by propaganda would be

greater. And I'm wondering if what your

thoughts are about how this moment might

be different because of the use and

ubiquity of these uh camera phones.

>> If you think back to the 70s and ' 80s

of the last century, the end of

communism, which is one of the focuses

of my own research, you see that what

the dissident are trying to do is to

answer big lies, not so much with big

truths, but with little truths. So

there's no longer the confidence that

there's one big truth, but there is the

confidence that we know we know our

friends, we know our colleagues, we know

the other people who are taking risks

for us and we can make a record. And

they had to make a record using

typewriters and mimograph machines and

you know the tools that were at their

disposal. And they took incredible risks

basically just to type lists of people

who had been arrested and to try to keep

track of in which you know in which

facility in the goolog those people were

sent. They and then they went to prison

for doing that. And I'm thinking about

that just because my reaction is to say

we we do have a technological advantage

in this way that we can create the small

truths by way of camera shots from

phones from all kinds of different

angles. And those, you know, those those

enough of those from enough people can

then um dissolve or at least push back

the attempt at a big lie because of

course you've hit the nail on the head.

If there was no evidence and it was just

like the word of a couple of citizens

against the entire top of the federal

government shamefully, you know,

slandering and defaming this man, then

I'm afraid you're right that the

conversation would then take a very

different form. It would take an on the

one hand, on the other hand form. And

let me just take this occasion to note

that although major media are getting

better at this, there is still a

worrisome tendency to start every story

with conflicting accounts. And like

conflicting accounts is not news, you

know, like that's like conflicting

accounts is like the atmosphere is made

of air, you know, or relationships are

sometimes difficult. I mean, it's not

news. Conflicting accounts are always

there. What's news is what actually

happened. And I mean, we're making some

progress on this, but news outlets have

to try to start from what actually

happened as opposed to the government

has propaganda and we're going to repeat

that propaganda and then we're going to

admit there might be another version.

You study authoritarian societies and

governments and it feels as if the Trump

administration is definitely taking

notes from the playbook of

authoritarians.

Can you speculate what may be happening

behind the scenes in the Trump

administration right now as you have two

different people, Secretary of State and

the Vice President? It feels like

jocking to be kind of the heir to MAGA

if you will at the same time trying to

figure out if Secretary Gnome should be

the the fall gal. some Republican

senators it feels like for the first

time are actually kind of finding their

backbone. I mean it it definitely feels

like things are beginning to crack. A do

you agree with that? And B, if so, what

does history tell us about what might be

going on behind the scenes?

>> Mhm. I mean, I'm gonna I'm I will

happily do a little speculative

basically Sovietology about this, but

before I do that, I just want to say

that it's important to recognize that

despite the fact that um people are now

taking um you know a slightly different

quote unquote tone and despite the fact

that Bo has been sacrificed and maybe

Gnome will be, the basic policy is still

the same and ICE is still carrying out

these raids and the basic big ideologist

and practitioner of all of this is still

Steven Miller who's essentially, you

know, he's basically running things as

the president at this point. So, having

said that, I mean, I think you're right

that it's a struggle between the

struggle is between the the vice

president and the deputy chief of staff,

between Vance and Miller. And my basic

take is that Miller is a convenient

person for Vance because he's

essentially the only person in MAGA

world who's less popular than Vance. And

what the way that Vance is going to play

this is that after Trump goes down in

some form or another, he's

incapacitated, he dies, um they make a

move against him, whatever happens, the

Vance's obvious move is to say that all

of the distortions are the fault of

Miller, right? that like there was once

a pure MAGA, like we have it all right,

but then Miller came in and he messed

things up. That's Vance's absolutely

predictable play. Um, and I wouldn't at

all be surprised if there was an element

of blaming the Jew in it because that is

the world in which Vance's mind seems to

be. And so Vance, I think, wants to have

Miller around until the right moment,

right? And I'm not sure that moment has

actually yet arrived. Um, Rubio is

sitting pretty because even though our

foreign policy is a disaster, he's done

a very good job at directing the most

disastrous parts of that to Vance, who

doesn't seem to be smart enough to

notice that that's what's happening. So,

the Greenland portfolio, which was

obviously doomed, um, was given to Vance

and so Vance could make a mess of it.

So, I I agree with you. There is there's

and there's another basic point here

which is worth noting. These guys are

old. I mean, Trump in particular was

old, but if you compare this to the

fascism of the past, and the fascism of

the past, you weren't worried about, you

know, Mussolini having a stroke, right?

You weren't worried about Hitler having

a heart attack. Compared to our

fascists, those guys were quite young.

And so, the fact that Trump is old and

visibly declining adds a dimension to

this, which is which is new.

You said something that caught my

attention there that you think that

Vance might turn to quote unquote

blaming the Jew or an element of that. A

lot of my Jewish friends like Trump

because they see the Trump

administration is being more resolute on

Israel. And I've said if you look at

history, this feels to me like a perfect

setup for an economic shock mixed with

some fascism and then move to the oldest

playbook in the world and that is start

blaming the Jews. And the push back is,

well, no, Trump's been better on Israel

than Biden was, which I I don't agree

with. But do you see the same sort of

potential for another

uh pretty dark moment with Jews as the

target here?

>> Uh being in favor of Israel does not

mean that you're in favor of Jews. These

are just different issues. There have

been all kinds of anti-semites including

fascists who were in favor of Israel

because they thought, well, that's a

good place to have the Jews better there

than here. So there isn't an organic

connection between being in favor of

Israel and supporting Jews. It can

overlap, but it doesn't necessarily

overlap. And so I I worry that I I worry

that not not all American Jews conflate

that, of course, but I do worry that too

many American Jews could conflate that,

right? I mean, the Nazis themselves

until 1937 or so thought that Israel was

a great idea that because that's a place

that you could put the Jews. So like

that I'm not saying it's exactly the

same. I'm just saying that history

teaches us that being in favor of Israel

is not the same thing as caring about

the rights or the dignity of of the

Jews. And as far as this administration,

I mean, I think they've been

anti-Semitic from the get-go. I think

the way they treated Zilinski in the

Oval Office is basically impossible if

Silinski is not Jewish. It definitely

had an element of making a circle around

the Jewish guy and taunting him. And the

whole thing against campuses, I mean,

although it claims to be

anti-anti-semitic, in my view, it's

clearly anti-Semitic because what it

what it does is that it sets up this

expectation, which the real anti-semites

immediately grasp, that um the Jews are

in charge, right? The Jews are in charge

because they're able to do this on

campuses. And I think that I think many

American Jews don't notice that dynamic,

but the anti-semmites definitely notice

that dynamic, right? I mean, so I think

that whole thing has been has been a

trap that the notion that the government

comes in and closes down, you know, free

speech on universities, which is what

happened, then they do it on behalf of

Israel, that tells the anti-semites

that, oh, look, the Jews really are in

charge. And I think they know that. I

mean, I think they're perfectly aware

that this is this is what they're doing.

And I wish fewer people were had been

have been taken in by this. So yeah, I

mean getting to your question, I think

it's very telling that Vance, you know,

when he's basically so first, I mean,

look at who Vance follows on social

media. He follows people, he follows

people who are just unremitting American

Nazis. And when he's asked about whether

the Republican party is a big enough

tent for the Nazis, he says, well, you

know, his response is basically, yeah,

it has to be it has to be a big enough

tent both for people who are Nazis and

who aren't Nazis, you know. And so

that's really where we are, and they're

not making too many bones about it. And

so I think, you know, if if Miller is

around long enough, it would be really

surprising if Vance in a Vance is around

long enough, right? Because in these

like in these situations where it's a

tiny number of people vying for power,

it's all kind of unpredictable. But in

that situation, it would be I think it'd

be very surprising if Vance didn't

resort to something like, you know, this

guy's not really American or like this

guy went too far or, you know, people

like him always take things to extremes,

you know, that that kind of thing. Um, I

think that will be a natural move for

Vans to make. We'll be right back after

a quick break.

Support for the show comes from Acorns.

There's the money you've got now and

what that money could look like

tomorrow. And Acorns wants to help you

do the most with what you have now, so

your future looks bright. Acorns is a

smart way to give your money a chance to

grow. You can sign up in minutes and

start automatically investing your spare

money, even if all you've got is spare

change. Someone on our team tried out

Acorns and they thought it was easy to

use and that it grew surprisingly fast.

That's a great thing about Acorns. It

grows with you. Sign up now and Acorns

will boost your new account with a $5

bonus investment. Join the over 14

million all-time customers who have

already saved and invested over $27

billion with Acorns. Head to

acorns.com/profg

or download the Acorns app to get

started. Paid non-client endorsement

compensation provides incentive to

positively promote Acorns. Tier 2

compensation provided potential subject

to various factors such as customer

accounts, age, and investment settings.

Does not include Acorn's fees. Results

do not predict or represent the

performance of any Acorn's portfolio.

Investment results will vary. Investing

involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and

SEC registered investment advisor. View

important disclosures at

acorns.com/propg.

Support for the show comes from

boot.dev. So, you want to learn code?

The good news is that there are endless

tutorials and classes that'll teach you.

The bad news is that a lot of them can

be pretty boring. And when you're bored,

chances are you're not going to retain

the information being thrown at you.

Boot.dev teaches you to code through

gameplay. Quite literally, it's an

actual game. And Boots is a bear wizard

and your personal AI tutor who guides

you through the training grounds. A

place where you can practice your coding

skills and complete challenges before

you forge ahead in your coursework.

Boot. Is free to read and watch. And if

you decide to upgrade to a paid plan,

you'll unlock interactive features

including hands-on coding, AI

assistance, progress tracking, and game

mechanics. Earn XP, levels,

achievements, complete quests, and fight

bosses while learning to code Python,

SQL, and Go. Go to boot.dev and use my

code theprof to get 25% off your entire

first year on the annual plan. That's

boot.dev, and use code the profg to get

25% off your entire first year on the

annual plan.

Support for the show comes from Gruns.

The new year always comes with

resolutions, and that can be a lot of

pressure to improve yourself. That's all

well and good, but what's the point of

doing all that if you can't stick with

it long term? Grun proves you can do the

least and still feel the most thanks to

a delicious daily habit that does the

heavy lifting. If you haven't heard me

talk about Grunes before, they're a

convenient, comprehensive formula packed

into a snack pack of gummies a day. This

isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy, or

a prebiotic. It's all of those things

and then some at a fraction of the

price. And bonus, it tastes great.

Grun's ingredients are backed by over

35,000 research publications. And it

comes in packs because you can't fit the

amount of nutrients Gruns does into a

single gummy, like 6 g of prebiotic

fiber. That's like eating two cups of

broccoli, but in one tasty little snack

pack. Kick your new year off right and

save up to 52% off with code

propguns.co.

That's codepr.co.

So, I think a lot of us are inspired by

the response of of citizens in

Minneapolis about trying to do their

best. It's obviously a very an

incredibly difficult situation for them.

You've said something that struck me

that political parties don't create

political movements. people do and you

talk about the power of protest. Talk a

little bit specifically about

Minneapolis um the response of the

citizenry there and if there's any

historical context and how it might help

us understand what might happen there or

happen next. That's a beautiful

beautifully framed question because it

gets at something very important and

that is that in an unusual situation

you can't count on the political parties

to be the solution and we are definitely

however you want to characterize it we

are in an unusual situation I mean we're

in a place that a number of political

scientists I think wisely would call

competitive authoritarianism where there

are going to be elections the elections

are going but elections are going to be

an uphill struggle and you can win, but

the way that you win is by recognizing

that it's an uphill struggle and that

you have to do unusual things. And part

of that is saying is understanding that

although there will be an elections and

the opposition party has to win those

elections, it's not going to do it on

its own. And that you don't wait for the

opposition party. Instead, you have to

push out ahead as the opposition

yourself or as the resistance. you have

to set the moral terms. Um you have to

take the risks and you have to build a

coalition of which the opposition

political party is a part but isn't

necessarily leading or you know pulling

pulling the wagon on. So, and the the

the examples of this, I mean, the

scholars who work on non-violent

resistance and who who work on on

authoritarianism and pulling back from

authoritarianism, I think the consensus

is pretty clear on this that the way

that you win is with an is with a

coalition. But it's not just, so to

speak, a cool, calm, calculated

coalition. It's a coalition that emerges

because people have had experiences and

are willing to do new things and get out

and and take some risks and show

themselves. So the coalition like

there's a mathematical logic to the

coalition. You've got to get above you

have to win elections by a meaningful

margin. But there's also an emotional or

subjective logic to the coalition which

is that you care enough at this specific

moment to open yourself to cooperating

with people with whom you don't agree on

every single issue. Now, historically,

we know that that works. Um, it has

worked over and over and over again.

Author competitive authoritarianism is a

bad situation to be in, but it's not an

insurmountable situation if you

recognize it for what it is. And so

taking Minneapolis in context, and I

can't I can't say anything, you know,

terribly smart about it because I was in

Europe for the whole time, but taking

Minneapolis in context, that's a moment

where people took risks, they did the

right thing, they self-organized, they

set an example, they responded to a

particular wrong um in a in a way which

enables coalition building and which

enables people to formulate the stakes

of what's going on. I find the protests

in the eyes of President Trump, in a

weird way, I think he almost enjoys the

outrage and I worry that they're not

that they make us feel good. They're

cinematic. They're great on CNN and then

they just sort of dissipate and melt

away. Um, your thoughts?

>> I don't think that's how it works. So, I

mean, I think I disagree with every part

of the premise. I don't think Trump

actually enjoys it. I mean, if if you

look at the social media response, I

mean, he he he he

may take pleasure in attacking people in

a kind of generic way, but I don't think

he was happy that, for example, his

presidential self parade, you know, that

military march, which one can only

remember for like the pos of it all,

>> that that was so wildly outclassed by

the protest. He didn't seem to be happy

about that. But I mean getting beyond

his personal reactions, it is my

experience and there are many people

more experienced than me. But it's my

experience um as someone who helps to

organize some things and as someone who

takes part in public protest that one of

the effects of public protest is that it

enables people to go back and organize

on a smaller scale. So I don't think it

dissipates. I think what happens is that

people realize that these protests were

organized by somebody and maybe they

could join those people who are doing

this organization

>> infrastructure. I hadn't thought of it

that way.

>> Yeah. And I think that's like

>> that's invisible, right? Like I mean I

think the media hasn't actually done a

great job of covering these things. I

think they've been much more sec I mean

these are the biggest protests in the

history of the country and they have not

really gotten the media attention they

deserve. I think partly because our

media is still too much in the notion

that politics is a game and it's played

behind closed doors and what you're

supposed to report on is what somebody

leaks when they like, you know, crack

the door open a moment. I don't think

they've gotten the attention they

deserve. But yeah, I disagree with the

premise because I think that one one of

the main reasons you protest and the

main reason you protest is to tell the

rest of the people who are watching you

that this is what's normal and that

going along isn't normal. But I think

the second reason you protest is that

it's like it is the gateway to doing

other things. like it opens the door to

doing other things. It allows you to

meet people you didn't know before and

then to go on and do other things.

>> There's such a frustration around what

to do

if if local officials or state officials

from Minnesota call you and as far as I

know they have or the federal

government, specifically Democrats in

the Senate. I think that they're getting

a lot of calls that basically can be

distilled down to, well, for God's

sakes, do something or do more to push

back. How would you advise them on what

to do

>> in you mean in Minnesota particularly?

>> Uh governor's governor Walsh calls you

and then the head of the Senate

Democratic Caucus calls you and says

we're absolutely outraged and as a

historian who's seen these things play

out, what advice would you have for us?

>> I mean the main advice it's a little bit

different for Wallace or for the Senate.

Um, and

but I think if you're in DC, the main

advice is to make sure that you're

having meetings where you're listening

to people who were on the ground because

as sympathetic as you might be, um,

there's a reality out there that it's

hard to get from your staffers or from

the media. So that if you didn't go to

Minnesota as some people did of course

then you should make sure that you have

meetings where you're bringing people in

and actually listening listening to them

because there is a mood not in m you

know in the country at large not just in

Minnesota which is hard to pick up

unless you actually have these meetings.

And the the the second thing I think is

to is to recognize that since this is an

exceptional moment where we're not

really in a polling universe, we're

we're more in a we're more in a in in a

universe where you have to yourself

frame what's going on, right? Because

what one of the many problems with

polling is that the it means that the

people who are doing the polling frame

the frame reality by how they frame

their questions and then you get the

answers to the questions and that

there's a number and then you react to

that. But at this moment, the reality

that you have is that we have a quai

secret police which is shooting people

in the streets. And that as a

politician, you know, whether you're a

senator or a governor, it's your job to

it's your job to frame that rather than

to wait and see how it gets framed by by

by by other people. And I mean the third

thing is that you know there are lots of

things and and again the situation of of

Governor Walls and the situation of of

senators is is a bit different and

Governor Walls has I think been quite

outfront. But the other thing is to is

to think you know you have to aim for a

big victory in 2628 which affirms values

right like you take this as an

opportunity to talk about what you think

is good and what you think is right and

what you think the American republic

should be because at the end of the day

you're not going to get big victories

just by being against bad things no

matter how bad they are. You have to use

this as a way to talk about the kind of

American public you would see which

would which not only would lack these

things but which would which would

respect the dignity of people's of

individuals um which would which would

not only that it wouldn't take life that

it would respect people that would

provide opportunity. Um so people need

to see that there's some kind of a

future not just that you know you you

you're condemning this thing which is

happening.

>> What do you think is really going on

here? And what I mean is this doesn't

feel to me in terms of the tone that the

administration and the instructions

they've given to Secretary Gnome and the

Fib Bino at ICE. This doesn't feel like

it has much to do with immigration.

Is this normalizing

a military force to try and pervert or

or arrest free and fair elections? Is

this about an exhibition of strength

that they feel shows up at the ballot

box that people like as strong?

I'll go back to my initial question.

What do you think is actually going on

here?

I think there's a strategic level to it

and then there's also an emotive level

to it. So the strategic level, let me

try to use history again. One of the

problems that the Nazis had in the 30s

was that there was no centralized police

force. Germany in the 30s, a bit like

the US today was a federal system. And

again, a bit like the US today, most

policing was the responsibility of the

states. And uh and so the the Nazis over

the course of from 1933 to early 1939,

they managed to um centralize the police

forces. They managed to blur the line

between their own paramilitary um the SI

and then the SS and the police force.

And then by early 1939 they had the

whole thing under one command where the

SS and the SR had been merged with um

had been merged with the regular police

forces and it was all centralized and

there was one pyramid of command. It's

not that we're doing exactly the same

thing. I just set that up as a kind of

generic problem that you have. And the

way that Trump is solving this problem

is by treating ICE as a national police

force. And this is this works because

the problem of migration they can say is

a problem which is everywhere. And so

therefore there's a license for ICE to

be everywhere in every home in every

business in every state. That's how

they're jumping over this problem.

They're read they're treating

immigration as a national issue which

could potentially you know as far as

they see it quote unquote justify having

an ICE agent in everybody's bedroom,

right? Because there could be anywhere

there could be an immigrant. And it's

also and I'm still in the strategic

logic. It's also helpful because the

border is a place where exceptional

things happen. And so if you get people

thinking that the border is everywhere,

that means that you get people thinking,

well, the law doesn't really apply

anywhere, right? Because the law doesn't

apply at the border. The country ends

and another country starts. And so if

you can get people thinking that a

border issue can be anywhere, then you

can get people thinking that the law

doesn't really apply anywhere. So that's

the strategy. Okay? And I believe in

that. But there's also an emotive level

which is that these guys do have a kind

of they have they have a kind of push

button video game logic going as well

which is that we want to do something

quick and get like a and get quick

gratification out of it. And so you you

see this in the way like that they whirl

from one country to another in their

foreign policy. But with ICE I think

it's like okay in Minnesota they're

doing stuff we don't like. Let's just

pound them you know let's just hit them.

Let's just like I mean imag like like

imagine some kind of firstp person you

know video game. Let's just send our

guys over there. Let's just flood them

and that's going to get the reaction we

want and it's going to happen quickly.

So I think that's it that's it as well

like this desire for a quick

gratification and this belief which of

course proves to be wrong that violence

automatically changes the game. It

doesn't or it doesn't necessarily change

the game in the way that you want. It

leads to unpredictable things. And this,

by the way, just, you know, raising up

the question, um, to a slightly more

abstract form, people talk about the

insurrection act or martial law as

though those things, you know, whether

they're for it or against it, those

things would automatically change. But,

you know, if they if they try martial

law, it's still the same guys. It's

still the same ICE. It's still the same

set of problems. People aren't going to

like it. You know, a few more people

will get shot. Americans won't like that

the least tiny bit, right? And so people

talk a little bit about martial law and

the insurrection act as though like it's

a video game and now you just go up a

level, but it's not like that. It's

still humans with uniforms and weapons

and unpredictable bad stuff happens. It

doesn't make politics go away.

We'll be right back.

Support for the show comes from

LinkedIn. It's a shame when the best B2B

marketing gets wasted on the wrong

audience. Like imagine running an ad for

cataract surgery on Saturday morning

cartoons or running a promo for this

show on a video about Roblox or

something. No offense to our Gen Alpha

listeners, but that would be a waste of

anyone's ad budget. So when you want to

reach the right professionals, you can

use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to

a network of over 1 billion

professionals and 130 million decision

makers according to their data. That's

where it stands apart from other ad

buys. You can target buyers by job

title, industry, company role,

seniority, skills, company revenue. All

so you can stop wasting budget on the

wrong audience. That's why LinkedIn ads

boasts one of the highest B2B return on

ad spend of all online ad networks.

Seriously, all of them. Spend $250 on

your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and

get a free $250 credit for the next one.

Just go to linkedin.com/scott.

That's linkedin.com/scott.

Terms and conditions apply.

This show is sponsored by Liquid IV. You

got to stay hydrated. We hear that all

the time. And look, we're all aware how

healthy and important it is to drink

plenty of water. The only issue is water

is boring. But what if it wasn't? What

if you got a great tasting drink with

even more benefits? That's where Liquid

IV comes in. Whether you've just

finished a workout, you're traveling, or

simply have a long day ahead, hydration

is key. And just one stick and 16 ounces

of water hydrates better than water

alone. How do they do that? It's powered

by LIV Hydra Science. Liquid IV provides

an optimized ratio of electrolytes,

essential vitamins, and clinically

tested nutrients that turn ordinary

water into extraordinary hydration. Made

with eight essential vitamins and

nutrients, Liquid IV will make every sip

of water a brand new experience. Plus,

Liquid IV is non-GMO, vegan,

gluten-free, dairyfree, and soyf free.

It's time to rehydrate with better

hydration from Liquid IV. Tear pour live

more. Go to liquid iv.com and get 20%

off your first order with code propg

checkout. That's 20% off your first

order with code propgivv.com.

Support for the show comes from

Neutrifall. Each new year seems to come

with the message that who we are isn't

enough. That we're supposed to

dramatically rebrand ourselves as

someone new. But what if growth doesn't

come from quick fixes, but instead comes

from supporting yourself and your hair

with the right products and tools?

Neutrifll is the number one

dermatologist recommended hair growth

supplement brand trusted by over one and

a half million people. You can feel

great about what you're putting into

your body. Since Neutrifol hair growth

supplements are backed by peer-reviewed

studies and NSF content certified, the

gold standard in thirdparty

certification for supplements, you can

purchase online and there's no

prescription required. Automated

deliveries and free shipping keep you on

track. Plus, with a Neutrifol

subscription, you can save up to 20% and

a Headspace meditation membership is

included. See thicker, stronger, faster

growing hair with less shedding in just

3 to 6 months with Neutrifll. For a

limited time, Neutrifll is offering our

listeners $10 off your first month

subscription and free shipping when you

go to neutrfll.com and enter the code

prof. Find out why Neutrifll is the

bestselling hair growth supplement brand

at neutrfll.com spelled nutr a fo l

promo codeg. That's neutrfil.com promo

code propg.

We're back with more from Timothy

Snider.

I heard you on another podcast say that

they're basically trying to convince

people they're bringing the border to

them. They're saying the border is

everywhere. And I found that just so

insightful and chilling at the same

time. And I was trying to discuss or

trying to bring to life that in early

30s Germany. I would like you to revi

refine and calibrate my you know history

for dummies. But my understanding is is

that corporations nonpush back early in

that era was instrumental to Hitler's

rise that they sort of had this I'll do

what you need to make more money if you

ignore and don't speak up. Can you speak

to the role that corporations and

corporate leaders or business leaders

playing or in this case not playing?

Provide us with some historical context

there.

>> Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to say it's

it's an exact fit. Um, and I don't want

to be unfair to people, especially

because I I want to remember that in

there have been like there have been

some good moments like

when Trump tried to steal the election,

there was actually quite a good and

unified reaction from a lot of the same

folks that we're talking about. So, I

don't want I don't want to let that be

forgotten, but I agree with you. It's

not going well now. There wasn't a lot

of downside then, though, right? They

knew eventually Trump Biden would be

inaugurated. I don't think they took

much risk there. I think you're giving

them more credit than they deserve.

>> Um, yeah, very possibly. I'm just trying

to, you know, but you know, Scott, when

you're about to talk about Nazis, you

try to be as fair as

>> you try to be a little more tempered.

>> I'm about to talk about Nazis. with

Germany, the basic deal was the the corp

the the businesses hated the labor

unions and and therefore they didn't

like democracy and so they were they

it's not that they were gung-ho Nazis on

an ideological level most of them but

they thought you know Hitler and this

government is going to they're going to

just crush the labor unions for us and

we don't like democracy either because

democracy allows those labor unions to

have some power and so there you do see

a little bit of overlap up right where a

lot of our leading CEOs are quite

hostile to the labor movement and in

that way are are happy to have this guy

and you can't do proper resistance

without the labor movement and that's

not a that's not a connection that

people are making like in the long run

American business needs the labor

movement because the labor movement will

help you preserve rule of law and you

need rule of law but in the short run

like your quarterly report or whatever

you're thinking I don't want the labor

movement you know they're going to cut

down my profits and I think That's

that's that's a bit of a moral or

practical trap that people are in. And

then of course I mean the second step in

the in the Nazi history is that then you

know once they were in power the Germans

brought in the CEOs or you know the

leaders of the businesses one by one and

took them to the woodshed because they

could at that point you know and that's

again that's a little bit repeating now.

Some of our guys, you know, like some of

our guys went to the woodshed on their

own even before Trump was in power and,

you know, kind of asked for it. And that

is a difference, right? I mean, that

that that moment in late last year and

early this year where our most some of

our most powerful oligarchs decided that

they were going to essentially

volunteer. That that is really

extraordinary. And that has made a huge

negative difference I think because we

had people who really could have

protected themselves and set an example

decide to behave in in in exactly the

way that history very clearly shows that

you shouldn't.

>> Yeah, I see a stronger analogy in that.

So my understanding is Hitler said to

these industrialists in early 30s

Germany, I'll crush the trade unions

which will is essentially giving you

money. And I see similarities today

where the most powerful business leaders

who control our information are looked

up to as icons of business and cap and

icons of business become kind of our

deacto heroes in a capitalist society.

At least that's what I see. And he's

essentially said to them, no regulation

on AI, carve out some tariffs. who's

giving them tens, hundreds of billions

of dollars in shareholder value in

exchange for coming to the Melania

documentary or saying getting around a

table and prostrating yourself and

saying thank you for your leadership.

>> In the 20s and 30s,

the anti-fascists, the Marxists, like

they made the argument that fashion

fascism was all about finance

capitalism. It was about like extreme

concentration of wealth. And I don't

think that was true then, but I think

it's true now, right? Because I mean the

exact diagnosis that Marxists like

Hilford Ding made was that when you get

too too much money in too few hands and

it's all about finance and it's all

about symbols. It's not even about

industry anymore. It's all about like an

econ like you know the kind of

neurological economy that we have where

it's all speculative.

That's the danger because then the state

takes over those guys or those guys take

over the state or they merge with the

state. And that's what you're

describing. That's that's what's

happening. And a number of these

characters have ambitious political or

quai political notions themselves and

none of them are pro-democratic.

>> So I'm trying to think of I think

anytime you have a movement you always

like to think what new technology might

be helpful here. And the new technology

again of camera phones is is I think a

bit of a gamecher. It definitely puts a

wrinkle in all of this. What do you

think of the idea? And I've been

thinking a lot about this and I'm

actually starting to get involved in

organizing. What do you think of the

idea? My sense is Trump doesn't where

we've seen really quick political action

on the part of Trump is not from a

movement or or from citizenship or

citizenry. It's from markets and that is

he immediately pulls back when the

market goes down the S&P goes down or

even the Japanese bond market yields

increase for fear that's about to happen

to our treasury market. That's where I

have seen him pull back is when the

market responds. What do you think of

the idea of a targeted surgical national

economic strike, targeting some of the

individual companies we just referenced,

unsubscribing uh from some AI platform,

streaming media of the big tech players,

cuz their valuations are so elevated

right now that any sort of ding in

signups

could have a material impact on those

companies, which would ultimately have a

material impact on the S&P. and it was

your thoughts on the notion of some sort

of a targeted national economic strike

against some of the bigger players in

tech.

>> I think that's a good idea. I mean, I

think it would have to be preceded and

and probably some good people already

doing this, but I think it would have to

be preceded by some kind of visual tool

which rates companies and shows you

exactly how they have been complicit.

Because the the danger is that if I call

for a boycott of some tech companies and

not others, then an immediate

interpretation will be well that's I'm

doing it on behalf of the ones that I'm

not boycotting, right? And so you have

to have you have to have some like some

some like some bar graph like something

which shows like a bar graph with

footnotes, something which shows exactly

what the companies that you're

boycotting have have done. So and there

would have to be some like there would

interesting investigation showing the

connections between companies for

example and ice grades. And so you'd

have to also evaluate like so Palunteer

is Palunteer is being used for ICE

raids. So you'd have to evaluate like

what exactly is the bad thing that

you're you know you're measuring and and

make that clear. I think that would have

to be like there have to be like real

transparence and clarity about why

you're doing what to whom. But yeah, I

think that's a good idea. And I would I

mean I would take the idea more broadly

too if like I think there has to be they

have to know that if they do anything

that looks like stealing the election in

November that there'll be a general

strike. They have to know that like they

have to know that if they do that

they're going to cave the economy. Um

they have to know that there's that

there's going to be something coming if

they if they try if they do anything

which is vaguely like trying to steal

the election in November because that

has to be deterred. And I think you're I

think you're right that the thing which

gets attention domestically but also

gets attention from them is the threat

that and you know what it's a plausible

threat because the do you know the

dollar is weak. Um the the stock market

is a really bubbly, speculative, frothy

sort of form. Um our major trade

partners have kind of had it with us.

You know, like they are really

vulnerable in this score in general.

>> I find all of this we're of a similar

generation. And when there's been

political unrest in the past, although I

don't think anything rivals this, at

least in my lifetime, I've always been

able to disassociate. And I'm quite

frankly, Timothy, I'm having a difficult

time disassociating here. I find this

emotionally

and you know mentally just very

rattling. It is really upsetting and I

know a lot of my friends are physically

upset by it. And whenever I try to

soothe that upset, I try to wrestle it

to the ground and understand it more.

Put it in the context of history and

trying to understand it. And my two

go-tos are you and Heather Cox

Richardson. And Heather Cox Richardson

said something. We've had her on the pot

a couple times. you're sort of my two

you're my go-tos if you will and she

said something that was actually quite

hopeful that America has endured much

darker times whether it was slave owners

controlling politics or interment of

Japanese

where do you put this in the context of

real dark moments in the US do you see

this on the same level less serious more

serious and how as someone I identify

you as a real patriot you know How

looking forward, how is this is this

darkest before the dawn or darkest

before it's pitch black? How are you

feeling about the current state of

affairs in the United States?

>> I was on a long trip on the on the West

Coast in the Midwest in in in the fall

and when folks asked me a similar

question, I said there's going to be a

winter of discontent. Bad things are

going to happen. Um probably some people

are going to get killed and it's going

to then be a matter of how we react. And

that's basically how I feel about all

this. It's I don't find an exact analog.

Um partly because Trump is an unusual

figure. Um it's it's unusual to have

somebody in power who is so unconcerned

about anything except himself to put it

like that. I mean it's things can stop

and change on a dime. You know like he

he the system precisely because he's so

indifferent to the United States. I

think that's maybe the fundamental thing

like he he doesn't care about the US or

it sovereignty or anything like those

are just foreign concepts to him

citizenry is a foreign concept and so he

because he's not really committed to

anything except his absence of

commitment he can move really quickly

and he has moved really quickly like the

this first year has been quite dramatic

there's been a lot a lot an awful lot

has changed and as far as like what's

dark you know what what kind of darkness

this is I agree with Heather that there

have been worse moments

where my concern is that we recognize

and I think and a lot of good people do

recognize this and there are millions

and millions of people are acting but

that we recognize that the way we got

out of those moments was by acting that

you know like America exists exists as a

republic because people acted because

one side won the civil war and not

another side for example right um

because abolitionists took risks, right?

Because um you know because people in

the civil rights movement engaged in

massive non-violent action like there

was a there was there was no there were

no there's no automatic process inside

America and as soon as you be believe in

the automatic process you I think you

lose America. So I don't mean to dodge

the question. I just think it really

does depend upon how we react to this

winter of discontent and like what and

what kind of what kind of spring we

have. And then to just repeat a point, I

think to get out of it, we have to have

a vision of how things can be much

better than they are. Not just like, you

know, an antidote or a cure, but a

vision of how things can be much better.

Well, as our last question, as I know

you've been very generous with your time

and you need you need to you need to

hop, but let's talk about let's assume

let's be hopeful that this

administration pays a price and a new

administration and

people with different political views um

are very successful in 26 and the White

House changes hands in 28. Do you think

post that in order to move on, do you

think there needs to be some sort of

reckoning or something resembling some

sort of trials here? I'm gonna just take

advantage of that question to say

something else before before I say yes.

>> Where we are now, you know, it reveals

some very fundamental problems that we

were going to have to solve anyway. Like

this took a certain form with Trump and

that crew, but it could have taken

another form. And the basic problems are

the gray zones in our democracy, the

dark money, the the gerrymandering, all

that. The overall inequality of income

and especially wealth, the weirdly

unregulated state of our social media

and relatedly the absence of reporting

which can be fixed. Um the the weakness

of public education. Like these are

things that if if we are in that

situation you're talking about like we

if there's a majority in Congress and a

president that want to change things.

Yeah. I I think crimes have obviously

been committed. I mean that make Nixon,

you know, look like a fairy princess.

Like crimes have been committed and

people who have committed crimes should

be investigated fairly and then brought

before a judge and jury. Yes. And that's

really that I mean from the history of

communism and the history of fascism I

think you can say pretty unambiguously

that it is important to have some kind

of reckoning also from our history right

where we essentially blew it after the

civil war and that's one reason we are

where we are but that said it's also if

there is such a moment then in the first

few weeks of that situation where

there's a majority and a willing

president there has to be some really

fundamental legislation about those

issues that I described.

Mass incarceration, by the way, is

another one. There has to be some really

fundamental legislation or we're going

to be repeating this in some form again

before too long. Timothy Snder is a

leading historian on authoritarianism,

Ukraine, and Eastern Europe. He's the

author of various books, including on

freedom, on tyranny, the road to

unfreedom, and bloodlands. After two

decades at Yale, he's now at the

University of Toronto Monks School of

Global Affairs. He joins us from uh

Toronto. Um, Professor Snder, whenever I

speak to you, my friend Dan Harris at

10% Happier said something really

powerful in that his action absorbs

anxiety. And whenever I'm feeling sort

of out of control about this and bereft,

I tune into you and Heather Cox

Richardson. And you don't make me feel

better, but you make me feel more in

control. Putting this in a historical

context and realizing that we do have

agency and that, you know, other nations

have been here before. Some have worked

some some have worked it out, others

have not. But I always find it's it's

actually quite

soothing to to hear from people like

yourself that understand this moment and

and you know can kind of break it down

and make it get our arms around it if

you will. And it was very much

appreciate

how you've risen how you've risen to

this moment. Appreciate your time.

Timothy

>> was very kind of you and just going back

to what you said about being upset. I

mean it would be this is really

upsetting

>> and we should be upset

>> but when you do something you know when

you do something even a little thing so

long you know if you do something with

other people you always feel better and

that's you know you've heard it you just

said it you know when you're when you're

sending me off but that's the thing if

you if you are active with other people

you're not only effective but also you

end up feeling better

>> I love that when you do something with

other people you feel better I think

that's true across a lot dimensions.

Thanks very much, professor.

>> Thank you. It's been great.

>> Alger of happiness. Uh giving your

parents comfort. How do you do that as

you get older? One of the things I talk

about in terms of being a man is adding

surplus value. And that is at some point

there's a lot of people more in male

that never become men. And that is they

take more tax revenue and more

government services than they ever

provide back in the form of new jobs or

taxes they pay. They absorb more love

from partners than they get. Get more

from friendships than they provide. You

know, provide more people notice their

lives and they notice other people

lives. Complain more than they absorb

complaints.

And something you can do that gives in a

strange way your parents something that

they

w would really treasure and I didn't

learn this until I was older and I want

you to think about this if you're a

young adult and that is and I can say

this is someone who's now raising young

men 18 and 15.

It sounds weird, but when I I can tell

my kids aren't doing well sometimes and

I ask them what's going on and most of

the time they say nothing and they don't

open up to me. And even as a young man,

I never really went to my parents with

my problems. And one time I came to my

mom

with I came to my mom with a problem I

was having. I was really heartbroken

over this girl and I asked her advice

and she gave not only she gave me really

good advice, but more important than the

advice was I could tell it just was so

rewarding for her that I would think as

a young man to ask her for advice. And I

remember when my mom was sick and dying,

I called her and I said, "I'm just so

upset." And she said, "What's it about?"

And I said, "Well, I want to talk to you

about it in person." And my mom was

living in Vegas and I was living with

her from Sunday to Thursday. When I got

I got there, we went outside and I just

held her hand and I sobbed

and I was just very honest with her. I

was just like, I'm just devastated that

you're dying.

And

I just can't express. I knew in that

moment how meaningful that was for her.

In some

one of the greatest gifts you can

provide a parent

is to give them the gift

of letting them comfort you.

That's what they want.

They want to know they have purpose

and they want to comfort you.

That's a gift for your parent.