In his latest book On Freedom, Yale historian Timothy Snyder provocatively asserts that “some Americans want to be tyrants.” The statement, while challenging, invites strict scrutiny regarding its implications for American society and its ongoing democratic challenge in the age of Donald Trump. Snyder’s work often draws on lessons from 20th-century authoritarian regimes, particularly Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The immediate backdrop of the book is Ukraine’s heroic struggle against Russia’s naked aggression. However, Snyder explores with engaging personal stories and encounters with diverse thinkers including students and prisoners, various facets of freedom especially focusing on American society.
He argues that the seeds of tyranny are not just external threats but also internal tendencies ~ elements of society or political leadership that exploit crises to erode freedoms. His assertion highlights a paradox: in a nation founded on liberty, some may actively or passively enable its dismantling. Snyder’s analysis is rooted in real examples of democratic backsliding worldwide and the fragility of democratic norms. On Tuesday, 3 December, for example, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, which was however withdrawn due to massive public protests and the National Assembly’s unanimous vote against it.
David French, a New York Times columnist, was quick to ask whether martial law could happen in America. However, Snyder’s argument, while poignant, can be critiqued for its broad strokes and occasional overgeneralization. His phrase “some Americans want to be tyrants” may be true, but it is a sweeping indictment of political opponents rather than a nuanced diagnosis. Who, precisely, are these “Americans”? Are they political elites, fringe extremists, or everyday citizens swayed by authoritarian rhetoric? The lack of specificity undermines the effectiveness of his warning. Moreover, Snyder’s rhetoric, while evocative, occasionally veers into alarmism ~ for example, as he said before the election on X, “Unless Trump loses, America ends.” As a historian, Snyder should acknowledge the complexity of democratic resilience.
For instance, while anti-democratic tendencies exist, so too does a vibrant civic infrastructure working to counter them, from grassroots organizers to independent media to state sovereignty in the federal system. Snyder’s analysis can sometimes overlook these counterforces in favour of a more ominous and sensational narrative. Democracy is not a monument but an ongoing process requiring engagement, compromise, and resistance to authoritarian impulses. The challenges Snyder highlights ~ inequality, disinformation, and the concentration of power ~ are real and demand attention.
However, framing of the “struggle for freedom” should inspire hope rather than despair, encouraging Americans to see themselves as agents of democratic renewal rather than passive observers of decline. America is not declining. Snyder’s criticism of authoritarian tendencies in the United States, including his warnings about Americans who “want to be tyrants,” has been significantly shaped by Donald Trump. Trump’s rhetoric, including his claims of a “stolen election” and calls to overturn democratic processes, fit into Snyder’s framework of how would be tyrants undermine democratic institutions. In Snyder’s view, Trump’s leadership style ~ marked by disdain for checks and balances, attacks on the press, and a willingness to exploit disinformation ~ mirrors historical precedents where democracies have given way to autocracy.
The January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was particularly significant because it was a moment when the United States came perilously close to losing its democratic footing. The event was not merely an isolated act of mob violence but the culmination of years of authoritarian rhetoric, mistrust in democratic institutions, and deliberate manipulation of the public through conspiracy theories and propaganda. Snyder, an expert on totalitarian regimes, tyranny and freedom, draws parallels between Trump’s efforts to retain power and the strategies of past autocrats.
He highlights tactics such as exploiting crises, like Hitler’s use of the Reichstag Fire in 1933, and employing the “Big Lie” strategy, which undermines trust in democracy, as seen with leaders like Stalin and Mussolini. Snyder stresses that the erosion of democracy is a systemic risk exacerbated by broader issues such as inequality, weak civic education, and the influence of money in politics. For Snyder, Trump represents a symptom rather than the sole cause of authoritarian drift in the U.S. Snyder’s concerns about the fragility of democratic institutions are now at the forefront. He has consistently warned that Trump’s approach to governance could erode democratic norms and processes.
In light of Trump’s victory, Snyder’s emphasis on active citizenship and the importance of individual and collective action in preserving democratic values becomes even more critical. Recently, an attorney friend, echoing Snyder’s admonition, wrote to me, “We should brace for some hard times and be prepared to join with those who will resist unlawful power grabs and unconstitutional actions.”
America has a long history of grassroots activism and resistance. Most importantly, despite the US Supremacy Clause that establishes federal law as the supreme law, states in the United States have tremendous powers, which they have used successfully in many cases, defying the federal government, for example, establishing sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants and marijuana legalization, despite federal prohibition.
Why would independent spirited Vermont (my home state) or New Hampshire with the motto “Live Free or Die”, for example, follow Trump’s ultra vires or unconstitutional acts? Besides, the Establishment (the deep state) is not going away. Believe me, I replied to my attorney friend, it’s an extraordinary time to live in the US because American democracy is in the process of self renewal.
(The writer is the author of India In A New Key)