On Tuesday’s PBS-broadcast show Amanpour & Co., host Christiane Amanpour was joined by Yale professor Timothy Snyder, whom she described as “an award-winning historian and bestselling author, focusing on the dangers of authoritarianism.” In 2017, he wrote the tome On Tyranny, which then-Washington Post nonfiction book critic Carlos Lozada hailed as “Easily the most compelling volume among the early resistance literature."
London-based Amanpour expressed alarm that adverse legal actions against Trump seem to help him at the polls, that his followers are cultish. She then turned the topic to Boris Johnson, the former Conservative Prime Minister:
AMANPOUR: ….Here in the U.K., Boris Johnson, who was equally cult-like, who was equally, you know, prone to using the same populist tactics as Donald Trump, we've seen his party, the Tories, by and large, except for one or two hold outs, who -- you know, who actually practically are no longer in office, anyway, basically moving on. They just want to move on and they've said, you know, that Boris has a lot to answer for, but not in the U.S….
Snyder offered back-handed praise to Boris because at least he was good on Ukraine and not a Trumpian “dictator” who admires Vladimir Putin
SNYDER: ….Whatever is wrong with Boris Johnson, he is not part of some kind of international cabal of right-wing leaders who admire one another, pat one another on the back, and support the idea of dictatorship. Unfortunately, Donald Trump is. Going back a decade or so, he is very closely connected to Vladimir Putin.
Both host and guest went on an extended (taxpayer-supported) rant on the hypothetical threats of political violence ginned up by Trump supporters, or as Amanpour breathlessly put it, “the call to protest, with the underlying threat of violence,” upon the former president's indictment involving classified documents. (Never mind the actual political violence at BLM-inspired protests in the summer of 2020.) She compared Trump’s situation to the recent legal woes of world leaders.
AMANPOUR: ….And even now, we've heard from former congresspeople and those who should know better, having had elected office, that quote, "violence is now baked into the American political system." What is your comment on that?
Snyder faulted Trump for calling the justice system corrupt (which sounds like a left-wing stance) bizarrely calling it fascism:
SNYDER: Yes. I want to echo your remarks, because they seem to be very important. In those cases that you're citing, there are some really important differences. One of them is that the people who are accused, in general, don't say everything is a lie. In general, they say, I am innocent or, you know, the process should take its course. But they don't say, as Trump has been saying, the entire system is corrupt. That is a very damaging kind of reaction, and everybody who is supporting Trump is echoing, you know, implicitly or explicitly, that reaction….
Snyder began a series of bizarre transpositions to go from Republicans making accusations of uneven enforcement of laws to: “fascism.”
SNYDER: As far as legislators go, this seems to be a very critical area, because the whole point of having a legislature, of having the congress and the senate, is that these people pass laws. When they say the laws don't apply, what they're saying is that their own job makes no sense, that their own institution has no purpose, that we're not a tricameral system, we don't have a division of powers. In fact, what we just have is a kind of leader, and the fate of that leader is the only thing that concerns us. And once you're in that mold, once you take that view, once you're admitting from the point of view of a parliament that a parliament doesn't matter, then you're in fascist territory.
The American left has been trying to dethrone the Supreme Court after some rulings it didn’t like. Are they “fascist”?
Snyder also offered a flawless liberal take: Trump has no basis for complaint. because he’s not a poor minority.
SNYDER: I mean, the first thing that I think that has to be said is that, it's of course true that the American justice system is not perfect. But its flaws don't have to do, in general, with extremely wealthy white men who used to be president….
What didn't come up? Snyder is a regular donor to Democrats, including the Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden campaigns.
A full transcript is available, click "Expand" to read:
PBS
Amanpour & Co.
Aired 6/13/23 (1 am ET)
AMANPOUR: Now, Trump has dominated a climate of unprecedented, and he is being pursued by legal woes his entire career. But this one promises to be the most consequential, not just for him, but for the country, its institutions, and if he gets elected anyway, for the whole world. The Yale professor, Timothy Snyder, is an award-winning historian and bestselling author, focusing on the dangers of authoritarianism, and he's joining me now from New Haven, Connecticut.Timothy Snyder, welcome back to our program.
So, let's just put this in the big context. You know, everybody says, oh, you know, Trump, Trump, Trump, nothing is surprising. But this is very consequential, isn't it, for the whole world, essentially, looking in?
TIMOTHY SNYDER, HISTORY PROFESSOR, YALE AND AUTHOR, "ON TYRANNY": Yes. I'd start by saying that the whole nothing this is surprising thing is not actually a reaction from the good guys, it's a strategy from the bad guys. Not just Trump, but a good number of dictators and aspiring dictators around the world play this game. They admit to being outrageous so that our sensibilities are dulled, and then when lines are crossed and lights are flashing, we don't notice. So, of course, this is enormously consequential. The president -- or the former president is subject to law, just like everyone else. If we allow that to go, we're letting checks and balances go, we're letting the rule of law go, we're letting the constitution go, we're letting the whole system go, and the people who immediately jumped to support Trump, what they're doing is they're immediately putting their weight against the whole system, and that's extremely concerning.
AMANPOUR: So, let's talk about the whole system. As you said, there are those who, in reaction to this indictment say, no man is above the law, and it is America, a nation of laws, presumably that is the majority of Americans. But, on the other hand, opponents of this indictment say that the Biden administration is weaponizing the Justice Department for their political benefits. So, what is your view? Is putting this president, this former leader on trial, strengthening the institutions or playing into the hands of those who have partisanized (ph) and poisoned American politics now for so many years?
SNYDER: I guess I would start off by just being very suspicious of anyone who makes the claim that there's anything strange about this. If we look at our American debate about this, it's really quite unusual. Around the world, including in countries who democracy is unquestionably strong, like let's say France or Italy, around the world it's normal for heads of government to be tried, for heads of government to be arrested, to be sentenced after due process. It just happened in Scotland, a place where no one questions the rule of law. So, we get ourselves into trouble the moment we start to say, there's something exceptional about this, because once we say it's exceptional, then we're along the lines of saying, well, one man is above the law, and if one man is above the law, then there really isn't any law. So, I would plead for people to treat this as normal, to treat him as a normal defendant, let the process take its course. Anything else is pushing against the system.
AMANPOUR: So, as we speak, you mentioned Scotland, the first minister, she was indeed arrested, she was taken in for questioning regarding potential financial party irregularities, but she's being released, and she's protesting her innocence. But as you say, the system is working. Right now, as we're speaking, Boris Johnson, the former prime minister and a close Trumpian ally is about to be sanctioned by the parliament for -- and he has resigned over ongoing questions. And in Israel, the current sitting prime minister is actually on trial, four charges, including corruption. And yet, by and large, in most of these overseas, even if they're not democracies, there isn't the threat of violence and the call to protest with the underlying threat of violence that happens in the United States, particularly around this president. And even now, we've heard from former congresspeople and those who should know better, having had elected office, that "violence is now baked into the American political system." What is your comment on that?
SNYDER: Yes. I want to echo your remarks, because they seem to be very important. In those cases that you're citing, there are some really important differences. One of them is that the people who were accused, in general, don't say everything is a lie. In general, they say, I am innocent or, you know, the process should take its course. But they don't say, as Trump has been saying, the entire system is corrupt. That is a very
damaging kind of reaction, and everybody who is supporting Trump is echoing, you know, implicitly or explicitly, that reaction.
And secondly, it's very important, as you say, that in general, and in all the respectable cases, people don't then call for violence as Trump has
done or as his allies have done. The moment you call for violence, you're basically upending the whole premise of a constitutional order, which is
that we don't settle these things by violence, we settle them by way of the law.
As far as the legislators go, this seems to be a very critical area, because the whole point of having a legislature, of having the Congress and
the Senate, is that these people pass laws. When they say the laws don't apply, what they're saying is that their own job makes no sense, that their
own institution has no purpose, that we're not a tricameral system, we don't have a division of powers. In fact, what we just have is a kind of
leader. And what -- and the fate of that leader is the only thing that concerns us.
And once you're in that mold, once you take that view, once you're admitting from the point of view of a parliament that a parliament doesn't
matter, then you're in fascist territory.
AMANPOUR: And of course, your books and certainly the last one is called "On Tyranny." And as you speak, you know, again, you know, we have to
remember that the sort of cult leader, who as you say, tries to drag everyone along with them.
So, back to the U.S. and the politics of this, as we're going to obviously, continue with legal, but the politics as well. As we mentioned, there are a
good number of Republican candidates for the nomination who have tried to basically thread the needle in a way that they hope won't alienate Trump
supporters. So, here's a mash-up of some of these, you know, candidates, who are blaming the justice system, not the person of Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VIVEK RAMASWAMY, U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I see in that document is deeply politicized.
MIKE PENCE, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I'm deeply troubled to see this indictment move forward.
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think there needs to be one standard of justice
in this country.
SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Today, what we see is a justice system where the scales are
weighted.
GOV. DOUG BURHUM (R-NORTH DAKOTA), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is the kind of stuff that you never thought
would happen in America. And so, I think it's a dangerous precedent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, the kind of stuff you never would've thought would happen in America. So, there are two issues there, one is, but surely America is
showing that it is a nation of laws, and then the other issue is, you know, how they're appealing to the base with these comments. How do you think
that's going to play out? Because populists are very successful in making those kinds of allegations or feelings stick.
SNYDER: Yes. I mean, the first thing that I think that has to be said is that, it's, of course, true that the American justice system is not
perfect, but its flaws don't have to do, in general, with extremely wealthy white men who used to be president. It's flaws, generally, have to do with
minorities, especially African Americans, and with people who can't afford the kind of high-priced legal protection that Mr. Trump has.
The system is weighted against people in this country, but it is not weighted against people like Mr. Trump. It is massively weighted in favor
of people like Mr. Trump, which makes it all the more true, as you've said, that in so far as the system is able to pursue what is obviously an
extremely well-grounded and well-thought through indictment against a character like Mr. Trump, that is a sign of its health, that is a sign of
moving forward, that's something that ought to be encouraged.
When politicians make this kind of argument, what they're trying to say to people is that the system is weighted against you because it's weighted
against Mr. Trump. But the premise is wrong, it's weighted for Mr. Trump. And the reason why this kind of allegation is dangerous is that it
encourages other people, it's -- or encourage other people to think that their reactions too would be beyond the law. That Mr. Trump is a reasonable
example, and that one can follow that example.
And that, of course, is an excursion into lawlessness. And unfortunately, there's a very recent precedent for that, which is January 6th.
AMANPOUR: Of course. And of course, the other thing we have to say is after January 6th, his polls did go up, his poll -- his fundraising went up also
under the -- after the indictment in New York, which was not a federal one, but nonetheless, criminal. And so, this is a really tricky situation, that
apparently, America hasn't quite figured out how to navigate and nor has the parties.
So, I want to ask you this. Here in the U.K. Boris Johnson, who was equally cult like, who was equally, you know, prone to using the same populist
tactics as Donald Trump, we've seen his party, the Tories, by and large, except for one or two, hold out, who -- you know, who actually practically
are no longer in office, anyway, basically moving on. They just want to move on and they've said, you know, that Boris has a lot to answer for, but
not in the U.S.
Again, not only have we seen, what I just showed you, the mash-up, but again, Nikki Haley, who's much more of a centrist. She's having to have it.
She's trying to have it always. Let me just play this for you and see your reaction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FMR. GOV. NIKKI HALEY (R-SC), U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Two things can be true at the same time. One, the DOJ and FBI have lost all
credibility with the American people, and getting rid of just senior management isn't going to be enough to fix this. This is going to take a
complete overhaul, and we have to do that. Two, the second thing can also be true. If this indictment is true, if what it says is actually the case,
President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, you sort of touched on that a little bit before saying, you know, the justice system isn't perfect. What would you say to her trying to
have it both ways, knowing that some people are saying, well, you know, it was President Biden who had documents, and before that, you know, the
accusation against Hillary Clinton?
SNYDER: Yes. I mean, she's -- it's not that she's having it, but the way she's contradicting herself, because if the indictment is correct, and if -
- and I encourage everyone to read the indictment, but, you know, her premise is if the indictment is correct, she knows perfectly well that it's
well-grounded and thoroughly researched. That means the Department of Justice and the FBI did good work. And if they did good work, then her
first argument that they need to be thoroughly purged makes absolutely no sense. So, she's contradicting herself.
What I really regret is that there doesn't seem to be a Republican candidate, at least yet, or at least one who has serious chances, who's
able to say, look, this was a terrible mistake, a betrayal of national security and a pretty obvious violation of the law. You think, even if only
for political strategic reasons somebody would take that line on the logic that that would at least give him or her some kind of a chance when things
fall out the way that they're going to fall out.
On the politics, I think one thing that's not broadly understood is that this is not a political move for the Democrats. The Democrats are perfectly
aware that this doesn't help them. They're perfectly aware that this is very complicated. They're not -- it's not that there's a democratic
conspiracy to do this against Mr. Trump, they know it helps him fund-raise, right?
So, it's two things going on at the same time, there's a procedure against Mr. Trump on legal grounds, and then there was the Democrats trying to
navigate their presidential election in 2024. But those two things are not actually closely connected at all. The Democrats, if they were just
thinking politically and they were in control of all things, then we might have a completely different story. But we actually have two different
stories, and I don't think people necessarily realize that.
AMANPOUR: Given that these two stories are going to collide, these two different stories, most likely, during the campaign and be -- you know, up
until 2024 election, the legal and the political process, given that Trump insisted he's not going to back out, and he's going to continue, I just
wonder what you -- I'd like you to comment on this.
According to the Republican National Committee, to get on a debate stage into the presidential campaign, candidates have to pledge to support the
eventual party nominee, which, as we've discussed right now, according to polls, look set to be Donald Trump.
So, I don't know whether that's the same thing for the Democrats, but if it is, I want to know, is party therefore -- are they putting party before
country, before this loyalty pledge? And we just have to, you know, note that Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie have said they would not support a
Trump candidacy if he was the nominee.
SNYDER: Well, I've got to say, it's a weird -- I mean, for a party which talks a lot about the freedom of speech, it's very weird for them to be
doing a precancellation as a precondition for a political debate. That's something which I think, you know, ought to be thought through.
And it's -- what's strange about the Republican Party here is that the party itself, unfortunately, doesn't really seem to exist. There is a
leader cult, and the leader cult is protecting itself against competition by way of these speech taboos and by way of -- you know, of the charisma,
talent and outrageous performance of Mr. Trump, right?
But what we don't have is a Republican Party which, like the Tories, to go back to your comparison earlier, has institutions and alternative leaders
and mechanisms by which it can move along after a given, in the case of the British, head of government falls. The Republicans don't really have, that
and that's part of their -- that's a big part of their problem, that there's not really an institution there.
And this is what worries me about all the candidates lining up behind Mr. Trump, because the closest thing they have to an institution are these
presidential elections, and if they -- if everybody lines up behind Mr. Trump, they're looking at a doomsday scenario where Trump is their
candidate where he just can't win, right, because he's so unpopular. He's unpopular before these scandals, he'll presumably do worse after these
scandals.
And then, where are they? What are they calling for? They've just spent all this time supporting a candidate who, A, is going to lose, or is likely to
lose, and B, has been tearing down the system for a year and a half. Where does that leave you, morally and politically as Republicans in 2024, 2025?
It is setting you up for a situation where it will seem like the natural thing to do, is to try to tear the system down, in other words, have some
kind of repeat of January 6th.
And I just would hope there would be some people looking ahead and thinking about the steps that lead them in that direction before they go too far.
AMANPOUR: Now, beyond the politics of it, which are vital, obviously, for the health of America's democracy, the policies are also vital. We know
that President Trump, his own aides say, in a second term, he may have pulled America out of NATO. He did pull America out of the Iran nuclear
deal, and there's great peril now in that region because of that. And on a -- the town hall stage at CNN, he said the following about the Ukraine war
to moderator Kaitlan Collins, and you've written a lot about this and how so much is at stake there. This is what he claimed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Can you say if you want Ukraine or Russia to win this war?
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want everybody to stop dying, dying. Russians and Ukrainians.
I want them to stop dying. And I'll have that done in 24 hours. I'll have it done. You need the power of the presidency to do it.
COLLINS: But you won't say that you want Ukraine to win? You --
TRUMP: You know what I'll say, I'll say this. I want Europe to put up more money, because they're in for 20 billion, we're for one 170, and they
should be --
COLLINS: But that's not an answer about who should win the war.
TRUMP: -- and they should equalize. They have plenty of money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, there's just so much in there, a lot of (INAUDIBLE) in fact. But, you know, it's a potential threat if he does, in fact, managed
to get reelected. What do you see as the risks there?
SNYDER: Well, you mentioned Boris Johnson earlier, and one has to say that despite all his other manifold flaws, Boris Johnson, at the end of his term
as prime minister, took a very clear stand on Ukraine. And actually, in many ways, put the U.K. above the U.S. and the European Union in terms of
what it was going to do, a line which has been followed by his successor.
And this is a very important difference between a Boris Johnson and a Trump. Whatever is wrong with Boris Johnson, he is not part of some kind of
international cabal of right-wing leaders who admire one another, pat one another on the back, and support the idea of dictatorship. Unfortunately,
Donald Trump is.
Going back a decade or so, he is very closely connected to Vladimir Putin. The things that he says about Ukraine and Russia tends to be very close to
Kremlin talking points. I think a deep problem with the reelection of Mr. Trump is that there is now -- we can have no expectation that he would
pursue a foreign policy of American interests, let alone a foreign policy which would support the cause of democracy. The man does not support
democracy at home, and he certainly doesn't support it abroad.
And the way these things work, it's all connected. So, a Biden foreign policy supporting Ukrainian democracy abroad is also a Biden domestic
policy supporting democracy at home. A Trump foreign policy of letting Ukraine go, rooting for the dictatorships, is also a Trump domestic policy
of scorning the division of power, scorning the rule of law, and setting himself up as a kind of leader who's beyond all the institutions. That's
one big story.
So, Ukraine is not some faraway place about which we can know little, Ukraine is a place where the cause of freedom and democracy is right now
either supported or ignored or denied. Trump ignores and denies. The people who want to keep America strong and safe and democratic are on the right
side of Ukraine, and they will be willing to answer that question.
The only way for lives to be saved is for Ukraine to win the war as quickly as possible. The only way for American interests to be secured is for
Ukraine to win that war as quickly as possible. Not only because of Russia, but because Ukraine winning that war makes it much less likely that we'll
have to deal with an aggressive China.
So, whether it's democracy or whether it's interest, I think the arguments are clear.
AMANPOUR: And we are going to turn exactly to that with our next guest. But for now, Professor Timothy Snyder, thank you so much, indeed.
