Timothy Snyder - "What Can European History Teach Us About Trump’s America?"

Summary

Timothy Snyder argues that historical thinking is itself a form of political action. Studying the past shows that events could have unfolded differently, helps people recognize patterns without assuming the future is predetermined, and expands the range of responses they can imagine.

Three ways of thinking about time

• Historical thinking: The past is complex; the present is connected to it but remains open; and the future is uncertain. Understanding past moments means considering not only what happened, but also what might have happened. This makes people more alert to claims that political outcomes are inevitable.
• The politics of inevitability: Snyder describes the post–Cold War belief that liberal democracy would inevitably prevail. He calls this a form of faith, not genuine historical analysis: rejecting the supposed inevitability of communism does not prove that liberal democracy is inevitable. Its symptoms include political boredom, a sense that there are no real alternatives, shallow or ironic commentary, and conspiracy thinking. It can also encourage the belief that a system will automatically recover from any “disruption.” When a shock breaks this worldview, people may conclude that everything is unprecedented and that anything is permissible.
• The politics of eternity: This approach invokes the past without explaining it or placing events in meaningful sequence. It relies on invented nostalgia, recurring stories of a virtuous nation under attack, and a sense of permanent emergency. By portraying threats as endless and external, it obscures responsibility and makes the idea of a leader-savior attractive. Snyder warns that societies can slide from the expectation that everything will work out into the belief that nothing can ever improve; at its extreme, the politics of eternity leads toward fascism.

For Snyder, historical study resists both forms of thinking. It helps people create a sense of time, imagine alternatives, and accept some responsibility for what happens next.

A three-part framework for learning from the twentieth century

Snyder organizes his historical examples around familiarization, recognition, and recommendations.

1. Familiarization: Recognize that the present has precedents

• Globalization is not unprecedented. The late nineteenth-century wave of globalization featured expanding trade, economic growth, technological change, and confidence that liberal rules would bring peace and democracy. That confidence later weakened. The comparison does not mean today’s globalization must fail; it means that its crises are not without historical reference points.
• Faith in liberal rules rises and falls. When confidence in liberalism declines, political responses can turn toward nostalgic or authoritarian visions.
• Inequality matters. Snyder cautions against dismissing fascists and communists as merely irrational or evil, because doing so overlooks why their promises attracted support. Fascism offered protection from global economic forces through a national economy and expansion; communism promised to address inequality and accelerate development. Understanding those appeals does not excuse their consequences.

2. Recognition: Watch for warning signs

Snyder highlights several developments that helped authoritarian systems take shape:

• Gradual creation of a one-party state: One party can push out competitors while retaining a surface appearance of familiar institutions, such as elections and constitutional structures.
• State-supported paramilitary violence: Pay attention when governments support armed groups that are formally outside the state. These groups can become integrated into—or transform—the police and military.
• A permanent state of emergency: The Reichstag fire in 1933 was followed by political repression, detentions, and an emergency that became normalized. Snyder’s warning is to notice how authorities respond to a crisis, not only who caused it.
• Elastic labels such as “terrorist” and “extremist”: Such language can be used to define dissent as illegitimate. Snyder urges people to ask who is applying these labels and what they mean.
• Scapegoating and personifying globalization: Rather than address impersonal economic or social forces, leaders can attribute them to a targeted group. Snyder describes Nazi antisemitism as turning Jews into symbols of globalization and then excluding them from the community.
• Weakening or suspending the state: Snyder warns against the idea that the state is dispensable. The rule of law depends on functioning state institutions; destroying or suspending them can create conditions for grave abuses.

3. Recommendations: Practices that support democratic freedom

Drawing in part on the experience of Eastern European dissidents, Snyder recommends:

• Pay close attention to language. Authoritarian politics can shape how people think by controlling the words and categories available to them. Seek alternative language and read widely—Snyder specifically invokes Orwell—rather than relying only on repetitive media or social-media feeds.
• Treat truth as a search. Try to preserve individual facts from sweeping stories of inevitable progress or permanent victimhood. Asking “What is true?” should lead to investigation, not become an excuse for inaction.
• Resist conformity to power. Freedom can feel uncomfortable. Snyder distinguishes ordinary social awareness from anticipating what power wants and adapting oneself in advance. The latter lets individuals’ talents serve obedience.
• Build civil society. Groups outside government and beyond isolated individuals—professional, cultural, or community organizations—create connections, trust, and independent sources of authority. People are much harder to isolate and control when they can rely on one another.
• Learn across borders. Other countries can provide early warnings and practical knowledge. Snyder argues that developments in Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, and elsewhere should not be dismissed as irrelevant “failed transitions”; political models and tactics can travel.
• Protect institutional checks and decentralization. In the Q&A, Snyder cautions that federal systems and rule-of-law institutions can be changed from within. He recommends watching for the centralization of police and other organs of power, and for paramilitary groups becoming more organized and aligned with the state. He also sees state governments as possible policy laboratories: successful experiments can demonstrate what is possible.
• Make room for sustained attention. Snyder argues that short, fragmented media coverage can make it seem as though nothing develops or changes. Longer engagement with history and facts is necessary for informed political judgment.

The lecture’s conclusion and Q&A

Snyder presents historical comparisons as warnings and tools, not predictions. His references to Nazi Germany are not a claim that the United States is inevitably following the same path. Rather, recognizing similarities and differences can enlarge the range of possible outcomes and responses.

He concludes that the present is a moment of uncertainty: the politics of inevitability has weakened, but the politics of eternity is not yet unavoidable. People can help make this a genuinely historical moment by creating possibilities, connections, and responsible political action. Invoking Hamlet, he describes the sense that “time is out of joint” and argues that people can choose to work together to set things right.

Speakers and sources featured

• Declan Kungl — Yale graduate student who introduces the event and provides event logistics.
• Timothy Snyder — Lecturer and principal speaker; also responds during the Q&A.
• Unidentified audience members — Ask questions during the Q&A.
• Unidentified event moderator/organizer — Makes brief remarks about the Q&A and time; the subtitles do not establish whether this is Declan Kungl.

Works and thinkers referenced in the lecture include George Orwell, Mark Twain, Max Weber, Czesław Miłosz, and Shakespeare’s Hamlet.