Timothy Snyder, "The Road to Unfreedom"

Timothy Snyder discusses his book, "The Road to Unfreedom", at Politics and Prose on 4/7/18.
Snyder’s follow-up to On Tyranny moves from showing how to resist authoritarianism to tracing the path of its recent resurgence. Starting with Putin’s consolidation of power in Russia, Snyder charts the rise of nationalists and oligarchs from Hungary and Poland to Britain and the U.S. Noting that the threat these movements pose to Western institutions aligns with Putin’s goals, Snyder advises us that they also reflect weaknesses and vulnerabilities within liberal democratic systems. As he urges us to act on the choice between individuality and totality, Snyder frames this moment of crisis as an opportunity to better understand and affirm the values and principles underlying our imperiled political order.
PURCHASE BOOK HERE: www.politics-prose.com/book/9...
Founded by Carla Cohen and Barbara Meade in 1984, Politics and Prose Bookstore is Washington, D.C.'s premier independent bookstore and cultural hub, a gathering place for people interested in reading and discussing books. Politics and Prose offers superior service, unusual book choices, and a haven for book lovers in the store and online. Visit them on the web at www.politics-prose.com/
Produced by Tom Warren

[@mikeskor6230]

Excellent. One of the best things about the internet is that we can be exposed to the best minds on earth whenever we want.

[@RashidKapadia]

Greatly appreciate these Politics and Prose author-speaker events being posted and made so widely available. Thanks very much.

[@hormonallyreplaced]

Dear Politics & Prose: The Q&A portions of any author talk is significant but PLEASE help your authors by urging attendees to get right to their questions. Unfortunately, based on several P&P videos that I've watched, assorted attendees will hog the mic with lengthy rambling anecdotes, sycophantic praise, and self-absorbed meanderings that present anything but a question. This means other attendees don't get the chance to ask their questions. If your staff doesn't intervene to keep the questions to-the-point, it puts the authors in the awkward position of having to facilitate their own Q&A session. Thanks for considering this point.

[@adsensedd]

This is an excellent book. Conservatives should read it with an open mind. The mistaken belief that "Russia is our friend because Trump says it" is extremely dangerous.

[@sandygreenleaf6586]

At 17:21 the author mentions "spectacles". My first thought was of the Bread And Circuses offered to the citizens of Rome back in the day to keep them distracted. All the media coverage of Trump has that feel to it, as if it's carefully choreographed, orchestrated theater.

[@stevej5185]

Just finished the book and it was excellent! A must read!

[@R00365]

Really really interesting way of seeing the modern western world! 😀 Thanks.

[@peterdobos7076]

What Mr Snyder thinks about russiagate now after Mueller ´s report?

[@windokeluanda]

Minute 11:49-51 What is the name of the Russian author that Professor Timothy Snyder mentions (?)"Uvan Eleen"(?) is "Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin", please?

[@drakedoragon3026]

3:40 he comes to podium.

[@rupertdreyfus6018]

Snyder is brilliance. Glad he has a voice in these dark times.

[@paulandrewmonson]

Agree. He is a profound historian and philosopher who illuminates the intersections of some the most important political issues facing democratic societies today.

[@xxpossumful]

Outstanding, yet again

[@RobertSeviour1]

Prof. Snyder makes the mistake common to most experts who are giving a talk in that he doesn't know what to leave out - because for him it's all important. This leads to a hurried, although clearly impassioned, delivery. For the audience information-overwhelm sets in quickly. He would do well to have a third party help him triage his speech material. Having said that, it's great that he is bringing his insight to bear on a very important element of our current world.

[@helenmary9416]

cronic fatigue..anxiety....espresso?

[@awuma]

More and more, I see Timothy Snyder as one of the leading people providing the intellectual and factual underpinnings for progressive politics.

[@johnstewart7025]

His definition of nation state seems really too strict. I realize that Italy and Germany were cobbled together 150 years ago, but France, England and Spain have all been nations for at least 500 years. They were also empires, but at the core was a nation of people, who spread their languages around the world.

[@hitman89141]

John Stewart I think Mr Snyder would reply to this by saying that you can't really distinguish these empires from the nation-states at their core, and that it's more useful to think about the overall entity as an empire rather than a nation state. Certainly, describing Great Britain before 1914 (even before the 1960s) as just the extension of a nation state is untenable, both with regard to the size and diversity of the periphery as to the internal differences and tensions of that supposed 'core' (think English, Irish, Scottish, etc). In a way, the empire is what enabled the 'centre' in that story to stay together and form a somewhat coherent unit. Irish history in all its violent tragedy can be very enlightening here. Besides, many historians would agree that nations in the modern sense are really a product of the 19th century. The most obvious argument here is that a nation state is unthinkable under any form of 'Ancien Régime', since the 'nation' in this strictly political sense requires there to be some form of democratic participation. It seems to me that your proposed notion of nationhood is more about culture and language, which is not what Snyder has in mind here. While these factors are of course important for nation states (to the point that many people equate cultural/language areas with nation states), I would argue that precisely because these are such long-term factors spanning centuries, they are not always helpful to think about nation states in the sense of politico-economical entities that are much younger and that have been (are) undergoing radical changes in just a few decades. Notice btw how you spoke first of nation states, then of nations. Those are not identical.

[@hitman89141]

John Stewart That being said, I also tend to disagree with Snyder's assumptions that European nation states have never really existed, that we went straight from empire to European integration. I can see why he makes the point, it's a shocking assertion to many people and there is a partial truth in the story (namely the role of European integration as a substitute for Empire). Nonetheless, it seems reductionist to me to put it so bluntly. Nation states are a historical reality and they continue to shape the everyday lives of European citizens, as they did during times of Empire. Anyway, it's such a large-scale discussion that it will always be moot. Still, it seems to me that looking at nation states as a historical contingency that was always framed by a bigger picture (empire, globalisation) and that in a way never fully developed all of its supposedly inherent features (at least not in any one place) is a useful prism for dissecting the much of world history of the past two centuries.

[@drdanj]

They could not have been nations as they existed without their empires. English Tea. All that lovely Irish Oak furniture. The list goes on. Englad would have simply been a miserable, wet, dank, cold little island without its slaughter. Even Jane Austen's books have references to slavery. Mansfield Park was built as the result of slave trade.

[@ladagol]

@@hitman89141 I probably disagree with him a lot more than you on this question of the nation states. All European countries have different history, different language, different culture and also an idea of what are our borders within the European continent. The Empire is basically an economic construct a way to improve the economic standing of the people of the country. The fact that over most of our history, our countries were ruled by monarcs does not make the sense of belonging less real. Maybe I do not fully understand the concept of nation states, and if this is just a wording difference I would not make an issue of it, but Mr Snyder tends to make predictions based on this assuptions that appear absurd, like is comment (on another video) that UK will not survive outside the EU because they were never a nation state ! Uk will continue to be as today. They may lose economic power and struggle to re-establish their economic standing in the world but they will continue to function as a country as they due today. For most of UK citizens EU union has always been just an economic club they joined. Few segments of population believe in social integration. Switzerland or Norway continue to existe outside EU and they have create economic links with EU that mitigate the incovenience of not belonging to the club. I am Portuguese, and we have stable frontiers since 1249, after conquering the Algarve to the Mours. The concept of the Portuguese "kingdom" dates back to the XII century and we did not created the notion of an Empire before the XVI century. During the XV century we are creating maritime routes to India but there is no concept of Empire, is just the objective of trading and gaining economic benefits from that trade. The concept of claiming land outside our borders occurred much later.

[@DeadMarine1980]

That one questioner towards the end who touched on patriarchy and capitalism....umm I'm not saying she's "crazy" but it sounded like that she was falling into the trap or false dichotomy that capitalism = patriarchy/masculinity and communism = woman liberation. Now I'm not totally sure if she was pressing that idea or simply expressing it.....but that idea is totally wrong. Because the Communist systems in our world was all about the elimination of free agency. And Free Agency is the crux of modern feminism.

[@rutex09]

Snyder's point about NATO is a technicality which ignores that the 2013 Ukraine-EU negotiations were scuttled by language in the agreement which would have effectively integrated Ukraine's armed forces into NATO command structure...

[@user-md5vm7rz6x]

In 2013 Ukraine almost didn't have armed forces.

[@kimobrien.]

Capitalism is in crisis. As working people begin to struggle against the system things will begin to change.

[@chemykl]

We really need to do more to help Ukraine. Their current struggle for independence is very similar to that of our own in 1775, it's the same story of growing philosophical and political differences causing a colony to battle it's imperial power for freedom and democracy. This time we're playing the role of the big brother though, now we're the established power placing a bet on helping a fledgling state with potential, who's independence incidentally also strengthens our hand against a common enemy. But that's not the main reason we should help... Russia is attacking democracy all over the world and unfortunately democracy is beginning to show cracks and breaks in it's facade. There is no guarantee that the cracks will not grow larger and larger until the whole thing breaks to pieces and there is definitely no guarantee that we will be ok after it all. We have to show initiative and actively start the work of patching the loop holes and exploits which Russia is using to destabilize our way of life. Ukraine is essential to helping us do just that. According to the latest data from the EU, the majority of all recent informational attacks coming from Russia are targeted at Ukraine and it's young democracy. Ukraine is now ground zero for all of the attacks that later hit the EU and the United States, it's bombarded by Russian operatives daily. We can use this to our advantage, as Ukraine's biggest ally we can study and counter all of Russia's attacks right there at ground zero. We can learn to strengthen or perhaps even immunize Ukraine's fledgling democracy against Russia operations and then bring the knowledge home to the west. It would be a win, win for everyone, Ukraine would get the assistance against Russia that they so desperately need and we would get a resilient democracy on Russia's border and the blueprint to beating them before they have the opportunity to bring the fight to our home soil once again.

[@endikaaboitiz1803]

the russians did the americans a favour.. brought to light the weak areas where america needs to focus to imrpove its societal sitaution.. that highlighting was needed.. shows you what you have to fix is correct i think..

[@adsensedd]

The American system is strong. That's why there are investigations and criminal charges. The rule of law exists (despite certain Republicans opposing it). The USA does need reform though, too many lobbyists rotting it like a cancer.

[@richardblock2458]

Just seen the talks you posted about this book - great. The talk here is not as good - too much 'read the book - its all in the book.' As for the Russian bot comments here, beware Professor Snyder - they'll soon be after you or they already are. Brilliant historian turned contemporary commentator.

[@Thewonderingminds]

Factual life reality surpasses all man made theoretical models of absolutism and goes on like DNA predefined outcome and like immediate life needs after any heart absorbing theatrical play.

[@jackbemporad9708]

Where was Obama when all this was going on?

[@hcwcars1]

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

[@Dorian_sapiens]

Good question. And, good news: it has an answer! Snyder talks about it at 1:09:47 and 1:06:38, but maybe you missed it or want more info. Read about it here: www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531 Edit: fixed time stamps

[@olivierbolton8683]

this is the only door from which I can actually answer to Mr Snyder..."as I see it" for 1 1/4 hrs you are busy flapping your wings but are unable to get air borne...from your bookstore/coffeehouse". Everyone suffers in wars, but a few actually benefit from them...follow my glance > Bye for now.

[@biancavonmuhlendorf2608]

Would be enough to analyze Russia- without projecting this totally different system onto the current US-government. This is utterly unappropriate.

[@hcwcars1]

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

[@Dorian_sapiens]

Good question. And, good news: it has an answer! Snyder talks about it at 1:09:47 and 1:06:38, but maybe you missed it or want more info. Read about it here: www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531 Edit: fixed time stamps

[@patsylowe]

Russia is not our enemy,

[@TheDougit]

Thank you!! Our problems are right here in our own boarders

[@UrinationNation]

The internet is global, so is influence, so is business, there is a global market with global interests. Russia has it's own section in the NYTimes to glorify themselves, that's a small example. It does make a difference and variables and influences exist that aren't just home grown. Things are complicated, you can wash all your dishes, but a tree can still fall on your house.

[@dennismillon7425]

Patsy Lowe what world do you live in?

[@slightlygruff]

I will sum it up: "America is innocent and Russia is out to get it". Saved you an hour. You're welcome.

[@xblue1476]

Great argument you make. So elaborate and detailed in its analysis really investigating every single aspect of Mr. Snyder's arguments. You must be one of those people who wonder why books exist. Please also sum up Tolstoy, some people may think his works to lengthy.

[@xblue1476]

Great argument you make. So elaborate and detailed in its analysis really investigating every single aspect of Mr. Snyder's arguments. You must be one of those people who wonder why books exist. Please also sum up Tolstoy, some people may think his works too lengthy.

[@krastsjanis]

You lack knowledge my friend in these very complex issues.

[@kenrickhackett3977]

You’ve turned Snyder’s thesis in its head. He says that Russia believes it is innocent. Unfortunately the innocence it believes is its nature is NOT incompatible with corruption and inequality, so it wants to martial this corrupt innocence to dismantle the rule of law which is the greatest threat to it.

[@thehumburger]

Typical mindless reactionary. Here's a suggestion: read a book.

[@untwerf]

I always feel snyder speaks in a pious and pontificating tone - and I find it really annoying.

[@emilykrahn3185]

untwerf well, to each his own. I love his brilliant insight.

[@CheddarBayBaby]

I think that’s just because he takes this very seriously tbh. He deliberately stays away from jokes and I appreciate that. Don’t let your issue with his tone detract from the truth or falsehood in what he’s saying

[@stevej5185]

I've heard this said of him before, but here it actually seemed like he went out of his way to avoid that tone of which you speak. Anyway, he's a great scholar, and he's getting a lot of attention due to events surrounding western Europe and the Russian Federation at the moment-a truly welcomed popularity considering the utter turbulence we've been experiencing in the west. I've been studying and looking at Eastern Europe for a couple of years now, and he's perhaps the best I've read and listened to.

[@gavrilgavrilov1079]

It's because he speaks very quickly, which tends to flatten the music of language that we all use when we're trying to convince someone of something. I think also these talks are more or less in front of a audience familiar with his work.

[@reachinghigher4259]

He's giving a talk, not engaging in conversation. Of course it sounds like pontificating. That's the nature of speaking alone from a podium.

[@stevej5185]

Great talk. SJW alert towards the end.

[@stevenwebbjr7639]

This guy is a manipulator.

[@divine853]

What a poor and shameful dialog! Yes, send your waste again and again on Russia! However, Russia is a big and frindly land in our world with a peacefull and human leader and so i can sleep in calm very well!

[@DarkSideChess]

This guy sounds like a conspiracy nut.