Pulitzer Prize Historian: You Won't Notice Until It’s Too Late
In a Nutshell
Pulitzer-winning historian Anne Applebaum warns that U.S. democracy is sliding toward autocracy under Trump, who amassed $4.2 billion in wealth via conflicts of interest (e.g., Saudi $2B to Kushner), admires unconstrained leaders like Orbán and Putin, and deploys five core tactics: corruption rewarding loyalists, election manipulation via gerrymandering and voter ID barriers, civil service purges for cronies, information control through media ownership pressure, and paramilitary violence via unaccountable ICE forces. Established democracies like the U.S. erode when elected leaders dismantle neutral institutions (courts, bureaucracy, media) for permanent power, as seen in Hungary and pre-1960s U.S. South; autocracies historically dominate but deliver rule by law, elite profiteering, suppressed dissent, and poor decisions (e.g., Trump's Iran miscalculations), while democracies foster debate, equality, happiness (Scandinavia tops surveys), and prosperity. Citizens must defend democracy through vigilant voting, truth-seeking journalism, rejecting tribal media bubbles and AI-fueled echo chambers, and recognizing its fragility—human nature drives cycles of decadence, but agency via participation can reverse decline before irreversible damage like global allies hedging against U.S. unreliability.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Trump's net worth was $2.3 billion when he went into office, now $6.5 billion just two years later. No president has run businesses while in office. Decisions are made not based on what's good for Americans, but for his company. Saudi government invested $2 billion in Jared Kushner's fund because Kushner is Trump's son-in-law.
Democracies end when a legitimately elected leader takes apart the system. Trump admires foreign leaders with no constraints. Goal is to remind people why democracy matters and to fight its decline.
Host mentions five core tactics autocratic leaders use to dismantle democracy, but speaker is interrupted by subscription plea.
Speaker's Background
Studied Soviet Union as student, watched it fall. Journalist in Warsaw when Warsaw Pact ended. Wrote history books on control mechanisms. Realized authoritarian tactics from past are returning. Democracies mostly end with legitimately elected leaders dismantling the system.
Established democracies like US have parties coming to power to alter system for permanent control. Viktor Orbán in Hungary pioneered this: elected legitimately, then captured state. Democracy needs neutral institutions: independent courts, electoral commission, media, meritocratic bureaucracy.
Democracy requires preserving rules so rivals can contest and win elections. When agreement on system breaks, elections seem unfair.
US as largest democracy influences others; its decline horrifies some, inspires autocrats elsewhere.
Systems exist between Russia and liberal democracy. US South pre-civil rights had one-party states with rigged rules, restricted Black voting from Civil War to 1960s. Some in Trump administration draw from that history.
Biggest concerns: deterioration creating people outside politics, leading to violence; new paramilitary like ICE (national police in combat uniforms, masks, no local restrictions); high-end corruption with president and associates profiting.
Map shows US no longer a liberal democracy (clear electoral rules, neutral system), now electoral democracy (less free, like some South American states). Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea remain liberal democracies. Rest mostly autocracies or gray zones. Map bluer (more democracy) a decade ago. States influence each other.
US could become one-party state via gerrymandering favoring one party, leading to corruption, worse government. Already at state level; national risk with fixed system. Trump refused 2020 election result, staged electoral coup (failed, but could recur).
Unlikely Trump seeks third term, but allies may rig for Republican win, possibly his children. Post-Jan 6, traditional Republicans left; attracted anti-democracy groups: tech authoritarians, Christian nationalists, traditional MAGA (white Christian control).
Trump unconstrained in second term, surrounded by enablers unlike first term.
First noticeable change: absence of rule of law, replaced by rule by law (law is what leader says). Courts overruled by leadership calls.
Hungary example: CEO refuses to sell majority share; state harasses via broken windows, child harassment, worker legal issues, taxes, regulations until sells and flees. Similar to Anthropic AI refusing US access, then Pete Hegseth and Trump posts threatening restrictions.
Autocratic state decides company success via contracts to friends/donors. Trump family business in Saudi Arabia with Dar Al Arkan (tied to leadership); Saudi political deals benefit Trump finances. Decisions favor his company, like in Russia/China.
Democracy is the worst system except for all others. — Churchill
Democracies force issues like corruption into public debate. Supporters claim Trump's kids run businesses, but Saudi $2B to Kushner due to Trump ties; Kushner negotiates Middle East with business partners. Unprecedented conflict of interest.
Putin fears a street revolution like Ukraine's 2014 uprising, where people protested corruption, demanded democracy, and European integration. In autocratic states without freedom of speech or justice, democratic ideas are explosive, similar to their emergence in the 18th-century Declaration of Independence. People risk lives for them, and autocrats know this. Since 2013-2014, autocrats spread counter-ideas via Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns, including Chinese versions in other languages, to undermine democracy.
The war in Ukraine is this ideological conflict: Russia seeks to destroy Ukraine as a nation and make it a colony, defying post-1945 European norms against invasions, wars, and border changes by force, favoring diplomacy instead. Ukraine's democratic language threatened Russia, as Putin feared it spreading there, necessitating crushing Ukraine's democracy. This war is a fault line between democratic and autocratic worlds, marking the breakdown of the American-led post-war system.
Autocracies last longer historically; most societies were monarchies, tribal leaders, or warlords. Few liberal democracies existed, and most failed. US Constitution framers knew this from Rome's Republic falling to Julius Caesar and Athens' democracy collapsing. They designed checks and balances—judicial, legislative, executive—to prevent autocracy. Post-WWII European democracies did the same, understanding fragility.
Happiness surveys show Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway) as happiest, linked to democracy, stability, wealth, participation, security, and lower corruption. Democracies structure the state to benefit everyone via national healthcare, roads, railroads. In autocracies like Russia, ordinary people lack influence, cannot express views or change priorities (e.g., hospitals over bombing Ukraine), leading to frustration.
Informed people would choose democracy if given information, but autocracies limit access to prevent disruptive ideas. Some prefer autocracy's promised stability, security, hierarchy. Democracies demand citizen participation beyond voting. Autocrats offer false stability, traditional values via social media campaigns in US, UK, Europe. Controlling information, security, violence makes them hard to dislodge even if majority wants change.
Russians cannot oppose Putin's decades-long rule due to no public opinion, debate, or safe forums; expressing dissent risks arrest. People adjust thoughts and behavior. In Soviet Union, propaganda was fake, but convenient to profess belief for advancement; true thoughts became irrelevant without expression. Russia had open debate in 1990s-2000s, but since 2000, decline made politics dangerous, leading to apathy.
Corruption is amplified in autocracies via controlled legal systems. In US, Trump took over Department of Justice, installing loyalists to prosecute enemies, removing checks. Previously, DOJ/FBI would investigate high-level corruption; now politicized civil service/FBI avoids it. Trump used White House for personal gain unprecedentedly. Corruption rewards loyalty with business prosperity, government contracts.
Big Tech CEOs visit White House, praise Trump, donate to his funds despite past criticisms (e.g., OpenAI's Sam Altman called Trump an unprecedented threat, disaster, irresponsible like dictators, erratic, abusive, compared to Hitler's big lie). They genuflect for business deals; government regulation should benefit ordinary Americans, not president/family/entourage—a major shift.
Being rich should allow speaking freely; instead, status via competition drives silence (e.g., Altman risks losing to Anthropic, xAI, Gemini). Short-sighted: US decline hurts them most. Risky like Russian/Chinese oligarchs replaced. Some firms (Anthropic, law firms) succeed by staying independent, patriotic, attracting business. Standing for beliefs yields commercial/status benefits; US is key market.
Post-Trump norms won't fully normalize. Advise plan B for US business/security partners; NATO needs US-flake contingency. Next president could be JD Vance (one-party state) or Democrat exploiting broken system. Broken norms/laws enable anyone to abuse (e.g., threatening media).
Global partners hedge: UK talks with Macron/France, European meetings; Canada distant post-invasion threat. Worldwide, middle powers (Brazil, India, EU, Japan) form new ties—EU-India trade, Canada-EU security, NATO contingencies, Canada-China/India deals, France-Poland/Germany nuclear talks. Accelerated post-Greenland: Trump hinted US invasion of Danish territory; Danes planned blowing airports, shooting planes/soldiers. Europeans (pro-US Denmark, Germans) imagined NATO ally war, trade/NATO impacts. Traumatic; now boycotts (Canada/Denmark apps avoid US products), European cloud/payment systems. US tech dominance questioned.
Bad for Americans: post-war prosperity/security from global trade (especially Europe), NATO bases for power projection (Middle East, Africa), dollar dominance. Risks to US goods, bases, relationships.
Dictatorships lack questioning/advice. Trump misestimated Iran war; succeeded in Venezuela (removed Maduro), but Iran has embedded regime, decentralized succession, Middle East allies/proxies, Strait of Hormuz control. Advisors noted differences from Venezuela but not definitively.
Advisors hesitated to directly challenge Trump by saying "Mr. President, this is a bad idea," fearing dismissal, as he does not listen to other views. The speaker, involved in Iranian human rights organizations, criticizes Trump's utter failure to engage with or mention Iranians, despite the regime being one of the worst on the planet. No communication occurred with the democratic opposition or Pahlavi, son of the Shah and leader of monarchists in Iran, who represent alternative governments. Trump's real interest is dominating Iran to secure a share of oil revenues, similar to Venezuela, rather than promoting democracy.
Trump's thinking differs from previous Democratic presidents and even George W. Bush, who aimed to make Iraq a democracy despite mistakes and a bloody path—though Iraq is now a democracy. Trump seeks deals with dictators and moves on, as in Venezuela, which remains a dictatorship under the same regime but a different leader. Trump has been vocal about securing the oil, proudly mentioning boats taking the country's oil the same day as snatching a world leader, an action not befitting a 20th or 21st century president.
Ahead of midterms, Trump's approval ratings hit an all-time low, with devoted supporters like Tucker Carlson apologizing for backing him. The war in Iran backfired unexpectedly. Trump's repeated claims in interviews that the war is going great and "we've won, it's over" suggest the opposite, as his constant lying erodes trust—even if true, it would not be believed due to his track record.
Trump lacks strategy, historical knowledge of Iran or the region, and concern for post-presidency outcomes. He focuses on immediate wins in the current moment, driven by narcissistic mentality: winning contests with journalists, arguments about Iran, the war, or polls. This impedes strategic thinking requiring long-term plans and aims.
Attempts to corrupt and shape elections signal democracy in trouble: challenging election rules, disputing voter eligibility, preventing some from voting, or altering results. Any attack on elections undermines democracy.
Example: Viktor Orbán in Hungary lost an election after 16 years with two-thirds parliamentary control, allowing constitutional changes for electoral advantages like redrawing constituencies and rebalancing vote counts. In the US, gerrymandering—named after early 19th-century Congressman Gerry whose electoral map resembled a salamander—alters maps to favor one party. Nashville's sensible Democratic constituency was divided so Republicans win. Such maps cause democratic decline.
Other US concerns: Fears of ICE (paramilitary organization for immigrants) troops intimidating voters on election day in some states. Voter ID pushes require passports or birth certificates; 60% of Americans lack passports, many lack birth certificates. Married women need passport, birth certificate, and marriage license due to name changes—69 million women's birth certificates do not match current legal names. Young voters (18-29): 24% lack qualifying documents; minority citizens: 11% lack them vs. fewer white citizens; low-income households under $50,000: 1 in 5 have passports.
This narrative claims illegal immigrants vote (conspiracy theory with no evidence; illegal immigrants avoid attention). Used to disqualify Democratic votes in cities, as Trump did last election, explaining high urban turnout or demanding recounts. Ruling parties in declining democracies alter who votes and how votes are weighted to massage outcomes.
Civil servants handle governance: roads, health care, insurance regulation, pollution. Experts are needed—e.g., air pollution measurer should be an expert, not president's cousin; insurance regulator an expert, not vice president's friend. Corrupt autocracies appoint cronies.
Trump undermined Fed Chair Jerome Powell via investigations for fake scandals, pressure to resign or change policy; next appointee chosen for susceptibility. Civil servants like Fed Chair and Attorney General should act independently in the national interest, as in functional democracies like Scandinavia. In failing ones, they serve the president, family, or party.
Dictatorships control information. China constructs internet for government control since 1990s: no outside access, all users accounted for, linked to surveillance cameras and databases for tracking. VPNs exist but majority stay inside. Russia follows: Putin cut access to Western social media like Instagram, devastating influencers.
In the US, Trump administration shapes information: federal regulators pressure TV stations; president influences media company acquisitions (TikTok, CBS, CNN) for sympathetic owners. Modern control is via ownership, not direct censorship—e.g., Orbán's Hungary and Erdoğan's Turkey help allies acquire media, influencing content. Hungary's TV mostly controlled directly/indirectly by Orbán, though small independent sites persisted and proved important.
Extends to culture/universities: pressure to avoid critical output. Trump took over Kennedy Center, altering programming, shutting it down for two years. Both parties shift what's allowable when in power long enough.
Left-wing version: peer/institutional pressure leading to cancellations (job loss, exclusion). Right-wing: administration dictates media ownership, university courses/teachers—e.g., Trump told Harvard what to teach/hire, prompting refusal and lawsuit; no precedent.
True free speech advocates call out illiberal control on both sides. Examples: Biden-Harris pressured Zuckerberg to remove content; FBI asked Meta to demote New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story; White House emails to Twitter executives.
Difference: requests (e.g., flagged as fake/Russian disinformation) vs. taking over companies for presidential dictation, fines, or coercion. Section 230 exempts platforms from newspaper rules (libel, terrorist content) as they claim no control/responsibility.
Platforms should conform to offline laws: child pornography, ISIS recruitment illegal both ways. Tech resists responsibility; clashes like Brazil fining/shutting Twitter for illegal content. Democracies can enforce laws (e.g., election spending) on platforms harder to track than TV ads.
Europe must regulate to maintain sovereignty, or US/China-based platforms defy electoral rules on spending/advertising. Trade-offs: bad laws enforced, speech sensitivities (one's terrorist speech is another's free speech). Elected representatives, not Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, should decide rules.
Elon Musk stated in an interview with Don Lemon that X abides by the laws of every country it operates in. Don Lemon raised concerns about hate speech on the platform. Musk responded that they follow local laws. Germany bans Nazi symbols post-World War II as part of its successful electoral democracy, while the US First Amendment protects such speech, including racism on X. America should not impose its rules on Germany, respecting national sovereignty.
Racism may feel immoral but is legal in the US. Platforms face pressure to remove it, but it must align with laws. Historically, newspapers avoided printing racist material due to immorality or offensiveness. Social media debates hosting ugly content, as excess drives users away, including the speaker who reduced Twitter use due to antisemitism and racism. Speech norms evolve through constant negotiation.
Autocrats differ by controlling system boundaries and platform access, not debating hate speech. In China, the focus is criticizing the Chinese Communist Party.
Leaving China is not straightforward. Citizens face passport restrictions, visa needs, work opportunities, language barriers, and long-term settlement issues. Similar to Soviet Union exit problems. Some Russians remain due to aging relatives or inability to adapt elsewhere.
Autocracies create repressive physical systems beyond information control, using coercion against non-conformists. ICE in the US operates beyond traditional immigration enforcement: masked agents in military uniforms, unmarked cars, vans, unaccountable to local authorities, reporting to Homeland Security and the president, granting impunity.
During Minnesota protests, ICE killed two US citizens. The administration, including Vance and Gnome, immediately deemed victims guilty instead of calling for investigation, granting impunity. Militarized forces above the law become paramilitary, serving the ruling party, not citizens.
Empires last about 250 years per Sir John Glubb's essay "The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival," analyzing from Assyrians to British. Stages: age of pioneers/outburst/conquest (military dominance), commerce (wealth creation), affluence (shift from duty to selfishness), intellect (philosophy/education over defense), decadence (division, inequality, collapse). US from 1776 reaches 250 years in 2026, now in decadence: deep division, wealth inequality, debt, lost civic duty.
No belief in historical inevitability; it's dangerous, fostering complacency or fatalism. US democracy survival depends on choices, arguments, civic participation, not predetermined cycles. Post-Soviet 1990s complacency assumed liberal democracy's triumph, missing threats and autocrat rises in Russia/China.
Cycles exist but can be stopped or reversed. Poland transformed since 1980s. Human nature is constant, but history involves accidents like Yeltsin's choice of Putin (low-ranking FSB from KGB, chosen for loyalty, not foreseen as dictator). Alternative like Boris Nemtsov could have integrated Russia with Europe.
Comfort breeds boredom, leading some to undermine systems, as in Fukuyama's "End of History." Always a portion feeling left out seeks power, but not predictable by science.
Post-WWII democracies trended toward equality with welfare states, redistribution. Happy countries are equal, investing citizens. 1950s US had high mobility, prosperity, civil rights expansion alongside democracy. Now, tech oligarchs wield more power than politicians, controlling information, risking illiberalism to avoid even wealth distribution.
Vote in all elections, including local; know candidates. Autocrats foster nihilism ("they're all the same"). Putin/China want political disengagement. Watch leaders' rhetoric on press, judiciary, civil service—true democrats respect institutions for fair elections.
Some media like Fox appeal to right-leaning audiences for business; polarization-dependent models thrive. Neutrality hard amid accusations of bias. Incentives favor engagement via negativity (e.g., anti-Trump stories get 10x reach/subscribers). Geographic hiring in Democrat areas biases staff.
Media must fight capture. Podcasters feel tribal pressures: attacked for hosting Kamala Harris, Ivanka Trump, Michelle Obama, Gavin Newsom. Quote: "You have to join a tribe or you get killed by one." Focus on truth over sides; journalists gather facts, establish reality despite backlash.
Need business models for journalists verifying reality for democracy and national conversation. Podcaster agrees, values rigorous truth-seekers who revealed societal functions benefiting many, including himself as a young black man in business.
There is a danger that as AI develops and we get more information online, we lose touch with reality. AI models access only what's available online, but there's a whole world offline where things are happening. It's crucial to stay in touch with reality on the ground, like what's really happening in Ukraine and Iran, not just what's on our phones.
Algorithms with AI are becoming better at serving content to make us dwell, generating more ad dollars. This creates personalized realities different from others. For example, 'suggested for you' sections show content based on past viewing: if you watched a street fight, you get more, leading to the perception that everyone is fighting in the streets, making it harder to connect.
We already live in our own algorithms. Polarization is toxic to democracy because if the other side is seen as existential enemies rather than rivals disagreeing on taxes, normal democratic debate and elections become impossible.
[Host shows a New York Times wedding announcement from 1992 featuring the guest.] Married since 1992 to a Polish journalist who is now the Polish foreign minister. They married in Washington; he was born in Poland.
Politics has been a big part of her family's life. It's stressful due to constant polarization and divisiveness, energy-draining even to discuss. Social media made it more stressful recently.
The stressful part is living part of life in public while keeping some private. As a journalist, this helps understand the gap between public image and reality: people react based on TV appearances or stories, some untrue. She keeps this in mind when meeting public figures, dropping preconceptions unlike with a next-door neighbor.
She has seen this at home. They have compatible but somewhat different lives: she stays away from Polish politics, kept her different name, share many but not all views, different trajectories. Knowing what it's like to be a politician helps her understand them.
No interest in entering politics herself. Journalism involves finding and explaining things; politics requires arriving with views, convincing others—a different approach. She's not campaigning for a cause.
General goal, not specific like electing someone: remind people why democracy is important, maintain it, pay attention to its decline to fight back—not just in the United States.
This is personal; fascinated since her 20s. Saw the Soviet Union as a student in Leningrad (still called that), felt autocratic society briefly. Spent life understanding how it worked, why people went along, recently warning against it.
Her books: three history books, Gulag book, history of Ukrainian famine, book on how Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe post-war via regime change.
Realization around 2014-2015: living through historical shift, started recording as eyewitness. Twilight of Democracy describes a party she gave and how people she knew changed—many center-right anti-communists (Thatcherites, Reaganites) radicalized. First book in first person about something she'd seen. Affected by world, perhaps due to marriage to politician and being both American and Polish, seeing patterns in both places. Motivated last decade to explain it.
What would regime change look like in Western countries? Not just electing someone new—what would it feel like if values shifted?
For example, free speech: we assume it's good, debate hate speech. What if waking up in a society where free speech is bad?
Meritocracy: assume hard work and luck lead to success. What if only way ahead is a cousin in the ruling party?
Imagining this helps understand democratic decline, what we'd lose. Her book Iron Curtain covers it; also writings on Ukraine when Russians occupied east, changing society's rules.
We don't reflect enough on deep rules of our societies. Seems unimaginable—privilege of lifelong democracy, like fish not noticing water. History doesn't repeat but rhymes; cycles from human nature accelerate, but we have agency over time frames and slopes.
Believes in both inevitability and choice: human nature drives cycles, possibly inevitable we miss signs eventually, but we have agency over if/when. Human nature offers warnings—what to avoid. Strategy: focus on undesired outcome, work backwards to useful present behavior.
Most challenging: political shifts, radicalization, rise of illiberal groups among close people. Figuring out how to cope, understand, explain, deal with it.
Copes poorly; cares too much, unlike those who befriend everyone. Could interview anybody as journalist, even liars (but avoids constant correction). Would interview Trump, but challenge is untruths—argue or just listen? Worried it wouldn't be productive, no new/useful info. Would talk to reality-based people open to argument, no off-record demands.
Guest has many books, including a cookbook. Demystifying force in misty world of abundant information. Recommends her books (links below), continuations/adjacent to themes. Remarkable storyteller.
Conversation centered on democracy opened eyes to its value, risks, slippery slope. Easy to take for granted at 33 in West—normal water we swim in, unimaginable to lose.
Thanked for penetrating questions.
Keep The Diary Of A CEO in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
