Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism

This book gives you a close up look at how people that once suffered under Fascist, Communist or Dictatorial regimes and gained freedom of government based on hodge podge of western values have (often willingly) slipped into the iron grip of a powerfully manipulative few. While autocrats have learned to streamline and soften the blow with their deluge of alternative facts churned through modern public relations operations. Everyday citizens, talented and educated are replaced by loyalists without experience and face a dangerously perilous future for themselves and their families. Every person eventually reaches a crossroad: Tow the party or autocrat line no matter how absurd or contradictory to what may have been said days before or risk losing everything. The book tells the tale of those who have been through what some in the west are only experiencing now for the first time. It is a warning that should not be taken lightly. The book shows that once momentum of an ideologue begins, the competence or lack thereof in its leader means far less to the average person then the opportunity for benefits, status and sense of belonging to something greater then themselves (real or perceived) that rains down on its loudest and most rabid supporters.

I found the book to be a hodgepodge of the author jumping around to political issues important to the author, with little defining narrative beyond I think this is bad. The message of the book, which I found rather interesting, was constantly undermined by a polarizing view of a given issue. The author seems to castigate any political policy or movement she happens to disagree with as authoritarian, without respect to what authoritarianism actually is. As an example, one example in the book goes into how authoritarians demand conformity, and are resistant to if not outright intolerant of diverse ideas. As a classically liberal, american conservative my mind went to the american left, that cancels those it disagrees with, chants speech is violence, is obsessed with politically correct, carefully confirmed speech, and will throw anyone that challenges the status quo out of polite society. Which treats people not as individuals but as members of groups. Isnt that exactly what she talked about, being resistant to diverse ideas, trying to cram people into the hegemony or accepted thought? I fully expected the author to go in this direction, but she didnt. Instead, what was the great example of being resistant to diverse thought? Resisting immigration. Really? Maybe it is because of the different political and social landscape around me, but the book seems very arbitrary in its examples, with an obvious political bias. Im not sure the book ever really defined authoritarianism, it more used it as a bludgeon to beat people, movements, or ideas it disagreed with. Im not sure how Brexit, which is authoritarian…it seems quite the opposite to me, it would seem to me its a desire to escape the oppressive authority of Brussels, but thenas an american I must admit my ignorance on the subtlety of that situation. Regardless, the book has a few interesting insights, albeit buried in a sea of partisan name calling and agenda driven examples that amount more to I dont like X. My recommendation, read the road to serfdom that actually lays out the path to authoritarianism, this….not so much…

First of all this book gives an excellent perspective from the authors point of view on how many public figures, especially her former friends have fallen into advocating authoritarian policies and ideas. It really gives an excellent perspective into these political figures thoughts and motivations for advocating conspiracy theories and undermining the rule of law. It is also really interesting to understand that the Author is talking about individuals who used to make up her own social circle. This is especially intriguing from her perspective because she has written many books on past authoritarian communist regimes in these countries. Reading this book you get the sense that this is not just a political discussion but also the authors personal attempt to make sense of why so many of her previous friends have fallen for such bankrupt ideologies. She reads this book herself which is quite suited to the way that this book is written compared to her other works. The only downside to this personal perspective is that it makes this book feel much less authoritative than her other works such as Gulag or Iron Curtain. If you have not read any of her previous books I would recommend reading at least one of them before reading this one.

Apparently when people get elected that she doesnt like or agree with, democracy is on the verge of ending. Also for someone to be so pro democracy why does she support unelected bureaucrats in institutions that arent in the constitution? She knowingly lies about the views of Reagan and Thatcher when it comes to the European Union. She claims many times that Reagan and Thatcher supported it when the Union didnt even exist as we know it until 1993. Thatcher supported free trade throughout Western Europe but never supported unelected Supra-National institutions that over turn democratically enacted laws across Europe. Its also strange how she endorses many left-wing movements like LGBT and open and free immigration and claiming how not endorsing these current movements are an end to democracy and the Reagan/Thatcher movements when they themselves never supported such things. Another curious thing Applebaum seems to no longer understand when she clearly used to in her other books about Communism is that cultural power is stronger then political power, most of the time. A couple years in control of government is meaningless compared to the power of cultural trends as politics is downstream from cultural. Does Applebaum really believe that Trump having the top seat in the executive branch for 4-8 years is a democracy ending event when most of the Universities, Press, Hollywood, and millions of federal government officials actively oppose his presidency and agenda? Ill always read Applebaums work as much of it is highly researched and well written. Another thing about Applebaum that I like is that when I read her work I can never predict where shes going with it. Other writers I can predict the ending conclusion based on the first paragraph. Shes contra to most political writers as she understands when the left goes to far as most writers can only understand when the right goes to far.

Loved it. Well written with parallels and comparisons to past and present societies. Worth your time.

Galaxyaudiobook Member Benefit

- Able to comment

- List watched audiobooks

- List favorite audiobooks

- Bookmark will only available for Galaxyaudiobook member