Thinking about...

We as Americans are being invited by the Secretary of Defense to view an execution by firing squad over the internet. This is wrong in at least four ways. In the video I explain, and here I summarize.

It is wrong psychologically. It looks like revenge. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has chosen and lost a war against Iran. Given the extraordinary degree of self-promoting bombast by which he described this military adventure, this sorry result is a personal humiliation. It is undisputed that the defendant, Nidal Hasan, committed a horrible crime, and that he deserves punishment. But to rejoice exuberantly in the prospect of the public shooting of a Muslim, as Mr. Hegseth is doing day after day, is to turn personal defeat into a summons for all of us to live inside his personal need for vengeance.

It is wrong politically. To livestream an execution will not deter terrorism. It will invite terrorism, as Mr. Hegseth no doubt understands. The deeper political consequence, however, is domestic. The basis of politics in the Trump regime is sado-populism. Rather than offer policy that benefits Americans, Trump uses the government to hurt some, and offer their pain as a spectacle to everyone else. To livestream a public execution is to take that politics to its logical extreme. The federal government would be instructing us to observe, and thus participate in, a public killing. This invitation to us is a major step towards seeing politics only as the pain of others. While execution by firing squad is the endpoint of a judicial proceeding, broadcasting it is to advertise killing is a political transformation. If Americans view, clip, share, and permanently enshrine an American public killing in a million ways on the internet, we will moves towards fascist rituals of violence.

It is wrong historically. As Mr. Hegseth will know, public executions in the United States have a particular racial lineage. The lynchings of African Americans were meant to demonstrate that one group is always innocent and another group is always guilty. Lynchings were designed to humiliate the African American who was killed and to terrorize and stigmatize the group to which he belonged. Black men (and women) who were lynched were not (unlike Nidal Hasan) tried before a court of any kind; they were victims of racial terror organized by mobs. The purpose, as in Mr. Hegseth’s planned spectacle, was to involve large numbers of people, young and old, and to normalize a sense of enmity. Although the circumstances are different, to recommence public executions is to invoke a very specific history, and to summon some Americans to a sense of righteous innocence meant to prepare them to kill other Americans.

It is wrong ethically. It will not be hard to find external authorities who can help us to see this. The United Nations human rights office can remind us that a public execution is a form of torture. The president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops can tell us that a livestreamed public execution is a “barbaric promotion of a culture of death.” But we, all of us, all Americans, are being invited to observe and thus participate; the ethics of this are accessible to each of us, personally, as living human beings. The end of life is a mystery, one which arises from the dignity of life. No matter what an individual has done, the end of each life should be respected, for the sake of the dignity of life itself.

Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. Please subscribe.

Thanks for reading Thinking about...! This post is public so feel free to share it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Dear thinkers,

Tim recently joined Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) for a Thinking Live conversation. The biggest question during the conversation: where do Democrats go after the midterms? They planned nothing in advance, and the conversation covered a lot. Here are the big themes. Watch the entire conversation above!

1. Win, then act

Tim stressed what happens after a win: “My greatest fear is that Democrats win both chambers and then don’t treat it as a victory.” Rep. Auchincloss laid out three priorities: a bipartisan-friendly affordability agenda, accountability for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and a serious attack on dark money. On affordability, he said, “if the Republicans want to vote against, shame on them.”

2. The window to get money out of politics

Tim sees an unusual opening: “right now we have an unusual open window to get money out of politics,” because Americans currently blame Trump more than the system itself. Rep. Auchincloss backs overturning Citizens United through state corporate charter law, but warned that the climb will be harder than people expect. Even Massachusetts’ attorney general declined his ballot petition on First Amendment grounds. Still, Tim argued the free speech question has to be met head-on: “the purpose of freedom of speech is to enable the powerless to speak to the powerful, not the other way around.”

3. Tie corruption to your wallet

Rep. Auchincloss argued that corruption only lands when voters feel it, and used health care as his example. A billionaire with ties to the biggest insurers ran CMS and raised reimbursement rates for his own investors, which means higher premiums for everyone else. Tim’s takeaway: “Getting affordability and democracy together is the key.”

4. Lessons from Hungary, and what patriotism means

Rep. Auchincloss pointed to the anti-Orbán coalition as a model for Democrats: relentless focus on corruption, joyful patriotism, and a cross-ideological economic agenda. He added that Democrats need to “talk and act like we love this country,” and that America isn’t blood and soil: “Americans fight for ideas.”

Rep. Auchincloss and Tim ran out of time before Iran and Ukraine, so that’s for another conversation. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy their exchange above.

Until next time,

Victor

Thanks for reading Thinking about...! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

At night last month in Kharkiv, Ukraine, I was moved to record a cycle of thoughts. This is the final one: on basic political wisdom. By that I mean nothing more than a few answers to questions that I get asked a lot, on issues where historical examples, consensus in political science, and experience of recent elections give me some confidence in the answers. This is the video that is most directly relevant to the US midterms; but it also flows naturally from the larger concerns of the previous nine meditations, which were published here in the last couple of days and in September. Please feel free to share this one and all of the others! A last word: thanks to friends in Ukraine who help me to get around and therefore to think.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

I had an excellent visit to Kharkiv last month, during which I found myself with some free time by myself at night. With the war in the background, or rather in the foreground, I used the opportunity to record the thoughts that arose in that special setting. In this recording, the next to last, the topic is the harm done to us and our future by our dependence on oil and gas. In a war where the aggressor is entirely dependent upon hydrocarbon revenue, it is a hard reality to overlook.

The final Kharkiv Meditation, on political common sense, or basic political wisdom, will be released tomorrow, October 5th.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Last month I had some time at night in Kharkiv to record a few thoughts. One of the prompts was the regularity of Russian attacks; the other was a certain logic that led from one topic to the next. This one is about our capacities as speakers of languages. It follows naturally from earlier meditations on words and from the previous one on AI. I was also staying in the apartment of a very accomplished linguist, and reading his essays.

This is the eighth of ten of these Kharkiv Meditations; the last two will appear on October 4 and 5, so tomorrow and the day after.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

A great novel is here and I had the pleasure of speaking to its author. Please have a listen, and please read the book: American Hagwon. It brings the great themes of the last fin-de-siècle, astonishingly lively and plausible characters, and an exemplary combination of moral sensitivity and wordly realism. My enthusiasm will come through in the conversation, as will some of Min’s humor and wisdom.

Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. Please subscribe.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Dear Thinkers,

Tim recently sat down with Fox News commentator and pollster Jessica Tarlov for a nearly hour-long conversation, split between the state of the midterms and Jessica’s new book, I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends. Below are just some of the topics they touched on:

Are we headed for free and fair elections? Jessica opened by naming her worry directly: after Trump aired a taxpayer-funded campaign ad during college football and NFL broadcasts, talk of seizing voting machines, and open interest in a third term, how confident can we be in 2026 and 2028? Tim stressed that unfair elections don’t mean giving up; they mean fighting harder, as Hungary’s opposition did against Orbán even under worse conditions. He argued that real resistance requires a broad coalition, not just one party, and that Trump’s aggressiveness reflects weakness (terrible poll numbers, no real public support) rather than strength.

Corruption vs. affordability. Jessica raised a tension inside the opposition: should Democrats lead with investigations, or with kitchen-table issues like gas prices and healthcare? Tim argued this is a false choice. Hungary’s opposition won by fusing the two, showing voters that their daily struggles and systemic corruption were the same story. Jessica pointed to John Ossoff as a model for blending both. Tim added that democracy can’t be sold as a return to the status quo, since most people didn’t like the status quo either; it has to be framed as something new and forward-looking.

A world moving on without the U.S. Jessica raised Canada as an example of allies adapting without expecting normalcy to return. Tim reframed the picture: it’s not that Canada is moving on without the U.S., it’s that the “U.S.” as a government with a coherent national interest doesn’t currently exist in the way it once did. His hope is that if allies like Canada, the UK, the EU, and Ukraine hold their democracies together while the U.S. goes through this period, there will be working models to learn from later.

From politics to Jessica’s new book. The conversation turned to I Disagree, which Jessica described as a practical guide to arguing with people you disagree with without writing them off. She argued that the American left has often ceded hard conversations across ideological lines, and that reaching people means finding shared values first rather than leading with disagreement. Tim connected this to the corrosive effect of algorithmic media, noting that U.S. social media and AI are less regulated, and more damaging, than in most other countries, and that getting people back into human contact and real-world institutions (schools, hospitals, civic life) is itself a democratic act.

They closed by agreeing that dialogue alone won’t change the underlying conditions. Real change requires decisive electoral outcomes. Tim noted that with the wealth and technology available, a much better country is possible, and that the current mood of universal pessimism is itself a tactic borrowed from Putin’s playbook: convince people nothing works anywhere, so nothing seems worth fighting for.

I hope you’ll watch, enjoy the conversation, and share it with anyone who might be interested. There is a lot to think about here, and I think you’ll learn a great deal from Jessica and Tim’s exchange.

FYI: we’ve got a few more Substack conversations this week, including an exciting conversation with Min Jin Lee tomorrow about her new novel American Hagwon (12pm ET); Talking Feds with Harry Litman (11am ET on Friday) Rep. Jake Auchincloss (2:15pm ET on Friday).

See you all soon, Victor

Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Dear Thinkers,

Tim just finished speaking with Robert Reich as a guest on his Substack for a wide-ranging conversation about power, corruption, and what history can tell us about where America goes from here. Below are just some of the things they touched on (watch the full video above for event more):

* Superpower suicide. Bob opened by asking Tim to define the term he coined at the Council on Foreign Relations. Tim explained that conventional language about “national interest” and “state calculations” no longer captures what’s happening under Trump. The country is rapidly deflating its own power, both immediately, by torching alliances and losing wars, and over the long term, by hollowing out the economy, social mobility, and the research and educational base that power actually rests on.

* Why the second term is worse than the first. Bob pressed on why the unraveling has accelerated. Tim pointed to a chain of lessons Trump has absorbed: he was reelected despite attempting a coup, he was never prosecuted for it, and the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling reinforced the sense that he is above the law. Layered on top of that is a Congress that has abandoned its constitutional function and instead acts as a public-relations arm of the executive, all accelerated by the corrosive role of money in politics.

* Would a Democratic Congress matter? Tim argued yes, in two ways. First, Trump’s political brand depends entirely on projecting strength, an image that plays only within U.S. borders and, Tim said, is not shared by the rest of the world. That image can absorb some bad news, but not an unbroken string of it: a lost war in Iran plus a midterm drubbing could crack it. Second, and more conditionally, it matters what Democrats actually do with power. Tim urged that they announce anti-corruption and redistribution legislation right away, even knowing Trump would veto it, simply to stake out the position before public anger curdles back into “everyone is corrupt anyway” cynicism.

* Can tyranny’s end lead somewhere better? Bob asked, drawing on Orbán, Putin, Netanyahu, and history’s other strongmen, whether publics actually rebuild strong institutions after a tyrant falls, or whether cynicism wins out. Tim’s answer leaned on agency rather than inevitability: the U.S. has the wealth and technology to give people much better lives, but only if leaders name the current moment as the disaster it is and offer a genuinely forward-looking vision, rather than a promise to return to an idealized past.

* The money problem. Bob noted the flood of AI, crypto, and Wall Street money backing Republicans, the Citizens United landscape, and the reality that some Democrats are themselves dependent on big donors. Tim argued that separating money from votes is basic to democracy, and if they can’t move on it, Trump (or a successor) will simply out-corrupt them more charismatically, the same move Putin made in Russia two decades ago. Both agreed the real arguments to reclaim are patriotism, freedom, and humanity, currently deployed to protect wealth and “superintelligence” rather than people.

* Power beyond the ballot. Bob offered a note of optimism: the second Trump term has exposed the tech-oligarch structure of power more nakedly than ever, fueling public backlash against the “new robber barons.” Tim agreed, adding that power in November won’t just be lawsuits and suits and ties; it will also be protests, labor, and civil society. Beating Trump requires the Democratic Party, he said, but also something bigger than it.

They closed on a shared diagnosis: Trump is less a cause than a consequence of decades of concentrated wealth and power, and the real test isn’t just winning in November, but what vision fills the vacuum afterward.

I hope you’ll watch, enjoy the conversation, and share it with anyone who might be interested. There is a lot here to think about, and I think you’ll learn a great deal from Tim and Robert’s exchange.

Thanks, as ever, for being part of this community of thinkers.

As a note for upcoming Substack Lives this week:

On Thursday, Tim will host Min Jin Lee (12:30pm ET) to talk about her new novel American Hagwan. On Friday, Tim will speak with U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss on Friday (2pm ET). Hope you will tune in!

Until next time,Victor

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Dear Thinkers,

We live in trying and testing times, with a lot of noise and information being hurled, which is why there is no better time than a clarifying and thoughtful conversation with historian and journalist Anne Applebaum (Anne Applebaum), built around her September 14 Atlantic article, “MAGA Is Making the World Safe for Corruption.”

Tim and Anne had an extremely enlightening conversation that focused on a question Anne wrote about in her article: What does it mean to say the United States is undergoing a genuine regime change, and what does that change look like when it is exported abroad?

Tim opened by asking whether the article was really describing regime change at home, with a state refreshed by elections and guided by some notion of national interest giving way to overlapping oligarchical and ideological clans. Anne described a coalition of actors who have never before controlled the federal government: those bent on destroying the administrative state, Christian nationalists, white supremacists, and tech and crypto oligarchs. While they have different agendas, they share one project, which she called a revolution.

Below are some high-level themes that emerged during the conversation (which is worth watching in its entirety above):

* Extraction as the organizing idea. Tim argued that these clans treat the U.S. as a zone of extraction, and that the same logic naturally extends to every other country. Anne agreed, noting that for oil, gas, mining, crypto, and tech interests, foreign states are simply obstacles: the EU as a regulator, Brazil as a government that might restrict a social media platform. Anne also pointed out that foreign policy is increasingly run by businessmen with personal ties to Trump rather than by diplomats bound by ethics rules.

* Canada as a case study. Anne laid out a coordinated pattern when it comes to the U.S. government’s posture toward Canada: constant demeaning of Canadian sovereignty, MAGA influencers whose business model runs on outrage, open encouragement of Alberta separatism, and punitive tariffs that make little sense for Americans. She likened the two-track approach, normal diplomacy alongside support for movements that undermine a country’s sovereignty, to Bolshevik foreign policy.

* Who resists, and why they’re resented. Both Tim and Anne noted that the Bolsheviks didn’t think the state was real, and neither do today’s American clans. Historically, the people who resisted were often defenders of unglamorous ideas: constitutions, states, the rule of law. Canada’s Mark Carney may be modeling a response by doubling down on sovereignty and building ties with Australia, Ukraine, and the EU. Tim suggested that those who have sold out their own country come to resent leaders like Carney and Zelensky who haven’t, much as Putin resents Zelensky.

* Civilizations, not countries. Anne noted that the more sophisticated figures in the administration talk about a world divided into civilizational spheres of influence, where a dominant power imposes its will on its neighbors. Tim connected this to Putin’s turn toward “civilization” language around 2011-2012, which was used to deny the Russia-Ukraine border. When you believe in civilizations, Tim observed, you stop believing in states.

Tim closed by asking what a dramatic midterm victory might make possible. Anne cautioned that even a big win would be only one step, not the end of the story. Her top hope is that Congress would start playing its constitutional role: using the power of the purse, asking hard questions about State Department activities abroad, and launching a serious national conversation about regulating tech and AI. Tim added that Congress could also run investigations that change the atmosphere and help Americans see what is happening.

As you can tell, there was a lot to this conversation — and I hope you’ll watch, enjoy the conversation, and share it with anyone who might be interested. There is a lot here to think about, and I think you’ll learn a great deal from Anne and Tim’s exchange. And, as Tim noted at the end, take some time and read Anne’s work. You’ll be better and smarter off for it.

Thanks, as ever, for being part of this community of thinkers.

FYI: Tim is doing several Substack Lives this week — both as a guest and as a host. Here is the week so far if you want to add any to your calendar.

Later today (9/28), Tim will host Jessica Tarlov (12:30pm ET) and he will join the great Sharon McMahon (1:45pm ET) on her Substack.

Tomorrow, Tim will be in conversation with Robert Reich (1pm ET). Then, on Thursday, Tim will host Min Jin Lee (12:30pm ET) to talk about her new novel American Hagwan. To end the week, Tim will speak with U.S. Congressman Jake Auchincloss on Friday (2pm ET)

Hope you’ll tune in!

Victor

Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Given the air raids and such, I had some time at night in Kharkiv to do some thinking out loud. This is the seventh of ten videos that I recorded. There is a logical progression to these ten short meditations; by this point I was thinking about AI, which I suppose was slightly prompted by the tech in jet-propelled Russian drones and other Russian arms, but more generally appropriate after meditations on human ethical concepts.

I have some US media coming up on this channel and elsewhere this week, so the remaining three Kharkiv Meditations (on language, hydrocarbons, and political common sense) will be released on October 3, 4, and 5.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe