Watch now   Both Sane and Insane - My Conversation With Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat About Understanding Trump And Other Autocrats Enjoy this lively, informative conversation with one of my most important teachers..... Simon Rosenberg Nov 24 Afternoon all. Sending a long a new interview with one of the heroes in our fight for democracy, historian, bestselling author, and fellow Substacker, Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat. I asked Dr. Ben-Ghiat to come talk to us after reading her recent essay, “Both Sane and Insane”: Autocratic Visions Of Governance, Chaos as a Strategy. It helped me better understand what we are seeing everyday, and how to think about Trump and his regime. This passage in particular has stuck with me: Autocrats don’t recognize boundaries between public and private, and they don’t see democratic ideas of conflicts of interest or accountability as legitimate or applicable to them. Only fools are in office to serve the people: rather, the party and government and society are supposed to serve the leader. Every sector of government and society has their role to play in increasing the leader’s wealth, making him richer, and puffing up his personality cult so that he feels invincible and untouchable by the law. The judiciary exists to solve their personal and presidential legal problems and enable their vendettas against people who challenge them; state security forces must harass their enemies and stop public dissent; media elites must stop negative coverage and spread government talking points; religious elites must proclaim him as fulfilling divine will, and so forth. This proprietary mentality feeds corruption because it translates into a belief that as head of state, it is their right to possess and exploit anything in the nation, from female bodies to natural resources to economic assets to information—the latter being the most valuable currency, as the former intelligence official Vladimir Putin well knows. The lack of boundaries also means that their personal obsessions and grievances can shape domestic and foreign policy. State resources are reallocated for vanity wars, ethnic cleansing and population engineering schemes, and grandiose public works projects that attest to their manic need to leave their mark on the nation. The strongman has no problem building palaces and ballrooms in his honor while impoverishing the population, as Mobutu did in Zaire and Trump is starting to do now. When public welfare is removed as a goal, the office-holder can focus on what really matters to him: consolidating power, making money, and humiliating and punishing his enemies. I loved our conversation. I always learn so much from Dr. Ben-Ghiat. She has been a very important teacher of mine, helping me better understand what we are up against with Trump. It was a thrill to have her join us today. We cover a great deal of ground in the discussion - Trump’s corrupt preference in dealing with other autocrats like MBS and Putin; his expectation that the military will follow him, not the Constitution; his need to create “strongman surprises” and the likelihood he will invade Venezuela to make himself full of power again; and how someone like Trump falls……. There is so much in here, so much to chew on and work through. Get to it when you can - I promise it will be worth your time. A recording is above, and an ChatGPT aided rough transcript is below. To dive deeper into Dr. Ben-Ghiat’s thinking check out her most, recent book, Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, and become a subscriber to her terrific Substack, Lucid. You may also be interested in these two recent articles from Lucid: The Noose and The Swastika: MAGA’s Big-Tent Racism “Diplomacy” As Cover For Shake-Downs And Self-Dealing From me, two Hopium essays we reference On whether we are seeing a bipartisan pro-democracy opposition form to Trump, a legit structural break from him The Vicious Cycle Of A Failing Strongman Both sane and insane, but mostly insane: Remember you can find all of our interviews and podcasts on the Hopium site under Podcast and on YouTube, Apple Podcasts and Spotify too. Keep working hard all and thank you for rallying for Rep. Aftyn Behn. We’ve raised almost $13,000 so far - incredible work everyone! - Simon Rosenberg and Ben-Ghiat Transcript, 11/23/25 Simon Rosenberg: Welcome, everyone. Simon Rosenberg here, Hopium Chronicles, back with a really special event today. One of my most important teachers—someone who’s been critical in helping me navigate and understand this extraordinary moment we’re all stumbling through—Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat. Welcome, Ruth. Welcome, professor. I’m really grateful for you being here today. I’m a big fan, as we’ve discussed and as you know. For those who are watching—Hopium people here today—there’ve really been three people I come back to as touchstones to help me navigate all this: Timothy Snyder, Anne Applebaum, and Dr. Ben-Ghiat. They’ve been the “holy trinity” for me over the last few years, particularly because of the way Ruth talks about the psychology of strongmen, which has been so important for those of us who’ve grown up in a democracy and don’t have the experience other cultures have with strongmen. Ruth, I asked you to come on because you wrote a piece a few weeks ago on Substack that I found very powerful for this moment. It’s called “Both Sane and Insane: Autocratic Visions of Governance and Chaos as a Strategy.” Could we start today with you reflecting on that article as a way into what’s happening right now? Dr. Ruth Ben-Ghiat: Yeah, thanks. I’m so pleased to be speaking with you. I’ve also always learned so much from you. As you know, I didn’t know much about American politics. My niche has been using my knowledge of global autocracy and strongmen and applying that lens to America. Early on, when I was researching my book Strongmen, during Trump’s first presidency, I realized—much to my dismay—that his personality was very similar to the strongmen I study. I had known this for a long time. I started writing about him in January 2016, saying that if he got the presidential nomination, he would likely develop a personality cult. Nobody wanted that op-ed—it seemed too weird at the time. The outcomes of this personality type vary, but the psychology is consistent. “Sane and insane” was a description used by Idi Amin’s personal physician about him. We have fewer Idi Amins today, but the personality remains the same. One hallmark is that these individuals don’t recognize any boundaries between public and private. If they come to power, everything is theirs—resources, natural resources, the population, bodies, wealth. It’s all theirs to exploit and manipulate. They don’t think about the public good. Governance becomes something entirely different. If you’ve always lived in a democracy—even with some crooks in power—this is a qualitatively different mindset. Public welfare has nothing to do with it. You’re in office to consolidate power and enrich yourself. Simon: Right. I love this graph you used: “The strongman has no problem building palaces and ballrooms in his honor while impoverishing the population—as Mobutu did in Zaire and Trump is starting to do now. When public welfare is removed as a goal, the officeholder can focus on what matters to him—consolidating power, making money, humiliating and punishing his enemies.” We’ve seen a lot of that in the last few days. His humiliation of Zelensky again—his attempt to emasculate him for the umpteenth time. I think in his historic repudiation last week—one of the most lopsided congressional votes in American history—within 48 hours, he threatened to kill six Democratic legislators and started torturing the Ukrainians for sport, putting an outrageous deadline on them and publicly humiliating Zelensky again. I’m trying to put these events into the sane/insane theory. I often talk about his insanity and his madness, though it’s not discussed openly in public discourse—his lack of connection to reality, the fact that everything he posts is disconnected from truth. Any help you can give us in reflecting on the last few weeks through your framework? Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Two things. First, this is a syndrome, and we’re experiencing this syndrome in an accelerated form. These are already unstable, mercurial people. There was a famous quote about Hitler—he made decisions based on the last person he spoke to. Mussolini constantly changed his mind. He would say to do one thing in the morning, then the opposite in the afternoon. They surround themselves with sycophants and often family members. I have an article about sons-in-law—because now Kushner is back doing negotiations on Gaza and Ukraine. These inner sanctums are made up of sycophants, family, special envoys. They often exclude cabinet officials. Everything must be personal. They’re not interested in competence—they’re interested in loyalty. Over time, they start believing their own propaganda. They get into a state of megalomania. They believe they’re infallible. Mussolini’s slogan was, “Mussolini is always right.” Idi Amin had delusions of grandeur. Trump does too. All of them do. They start acting in ways that are counterproductive because they don’t get good feedback. This happened to Putin when he invaded Ukraine. He didn’t consult sanctions experts or even his own military. He lost more generals in three months than at certain periods in World War II. The world saw how ravaged his military was by corruption and kleptocracy. This is happening now. And when you have the personalization of power, foreign policy becomes privatized. It becomes about deals among autocrats. Autocracies like Saudi Arabia or Russia become ideal partners—they don’t have to answer to anyone. As we saw with Khashoggi, if you criticize, you get cut up with a bone saw. Foreign policy becomes a charade. I wrote an essay before the recent revelations about this supposed peace agreement that was probably written by the Kremlin. It was suspicious that Witkoff went there and all his meetings had Kremlin translators. It was a total charade. The real business is unknown. Simon: What’s remarkable is how consistent this is with what we’re seeing. The Miami meetings in October—Witkoff, Kushner, and Trump’s emissary, who wasn’t a diplomat but a banker controlling sovereign wealth. It seems reasonable they were getting a bigger bribe from Putin to deliver Ukraine to him. Rubio was cut out—consistent with personalization. It’s easy to imagine Putin increased the size of the cut. Jared sitting at the table in Geneva again. These facts line up with your analysis. Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Yes. I predicted Rubio would be cut out. This is how they all operate. Mussolini made his son-in-law foreign minister—then later executed him. Privatization of policy means the country is for sale. Foreign policy is about deals. When you see Jared, you know it’s not about principles—it’s about profit. We’re adjusting to a kind of diplomacy that is autocratic. It’s a paradigm shift. Simon: Can you talk about the “strongman’s surprise”? I think it’s relevant to recent events. Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Yes. They surround themselves with yes-men, believe they know everything, and get into trouble. They become unpopular, then more repressive. When their backs are against the wall, they deliver a “strongman’s surprise.” That could be declaring martial law or a state of emergency—autocrats love states of emergency. Erdogan uses them frequently. Or they go to war. There is political science literature calling this “gambling for resurrection.” Putin’s initial foray into Ukraine fits this. His polls were bad; he needed something extreme. Trump is similar. He was mortally offended by the No Kings protests. He didn’t get the Nobel Prize. There’s the Epstein issue. Putin likely has information—information is Putin’s currency. This is when autocrats do desperate things. Simon: And his spokesperson literally said, “When the president makes a decision, it is legal.” The combination of the state and the man. Their overreaction to the military oath video was a giant authoritarian tell. Pete Hegseth even threatened to court-martial Senator Kelly. The military seems to be resisting—this is affecting their Venezuela gambit. CBS polling says only 30% of Americans would support military action in Venezuela. Everything he does drives his numbers further down. Republicans are freaking out. Even Rand Paul said Republicans will rebel against an invasion. How do you imagine the next few years going? Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Strongmen live in fear. Their nightmare is leaving office. They lose immunity, protection, and their ability to dominate. I haven’t seen any of them leave voluntarily. Money will not move him—he is already enriching himself enormously. As for Republicans rebelling—it could happen, but historically a domesticated party is slow to act. They were made to forget that they were almost killed on January 6. They were subjugated. Many are afraid for their lives. But I agree with your analysis. And early on, I wrote that out of chaos and corruption, a reckoning will come. This has been so extreme—like after a coup or revolution. I think a reckoning is coming. People are waking up. Simon: His decline since June has been amazing. Elon publicly emasculated him. Every strongman move since then has made him less popular. No “rally around the flag.” His numbers have fallen continuously. The election results shattered the bubble—New Jersey especially. All their polls were wrong; they got crushed. Now Venezuela polling shows 65% or more oppose military action before anything’s even happened. His ability to persuade the public has evaporated. Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Two reasons. First, this project is truly to wreck America—education, health, science, public health—so thoroughly it’ll take generations to recover. Second, they erred in choosing Vance. He was supposed to carry American autocracy into the future—bankrolled by Peter Thiel—but he is unlikable and unelectable. Independents don’t like him. It was arrogance and fanaticism—authoritarians make unforced errors. Simon: Yes. I want you to come back to talk about Vance. But I also try to remind Hopium listeners that we can’t let his insanity become our own. Most Americans still operate in reality. They want a president, not a dictator. The intensity of opposition to him is shocking—even to me, after 30 years reading polls. It’s deep and consequential. Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Yes. And many Republicans are finally recognizing the wreckage. Their cowardice after January 6 was staggering—they ran for their lives, then were required to forget it. Simon: One of the only ways we get through this is that his unpopularity becomes structurally consequential. The next is creating breaks inside the GOP. Their majorities are tiny. They’ve acted as if they have 70% of Congress. If Democrats can build bipartisan coalitions—tariffs, Russia sanctions, Ukraine funding—Trump could face humiliation after humiliation. Punchbowl News reported panic inside the House GOP, talk of retirements that could shift the majority to Democrats. Every crack encourages more cracks. If we foster that, we can accelerate this. Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Yes. When people unite, they have power. Better late than never if Republicans finally wake up. Simon: Ruth, you’re amazing. Thank you so much. Everyone—buy her book Strongmen, subscribe to her Substack Lucid. Thank you for your patriotism and your fight. You’ve gone all-in, and we’re grateful to have you with us. Dr. Ben-Ghiat: Thank you. I’ve learned so much from you. You’ll have to come on Lucid and continue the discussion. Simon: Thanks, everyone. If you liked this, hit like, subscribe to Hopium and to Ruth’s work on Lucid. Keep working hard. We’ve had a good few weeks—let’s make the next few even better. Take care. Thank you for your financial support of our wonderful Hopium community. This support allows us to do our work, and keep most of our content free for others to learn from and enjoy.