America Last: The Right's Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators

by Jacob Heilbrunn

A leading observer of the right explains the long, disturbing history behind Donald Trump’s admiration for Vladimir Putin and Ron DeSantis’s veneration of Victor Orban. Why is today’s Republican Party, which claims to be the defender of American values, so drawn to the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and the brazenly illiberal Victor Orban, who has crushed an independent judiciary and political dissent in Hungary? As Jacob Heilbrunn shows, the obvious affection conservatives display for foreign autocrats, though a striking and seemingly inexplicable fact of our current moment, dates to the First World War. Since that time, leading intellectuals, journalists, and politicians on the right have always been drawn to what they perceive as the impressive strength of authoritarians abroad―including Kaiser Wilhelm, Francisco Franco, Adolf Hitler, and Augusto Pinochet―who offered models of how to fight back against liberalism and progressivism domestically. For decades, conservatives railed against communist fellow travelers in America, but have their own delusional history of apologetics. In this fast-paced, often-droll account, Heilbrunn argues that dictator worship is a longstanding romantic impulse that fits firmly within the modern American political tradition―and shows what it means for us today.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American History, Audiobook, American

264 pages, Hardcover

First published February 20, 2024

Reviews

[Stitching Ghost · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this book did a pretty good job of showing what it purported to show which is that the love affair some elements of the right have with authoritarian leaders and antidemocratic sentiments is not new and has been present in one form or another for a long time. It's written in a rather approachable and compelling manner, but it is name heavy so get ready to take notes if like me you're terrible with names.

[Roger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Author Jacob Heilbrunn proposes that the Right has had a long admiration with authoritarian rulers and dictators. He makes clear that not all conservatives are fascists and vice versa. The author then provides many examples starting in the early 1900’s to the present of conservative individuals and movements that supported foreign rulers, including Hitler, Pinochet, and Putin. Many of these American Conservatives have been isolationists, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant for non-whites, and believe democracy is bad. They prefer to suppress freedoms that are not for white, mainstream people.

Authoritarian leaders that the US government has propped up, including in Iran, Chile, and Nicaragua, in the name of having a “friend” who will be for our best interest has led to many problems that world continues to deal with. Conservative thoughts and actions are scary and this book provides great insight on that.

I gave 4 stars as more detail of the era discussed would have helped. I love history and read on the topic frequently. More information would have strengthened the premise of the book. Well worth the read!.

[Chris Barsanti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Turns out it’s not that long a walk from William F. Buckley rhapsodizing about dictators like Pinochet to Tucker Carlson gushing over Putin.

[MikePeterS · Rating 3 out of 5]

As we near the halfway point in Trump’s first year of his second presidency, this was a nice crash course in understanding some of the currents and tides within the mainstream American conservative movement. How did we end up with a right-wing party, perpetually screaming about its steadfast commitment to “freedom and democracy”, who readily bends the knee for foreign autocrats like Orban and Putin? Heilbrunn makes the case that this enchantment with foreign strongmen is nothing new for the Right, and, in fact, has been a consistent theme in fringe conservative circles for most of the American Century. Under the guise of Isolationism, or America First movements, or MAGA, authoritarian-loving paleo-conservatives have managed to bolster their nationalist views into the spotlight, further emboldening them.

Admittedly, I’m still green to the details of American political history and foreign policy, and this is very much a book for folks who may have a bit more background and prerequisite interest in the stuff. So some of the details and implications of certain relationships and collaborations among people mentioned in this book was lost on me. I’d have been happy with another 100 pages explaining some of these things further. Nonetheless, this was a good, if not perfect, start for my dive into contemporary American political intrigue.

[Marty Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before reading this book I thought that the current love for dictators among the Republican Party was something new; after reading the book I see that it's simply a love for autocracy over democracy. Throughout the book it was shown that the conservatives believe that a strong leader will eventually lead to democracy, even though that's never occurred. There is admiration for leaders who can simply act without the restraints of a democracy which demands accountability. Over and again we see conservatives making excuses for the horrific actions of autocrats and dictators, always seeing the good in their actions and dismissing accusations of undue force.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone alive knows that Donald Trump seems enthralled with Putin and Ron DeSantis with Victor Orban. What about dictators is so attractive to a certain mindset? And when did this obsession become a passion of the Conservatives? These are some of the issues that Jacob Heilbrunn seeks to clarify in America Last.

Jacob Heilbrunn lays out early in the opening of the book his relationship with the conservative movement to establish his credentials for the history he reveals. He starts with the present day where the conservatives and many Republicans seem to think that Hungary and its culture wars is the future they should pursue. So how and when did this "homage to authoritarianism" develop?

So who all has the Right praised? "Kaiser Bill" for one was praised by Henry Louis Mencken and George Sylvester Viereck as an upholder of traditional values. Theodore Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, and H. P. Lovecraft adored Benito Mussolini, the Fascist ruler of Italy. Ezra Pound was another vocal advocate of both Mussolini and later Adolf Hitler. Elizabeth Dilling was a fascist supporter who accused the YMCA and the League of Women Voters as communist front organizations and college campuses as "hotbeds of radicalism." Then there was the America First Committee that openly support Germany with the assistance of Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, the return of George Sylvester Viereck, and the funding of William Randolph Hearst. After the war, came the era of McCarthy with the Senator hunting for "dirty Commies" everywhere while working on rehabilitating Nazi Germany.

In the 1950's Henry Luce and his wife Clara Booth Luce helped lead the charge against the U.S. State Department while fawning over Nationalist China's ruler, Chiang Kaishek. About this time William F. Buckley wandered on to the stage praising McCarthy while pushing a shift from isolationism to confronting the Communist menace through The National Review. However, Buckley, his brother-in-law Leo Bozell, Jr., and others also looked to Franco of Spain, and Salazar of Portugal for inspiration in opposing the rise of Liberalism in America. Then there was the Kirkpatrick doctrine which provided cover for the Right to cozy up with authoritarian governments such as Pinochet, South Africa, El Salvador, and Argentina.

In 1989, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Right lost a major focus. Patrick Buchanan started the charge of the new "Old Right" back to isolationism that puts America first leading to a fight between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives that is still going strong. He voiced strong opposition to George H. W. Bush in regard to the Gulf War, to the U.S. sending troops to Bosnia, and was warmly embraced by Russian presidential candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky for his stance on Jews. Then came 9/11 and the launch of the War on Terror. In George W. Bush, the neocons had a champion to try out their ideas in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The ultimate failure of the neocon plans provided the opportunity for the paleocons to come roaring back in the unlikely person of Donald J. Trump who made no secret of his love of authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin. Even Putin's invasion of Ukraine in flagrant defiance of treaties that Russia has signed has not slowed the love of dictators found in the Right today. It is amazing/appalling how many people have fallen in love with a nostalgic picture of a time that never was.

Jacob Heilbrun provides a very detailed schooling on the love for authoritarians that seem crafted into the DNA of the conservative Right in America. So if you want to know the background to the news stories of today, take the time to read America Last.

Thank you Netgalley for the chance to read this title.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

DNF

An ok but mostly familiar account of fascist tendencies, and more specifically, the America First theory, that have run through U.S. history from the First World War up through today. The rise of isolationist thought, eugenic theory, and antisemitism, especially among elites, wends its political and cultural way from WWI through WWII and the McCarthy era right up until today. Shocking, as always, are the many, many high profile Holocaust deniers along the way. The need for far right types to manufacture facts in justification of what they don't want to acknowledge is not new and the author reminds us of this over and over (and over).

There are lots of minor characters in this story and not all of them are interesting. For me the most salient parts of the book were those that discussed well known political figures like McCarthy, Bill Buckley, and Trump, but I knew a lot of that already. Nevertheless, the book was a reminder of the need for everyone living in democratic societies of the need to be always vigilant.

[ANN DIPIETRO · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very readable history of America’s fascination with foreign dictators

[Aaron VanAlstine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some factual errors (i.e. Charles Lindbergh didn't retire from the U.S. Air Force Reserve in 1940 because the U.S. Air Force didn't exist until 1947; World War II didn't end in May, 1945) are so blatant that you wonder how they got past a history book editor. Otherwise, an interesting read. It's heavily footnoted, so the overall veracity is not in question.

[InspireSeattle · Rating 4 out of 5]

When asked in December, 2023, Donald Trump readily admitted that, if reelected, he plans to be a dictator on day one. Yet, this statement seems to have only increased his popularity within the Republican Party. How can this be? To learn more, I read Jacob Heilbrunn’s book “America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.”

Heilbrunn writes that “a proclivity for authoritarianism is American to its core” and provides extensive details on how, for over a century, many leaders of the American far-right have expressed frenzied admiration for foreign dictators. They “viewed liberal democracy as tantamount to mob rule” and believed that “democracy encouraged the relentless rise of mediocrity.” Importantly, to successfully thwart democracy, it “required a great, even brutal, leader.” These beliefs were core to their idolization of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and to their siding with Germany in both World Wars. They pushed for “America First” policies, including isolationism. They believed in the racial superiority of White people, supported eugenics and the KKK, and hated Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal policies, such as Social Security. After WWII, communism became their favored threat to America, and they often labeled any policy they didn’t like as a communist ploy. To promote their views, they used tactics we commonly see today, such as revising history, creating conspiracy theories, and promoting myths. Most of these pro-authoritarian leaders were new to me, but some are quite famous, such as Henry Ford, William Randolph Hearst, Charles Lindbergh, Fred Koch, Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, William F. Buckley Jr., and Pat Buchanan.

Heilbrunn writes that today’s Republican Party believes that “authoritarianism, in one form or another, is superior to democracy,” and, by the way, America “is a republic, not a democracy.” Heilbrunn reports that Trump’s Republican party wants “to protect freedom in the name of limiting it. They aspire to create a revolution to preserve tradition, to capture the future by returning to a mythical past,” and that “to justify their power grab, they turn American political history on its head.”

Could the MAGA movement actually succeed in destroying democracy in America? If so, how would this actually happen? In his book The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton lays out the five common steps towards the creation of a fascist state. The first is to create a movement against a common enemy (demonic woke liberals). Second, establish a political identity for your movement (MAGA). Third, latch onto an established rightwing political party (Republicans), and use the democratic system to win power through an election (November 2024). Fourth, once in power, consolidate that power by hollowing out checks and balances, using all the levers that exist within the democratic system (see the Heritage Foundations’ Project 2025 for details). Fifth and finally, use your newly acquired absolute power to end democracy so you can stay in power indefinitely.

This process has been successfully repeated in other countries, and Republicans are actively reaching out to foreign authoritarian governments for guidance. For example, Republicans have explicitly expressed their admiration for Russia’s dictator, Vladimir Putin, and his recent war efforts in Ukraine. Why do they suddenly love Putin and Russia, America’s arch-enemy of the past seventy-plus years? Simply put, Republicans admire the way that Putin “puts Russia first,” and how he has taken the steps necessary to crush “woke Western liberalism.”

But today’s Republican Party has an even stronger love affair with the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. Heilbrunn writes that Republicans worship Orbán for his government’s “crusade on behalf of traditional family values, its crackdown on liberal institutions, and its simple hatred for migrants.” Orbán’s tactics to achieve indefinite dictatorial power have provided the primary model for Republicans. Orbán attacked and destroyed Hungary’s free press, as well as any opposition to his far-right party. He rewrote Hungary’s constitution to give him more power. He changed election rules and used massive gerrymandering to ensure he can’t lose an election. He uses his power to enrich his cronies. He implemented his own version of the Republican’s Project 2025 to stack Hungary’s judicial system and civil service with loyalists. Simply put, democracy no longer exists in Hungary. Yet, as unbelievable as it seems, Heilbrunn writes how making the “pilgrimage to Budapest” to study how Orbán has done this seems to be compulsory for today’s Republican leaders.

In its almost 1,000 pages, Project 2025 claims four basic principles. The first is restoring the traditional American family (as they see it) “as the centerpiece of American life and to protect our children.” This means attacking and eliminating anything they deem as unfit for America, including any non-heterosexual identity, abortion, reproductive rights, etc. BTW, any reference to transgenderism is pornography and must be banned. Their second principle is to dismantle the administrative state, including gutting business and environmental regulations, social safety nets, and civil rights protections, as well as killing renewable energy programs and increasing the use of fossil fuels. The third principle is to defend sovereignty and America’s borders as they see fit, which includes attacks upon and deportation of immigrants, exiting long-standing international alliances such as NATO, and forming new alliances with likewise authoritarian governments. The fourth principle is to secure America’s God-given individual rights to live freely, which, to them, means rejecting any notion of the separation of church and state, formalizing America as a (White) Christian nation, and attacking Americans who may not share these beliefs.

A key tactic in their pursuit of an American right-wing autocracy is something called “Schedule F.” Towards the end of his first term, “Trump endorsed Schedule F…but ran out of time to implement it.” About 2 million people work for the federal government. Schedule F will terminate nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with Trump loyalists, who will happily implement Trump’s desires, speeding along MAGA’s right-wing agenda while destroying the civil service profession. Schedule F also attacks America’s public institutions, its largest corporations, and America’s popular culture, for their embrace of international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union, and for their willingness to work with other countries.

In chronicling the American Right’s long-standing “abasement before foreign Tyrants,” Heilbrunn writes that this movement has consistently placed “American ideals, and American independence, last, not first.” In years past, this movement was (mostly) seen as an extreme fringe. Today, it represents the mainstream of the Republican Party. Given the recent Supreme Court ruling basically putting the President above the law, if Trump is reelected, one can reasonably expect all hell to break loose. Will MAGA succeed in turning America into a larger version of Hungary’s authoritarianism? The answer to that question will soon be upon us. Let’s hope that we tens of millions of regular American citizens will rise up and defend our democracy and principles of social justice.

[Susanna Sturgis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book to read after Rachel Maddow's Prequel. As the subtitle suggests, Heilbrunn looks beyond Nazis and Fascists to the authoritarians of either/neither ideology. In the process he sweeps up conservatives and ultra-conservatives who generally consider themselves too politically astute and culturally refined to follow a Hitler or a Mussolini, like H. L. Mencken, Charles Lindbergh Jr., William F. Buckley Jr., and Jeane Kirkpatrick. The dictators they're enamored of cover the 20th century and the early 21st: from Kaiser Wilhelm II to Spain's Francisco Franco to Chile's Augusto Pinochet to, in the here and now, Russia's Vladimir Putin and Hungary's Victor Orbán.

The current Republicans' bromance with Putin and Orbán still mystifies many liberals. As America Last suggests, it's consistent with the right's fascination with right-wing dictators over the decades. What's noteworthy is how blatantly anti-democratic the white right has become.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

f you can like a book that keeps you from falling asleep, I guess I like this. We have been a crazy country for a long time now. Here's hoping that we weather the current storm. I did learn much more about H.L. Mencken (whose writing I still admire, the man not so much...but I sorta see where he was coming from, intellectual, elitist, aristocrat-wannabe). And although I see nothing in common between him and Tucker Carlson, who I sorta think presents himself as a moron, I do sorta see how he fills the void in the media once filled by the likes of Mencken.

It's good that the book made it into the Trump administration.

[Steve Greenleaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”—Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr (1849) (“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

The above ditty struck me as apropos this book because I’d been under the delusion—or at least temporary amnesia—that Americans don’t care for foreign dictators. Or at least until of late, when we’ve seen an orgy of Orbán and Putin envy come to the forefront of the contemporary American Right (aka MAGA). But as Heilbrunn lays out in this book, the twentieth-century America Right, continuing on into our twenty-first century, has held a thing for foreign dictators. From pre-WWI Kaiser Wilhelm to Mussolini to Hitler to various tin-pot dictators and strong-men throughout the Cold War era, to our current spate of authoritarians around the world, all have received accolades from the American Right. It turns out that many of the justifications for supporting such individuals and regimes can easily be re-cycled: support for order, tradition, racial and ethnic purity, Christianity, and national strength. And opposition to democracy and contempt for the democratic electorate, perhaps foremost. When I started reading this book I had an inkling of this history, but not a full appreciation of the full extent of this trend. Heilbrunn’s book has provided a remedy for my deficiency.

A part of what astonished me in reading this book was the who’s who of the American Right during this period. I had assumed the catalog to consist of little known kooks. I thought that they came out of the shadows only in the Age of the Internet. Not so. H.L. Mencken, I knew of his proclivities, but not of William Randolph Hurst’s, or the members of Congress who were pro-German right up to the beginning of the American entry into WWII. And an industrialist named Fred Koch, who had a couple of sons, Charles and David. Do those names ring a bell? Some of these individuals were paid agents of the German government in both the WWI and WWII eras, but most seemed motivated by their anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian stances.

Heilbrunn’s book is a relatively straight-forward, chronological, historical narrative. There are a few side-roads that I would have liked him to have explored in much more detail. For instance, the relations of anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian attitudes and rural, small-town Midwest Republican isolationism. Are the two related or only sharing a ride? And how do the significant anti-New Deal populists, Huey Long and Father Coughlin, fit into this narrative? And how did this trend, which seems a persistent thread in American politics, continue to prosper? Pro-authoritarianism (the opposite of democratic liberalism) seems like a virus that goes dormant for periods only to re-appear in an outbreak of illiberalism. Our current outbreak stands to seriously, perhaps fatally, cripple our democracy, the rule of law, and our constitutional order. I grew up in the 50s and 60s, when the right was largely an underground, fringe form of politics. (N.B. I’m too young to have experienced McCarthy first-hand.) But then in the 60s, with tumult both domestically in the civil right movements and with the war in Vietnam, we began to see the Right come to the fore again. But even with Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, the extreme Right was tempered, kept out of sight, like a crazy relative. I observed this first hand, as my parents, especially my dad, were moderate Republicans who actively worked to keep the right-winters out of sight and out of office. (Perforce, I, too, was a moderate young Republican.) But with Pat Buchanan serving as precursor and with Newt Gingrich providing the shock-troop practices, the ground was set for Trump. Of course, events, like the debacle of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 2008 Crash, provided the fertile ground from which the dormant seeds of authoritarian populism could sprout and thrive. In such an environment, following the prior script, the authoritarians looked abroad for role models and found them abundant in the world around us: Putin, Orbán, Xi, Kim Jong-un, Erdoğan, Bolsonaro, Duterte, and Modi. All available role models for authoritarian illiberalism. Some gain power through elections, but even as they do, they make sure as far as possible to rig the system to suit their continued rule, just as Trump plans to do.

So, yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The same battles must fought again. The opponents of democracy, liberalism (broadly construed), and the rule of law change names and their role-models will vary with the trends of the time, but the basic impetus remains. This history, as history in general, provides us with perspective. We should not—I should not—be shocked at the statements of American politicians, former presidents and current members of Congress included, who support and wish to mimic foreign dictators. It’s all happened before. The struggle is ongoing.

N.B. The extreme Left, too, has had its foreign dictator envies: Stalin, Mao, Castro & Che, etc. But in U.S. history, the Left hasn’t ever been very strong. All the anti-Communist hysteria of the post-war eras (WWI and WW2) and the Cold War era notwithstanding, the extreme, authoritarian Left has never been strong in the U.S. The extreme Right would have us believe the Left was always dominant or ready to grab power and crush liberty, but the opposite is true. Even in periods of (mild) Left dominance, the Right has never been completely sidelined. The greatest threats to democracy, liberty, and the rule of law have always come from the extreme, authoritarian Right, not the extreme, authoritarian Left. Each is a threat, but they are not at all equal in the potency of their threats.

[Steve's Book Stuff · Rating 4 out of 5]

America Last is Jacob Heilbrunn’s book-length argument that the political right in America has been fascinated by foreign dictators and strong men for more than a century. He draws together a sweeping set of facts to illustrate his argument and does so in a mostly engaging way (though the book does drag a bit in the middle).

There’s a bit of a gap, at least as far as mainstream conservatives are concerned, in the mid-twentieth century. As Heilbrunn himself acknowledges, the Cold War was a time when both sides of the political aisle were united in the fight against the spread of communism. Both sides felt it would be better to have democracy take root amongst our allies, even as they acknowledged the realpolitik belief that in the fight against “godless communism” they wanted allies whether they were democracies or not. They really weren’t going to be too fussy about how those allies conducted themselves in their own nations.

That era of unity across the aisle lasted from the 1950s through the end of the Vietnam War and President Carter’s subsequent shift in the focus of American foreign policy to human rights above all. That focus waned somewhat under President Reagan, who championed a renewed fight against communism that lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. President Bush the Younger co-opted the focus on human rights and the desire for the spread of democracy (which would be the guarantor of those rights), in his Global War of Terror. In that war the neoconservatives favored the notion of nation-building and planting the seeds of democracy in Iraq, which did not go so well for them.

Nevertheless, Heilbrunn is able to marshal an impressive timeline of the Right’s support for dictators. He starts before the US entry into World War I, with America on the sidelines. Here Heilbrunn focuses on newspaper columnist H.L. Mencken, a curmudgeon if there ever was one, and a fervent fan of the German Kaiser. Kaiser Wilhelm was a racist nationalist who despised democracy and did all he could to restore the Devine Right of the Kaiser to rule Germany as he saw fit.

Would it surprise you to know that in America, “Kaiser Bill”, as they called him, was viewed by the right as a wronged figure, who stood up for traditional values that the Western powers were vilifying? On the right, it was Woodrow Wilson (a racist himself) who was the threat to world peace, not the Kaiser.

Mencken wasn’t much of a fan of democracy himself and was fascinated by the German aristocracy. He claimed to be a descendent of that aristocracy himself. His work propounding the arguments for Germany and against Britain helped sway American opinion in favor of neutrality.

That work also echoes across the following century. The notion expressed today that Vladimir Putin is a misunderstood figure in the West, who is leading a country intent on championing traditional values that the West vilifies, is a very direct echo.

Of course, there’s a whole century between Mencken’s embrace of the Kaiser and the Trumpists embrace of Putin, during which Heilbrunn lays out right wing infatuation with Mussolini and Hitler. It was then that “America First” as a slogan first became popular, among leading figures in America who pushed America to remain neutral in the second World War, while secretly being in the sway of the German Fuhrer. Anyone familiar with Rachel Maddow’s podcast Ultra and subsequent book Prequel will find many of the same characters she talked about covered here.

In the years of realpolitik, the romance didn’t altogether disappear. Instead, it moved further to the right, where it surfaced in the work of such recognizable conservative luminaries as William F. Buckley Jr., Pat Buchanan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

Buchanan was Communications Director for Richard Nixon. A pugnacious man with a firm belief in his own words and opinions, Buchanan called in the spring of 1980 for a return to America First. He became one of the first figures tagged with the term “paleoconservative”, a contrast with the “neoconservatives” who became prominent in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and whose prominence peaked during the Iraq War. Buchanan’s run for president in 1992 against the incumbent George H. W. Bush helped push the neocons aside. That presidential run set the stage for the rise of Donald Trump.

Among other things, Buchanan was one of the founders of The American Conservative, a publication in which many of Heilbrunn’s own articles have appeared. That’s one of the reasons to pay attention to this analysis. Heilbrunn has worked with some of the leading conservative commentators and figures of the last twenty years. He knows his subject.

There are arguments to be made about the romance of some on the American Left with dictators, and those arguments would have as much truth to them as Heilbrunn’s book does about the Right. They don’t diminish the message behind this book, and it’s meaning for us in America today.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always enjoyed Heilbrunn as a foreign policy historian, and he did a great job with this short, incisive book. JH argues that the right has long admired foreign dictators for a few basic reasons. One is that they feel like American society is slipping into liberalism, decadence, social dissolution, etc, and they believe that dictators from Franco to Putin represent traditional values such as religion, family, binary gender relations, etc. The chapters on the Old Right's skepticism of New Deal Democracy and their affection for, or even preference for, right-wing autocracy of some kinds was fascinating. This extended even to more 'mainstream' figures like William F. Buckley, who was an apologist for pretty much any dictator who was right wing. So discomfort with liberal democracy, demographic/cultural change, has driven many on the right to build alliances with foreign illiberal forces and try to remake America in the image of Spain, fascist Italy, contemporary Hungary or Russia, etc.

It was interesting to see neocons like Kirkpatrick featured in this book. Kirkpatrick famously created a rationale for supporting right wing dictatorships in which she argued that left-wing dictatorships are inherently totalitarian and never evolve into democracies, whereas right wing dictatorships are less intrusive, more traditional, and that they often evolve into democracies. There's some evidence for this, although it was also a convenient rationale for backing some pretty nasty regimes. I did think there was an important difference between the neocons and the Old Right or the modern MAGA right when it comes to democracy and dictatorship. Old Right figures like Bozell or Kirk and more modern "integralists" like Deneen or Vermuele are A. often skeptical of democracy itself, believing that power should be concentrated in the hands of a traditional elite that can preserve the dominance of one cultural or religious group, often by seriously attenuating democracy and individual freedoms. B. Inherently skeptical about whether other societies, especially non-white, non-Christian ones, can ever be democratic or republican or what-have-you.

Neocons are interesting to me, especially the 1990s-2010s generation, because they were champions of democracy as a universal good, which I think now looks more like an aberration in the history of conservatism. Kirkpatrick didn't see autocracy as better than democracy, like many on the right did, or as something that other cultures could never adopt. She was creating a rationale for supporting right-wing autocrats as the lesser of two evils and a Cold War necessity. I think that's a difference that Heilbrunn overlooks at bit, which deserves a little more spelling out.

But that's my only critique of a concise and interesting book that really helps put the MAGA right's affection for right wing autocrats in historical perspective. Highly recommended.

[Le Téméraire · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heilbrunn's book "America Last", is a concise historical overview of the far-rights flirts with foreign dictators, who,mainly but not always, also hail from the far-right, since 1900. The main argument Heilbrunn puts forward is clear and can be divided into three parts:

1) A faction of American far-right activists has constantly idealized and endorsed foreign dictators - ranging from Kaiser Wilhelm II, Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Pinochet, to Putin - to promote their own ethno-nationalist ideas domestically.
2) The (per se legitimate) American foreign policy tradition of isolationism and non-entanglement has been misused by these activists to hide their real intentions - a preference for authoritarianism - behind the veil of "realism", suggesting that it is in America's interest to be on friendly terms with such regimes.
3) The domestic agenda of these far-right individuals is essentially anti-American, as their preference for various versions of autocratic regimes (monarchies, fascism, theocracies, a mix of all) essentially runs counter to the very idea behind America, its founding story, constitution and arguably its incredible success.

The argument is compelling and well made. However, I give the book only three stars, because it lacks some nuance in two regards:

First and foremost, because Heilbrunn is not consistent in distinguishing between when sympathy and open support for dictators is given due to purely ideological affinities for the regime in question and when it is done primarily due to foreign policy considerations. Especially under the Reagan area, but in the Cold War in general, "containment" and thus the support of non-communist regimes whit-large, was a bi-partisan foreign policy. Republican and democratic administrations supported foreign dictators. The narrative around this support may have differed and some, like Kirkpatrick, may have gone much further, but the rational behind it was the same: to stop Communism from advancing.

Second, because the book essentially leaves out the flirt of the far-left and certain Democratic activists for various murderous Communist regimes, it portrays the romance of the far-right as somewhat unique, which it was not. This is not relativize that romance, but to contextualize the tropes that were used to justify it and which were common both among the far-left and the far-right. Making reference to some the apologetics on the other side would have given the book a bit more analytical depth.

Still a refreshing read, with many interesting historic anecdotes. As a European reader, I was especially intrigued by the prominence of Catholics amongst the individuals presented. Recently, a lot of media attention has been given to Evangelicals and their ultra-conservative views, but seems that, historically, Catholics were the most prominent advocates against many of the liberties America has fought for so long...

[Richard Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of this book covers much the same ground as Rachel Maddow's "Prequel," but isn't as good as Ms. Maddow's book. The second half covers more recent flirtations of right-wing politicians with foreign dictators, such as Orban and Putin.

Mr. Heilbrunn is correct that there has been a long history of American conservatives cozying up to dictators, but sadly there has been plenty of cozying up to dictators by politicians in all parts of the American political spectrum. It's been a problem of American foreign policy for a long time. I'm fine with a little realpolitik. Sometimes you need to support a bad guy because he's the only stable solution or because he's the best option for maintaining a balance of power against an even worse guy, but that doesn't mean that we need to lionize authoritarian rulers. Yes, it was shameful how many people on the right thought that the Nazis were not so bad, but it was equally shameful how people on the left were fooled by Stalin. The current wave of dictator worship is largely coming from the right, but I think that Mr. Heilbrunn is wrong suggesting that the Putin/Orban worshipers of the MAGA right are heirs to an exclusively right-wing tradition.

We need to have a foreign policy of constructive engagement with all sorts of rulers and governments. It should be aimed at building a world order of peace and prosperity, and it will necessarily involve having relationships with governments that we don't like so much, but I'm also prepared to draw the line in cooperating in any way with countries that engage in truly reprehensible or dangerous behavior. I'd like for our country to be a beacon to the world, showing other countries the way that a broad pluralistic culture of freedom, opportunity and mutual respect can work, though we have been sadly deficient in those areas recently and have never been as good at it as we are in our own imagination. I'd also like to consider what is working in other countries and be willing to experiment at home with things that work well for other people but not if that means emulating lying oppressive authoritarians.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book in many ways. It traces the long standing tradition in the American right of affection, admiration, and support for tyrants, dictators, and authoritarians abroad. It is the history of an intellectual tradition or leaning within a broad movement. It also does something that others have done, but does so very well, and with new research --connects Trump's entire foreign policy with many strands of isolationist thought. While the particular focus is on admiration for right wing leaders abroad, it also includes trade, hatred of alliances, love of Russia, and so on. Many in the intelligentsia are familiar with how leftwing intellectuals have been prone to admire Lenin, Stalin, Ortega, Castro, or Chavez, but this story is less well known. Also, by contrast, very few leaders of the Democratic Party have taken part in that admiration of left wing tyrants, but so many prominent Republican leaders (Trump, Reagan, WF Buckley, McCarthy, Tucker Carlson and on and on and on) have done so on the other side.

The book is also well written for the most part with these exceptions. First, there is a methodical way in which new characters are introduced that becomes, well, a bit boring. Why do we need to know where everyone was born? Also, with this many characters, working with this many magazines and think tanks, with this many odd connections, I would think a large chart might have been useful? Obviously, it would look more like a conspiracy theory than the author would want (or argues) but it would be helpful to visualize these relationships that get very complicated.

Also, I like to think I have a good vocabulary (I used to teach the GRE!) but there were so many words I had to look up. I suddenly have sympathy for my readers when I use a GRE word like sybarite but here, Heilbrunn has me beat with: pursuivant, ocholocracy, flagitious, gallimaufry, mephitic, camarilla, mulcted, atrabilious, and one other I can't recall. So much of this seemed like showing off, frankly. There are, in almost every case, a far more common (and yet still erudite) synonym to be used. Given that American English has the largest working vocabulary of any world language, it is always possible for an author to be off putting without purpose, and this is a failing in a good writer.

Still, despite these flaws, this is a very good read and an important book. It is carefully documented in its findings.

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting history of American right wingers' infatuation with dictators since about 1900. It didn't start with Trump and Putin. It goes all the way back to the Kaiser before, during and after World War 1. He had many admirers in the US especially among Americans of German descent. They admired the way he stood up to left wing progressives and all the "modern" ideas that the conservative, right wing Americans despised.

Hitler was also very popular with these Old Conservatives - even after the end of World War 2 when the Holocaust was common knowledge! Many of them were Holocaust deniers. Hitler was lauded partly because he fought against communism. Communism became the bete noir of the Old Conservatives. Their influence is traced by the author through the decades down to Trump.

[Bryan Fichter · Rating 2 out of 5]

America Last tackles a worthwhile and timely subject but it feels like the author couldn't decide whether the topic deserved a long magazine piece or a much more substantial book. It's not well edited; in one chapter the points made in the opening paragraph are disproved by the next two or three pages. The author also has a habit of including every character's DOB/POB for some reason, giving some of the prose the feel of a Wikipedia article. A lot of this material is covered better in Rachel Maddow's Ultra podcast and her follow-up book, Prequel.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author, whose work in the introduction leads me to believe is not any sort of liberal or progressive, approaches the subject to look at longstanding trends on the American Right have connections to or appreciation for overseas autocrats. While he does not let Leftists with similar affections off the hook, I wondered more than once as I made my way through the book how much of his subjects’ approval was pro-autocracy and how much was anti-communist. The book does not differentiate those ideas enough for my personal preferences.

[Katrina · Rating 3 out of 5]

America Last does a good job of highlighting how Republican Party leaders have always had an affinity with dictators. The author provides many examples that span the entire 20th century. Without covering details, i learned a lot from this read and understand the relevance to today’s political world.

This is a heavier read that’s rather dry. If you don’t typically gravitate towards nonfiction that’s written like this, skip this book.

[Ellen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, that’s a doozy that maybe everyone should read like right now. I think my heart rate was accepted the entire time I was listening to this. It’s like a thriller except it’s real life and not very enjoyable - entirely too stressful. Good to know our country has always been filled with people obsessed with dictatorships, but not particularly comforting to know that. I actually had to stop reading this to read a fluffy fiction book about more to relax. Now it’s time for another one of those.

[Mel · Rating 5 out of 5]

So how did America reach this point in our politics? In fact we have been coming to this point for a long time. This is a remarkable history of the far right conservatives that have long wanted to end democracy and establish a more authoritarian rule where the white Christian elites impose their rule on everyone else. I would encourage those who think this is a unique moment in American history to make time to read and see the evolution to get to this point.

[Rachel Willis]

This was a shallow overview of the subject, focused narrowly on a few individuals rather than giving a broader view of how these individuals attitudes were both shaped by and shaped the thinking of the time leading to the present. Interesting if you're unfamiliar with the topic, but not exactly convincing.

[Robert Sayre · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is written in a sort of encyclopedic manner in terms of reciting a long litany of episodes evidencing the rights enamor without autocracies. It could have been more engaging. Nevertheless, I was surprised to read about the widespread support for Nazism back in the 1930s. I think that part of our (US) history has been largely whitewashed.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written primer on the Right's longstanding love affair with anti-democratic tyrants. It's also a reminder that: 1) Trump is just the apotheosis of this long line of traitors; 2) the elitism of the Right is far more noxious, dangerous and anti-American than all the chatter-crap we have to hear/read about eltisim on the Left. How ironic.

[Tobbe Ingemansson · Rating 5 out of 5]

European, Swedish, born 1959; We have a war in Europe again!!! This book is a scary read but explains it very well! We are 100 years back in time!!! Then it was the same as now, only the names were different; KAISER WILHELM, STALIN, MUSSOLINI, FRANCO, HITLER... New to me was the strong fascination in the USA of these dictators, both then and today! Horrifying! History repeats itself!

[Yuri 🌊 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Think of this as a starting point of your research into all of the key players brought up in this book. Jacob Heilbrunn does mentions specific meetings, conferences, and even titles of essays, books, newspaper articles, and speeches given by these people. You will take this information and look into everything from there.

[Kevin Sandell · Rating 1 out of 5]

Didn't make it more than 30 pages in, and I (as a layperson) had no idea what this author was talking about. Too many vocabulary words to look up, and clearly written by someone who wants to prove their intelligence, versus someone who wants to allow readers of all kinds read this book.

I was really excited about it initially, but couldn't get into it or finish it.