The disturbing relevance of Arendt's work is well-known. Nowhere is this more evident than in her three-volume work, “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, published in 1951.
It’s not necessary to consider Hannah Arendt the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. You can also take a critical look at her work, as Marie Luise Knott does in 370 Riverside Drive, 730 Riverside Drive, and as David D. Kim does in Arendt's Solidarity. However, it is worthwhile to revisit her writings periodically. For example, given the current circumstances, consider her three-volume work The Origins of Totalitarianism, first published in 1951. In it, Arendt examines anti-Semitism, imperialism, and totalitarianism. It is particularly the third volume on totalitarianism that makes one gasp at the parallels to the present day.Arendt focuses on the forms of totalitarian rule under Stalin and the Nazi regime, revealing strategies characteristic of both systems. The fact that these two dictatorships fought each other to the death is irrelevant to her; she discovers parallels in the methods they used to establish and maintain power. This naturally invites us to apply Arendt’s findings to the present day. For instance, we can use her work to determine the most accurate nomenclature to describe current Western forms of government, which are often trivialized as populist.
Authoritarian? Autocratic? Oligarchic? Fascist? Totalitarian?
Some examples: What comes to mind when you read that the propaganda of totalitarian leaders is based on the obvious fact that they are lying? That lies are only successful if they are “enormous” and create a fictional world by incorporating all the facts into a coherent context? This leads people to view everything as a conspiracy, no matter how absurd the content may be.Whose name comes to mind when she writes that totalitarian leaders boast of their past missteps — she uses the term “crimes” — with incomparable openness?And who bluntly announces that they intend to do the same thing in the future?
What comes to mind when Arendt writes that totalitarian systems operate without political goals but are intoxicated by their own momentum?
The “emptying of substance” and “freedom from the content of one's own ideology” are concealed by operating in permanent election campaign mode and shocking and astonishing the public with an avalanche of laws and decrees. According to Arendt, the irrelevance of the objective significance of the chosen topics is often surprising. One could also say that it is not minorities that drive a society into the abyss; rather, they are ideal for establishing an internal enemy to mobilize radicalized supporters repeatedly. Since the political movement has no goal, she states, it never ends and must constantly justify itself by producing a new enemy to fight.
Amid the madness of everyday life
The interpretation I am presenting here, which establishes point-by-point connections, may not be particularly elegant. However, I believe that Arendt’s relevance becomes clear once you see the connections. It becomes obvious how her analyses of two hostile systems that had just collapsed can be applied to the present.One suddenly understands the purpose of dishonesty, the point of bombarding the public with obvious untruths, distorted facts, and false accusations against political opponents. One understands how to numb them with absurd claims and rob them of their ability to judge. One is also reminded of fundamental convictions in danger of being forgotten amid the madness of everyday life: “The republic has its essence in constitutional government, in which power lies in the hands of the people. It acts according to the principle of virtue, which is based on the love of equality” It is hard to find a better description of the relationship between politics and virtue or morality.
A friend recently pointed out to me that the Federalists identified the three political powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches with the human faculties of will, reason, and judgment. When the legislative branch is neutralized by governing with decrees and the judicial branch disregards the courts, as is the case today, only the will of the executive branch prevails. In this scenario, reason and judgment are rendered insignificant.
Hannah Arendt also had a lot to say about this. She devoted an entire book of her political philosophy to the ability to form judgments. The three-volume set was titled On the Life of the Mind. There is no doubt that this aspect of life also needs to be nurtured.
10/2025