Critique of Jacob Heilbrunn's Implied Hitler-Trump Comparison via Ryback Book Review
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "The Hitler-Trump Comparisons Are Back, Courtesy of the National Interest | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." August 8, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author accuses a journalist (Heilbrunn) of sneakily comparing Trump to Hitler by reviewing a book about Hitler's rise and highlighting suspicious parallels—without ever saying Trump's name. The author argues this comparison is both dishonest in its indirection and factually unfair, especially given Trump has survived real assassination attempts.
Conclusion
Jacob Heilbrunn's review of Ryback's book on Hitler is a disingenuous attempt to draw an implicit Hitler-Trump comparison without explicitly naming Trump, and this comparison is both unfair and inaccurate.
Premises
- Heilbrunn reviews a book about Hitler's rise to power and highlights parallels (constitutional path to power, attacks on press, purging civil service, tariffs, attacking central bank, weakening legislature) that closely mirror common criticisms/descriptions of Trump's actions.
- Heilbrunn never mentions Trump's name but uses language like 'Project 1933' that deliberately echoes 'Project 2025,' a term associated with Trump's agenda.
- The book's author, Timothy Ryback, has explicitly stated in interviews (outside this review) that he sees 'disturbing echoes' and 'rhymed couplets' between Hitler and Trump, revealing the underlying intent.
- Many of the parallels Heilbrunn draws are either factually inaccurate or unfairly applied to Trump (e.g., Trump did not attempt an illegal putsch on January 6; tariffs and civil service reform are not equivalent to Nazi purges).
- Comparing Trump to Hitler is especially inappropriate and offensive given that Trump has been the target of multiple actual assassination attempts.
- By obscuring his true target through indirection and literary suggestion, Heilbrunn is being deliberately misleading ('too clever by half') rather than making an honest, direct argument.
Assumptions
- Readers can reasonably infer that Heilbrunn intends the Hitler comparison to apply to Trump even without explicit naming.
- Drawing structural parallels between historical and modern political figures necessarily implies moral equivalence.
- Ryback's personal political views (expressed elsewhere) reflect the intent behind Heilbrunn's review of his book.
- The actions Trump has taken (tariffs, civil service changes, criticism of the press) are meaningfully different in kind from Hitler's actions, not just in degree.
- Making indirect comparisons through suggestive language is inherently more manipulative or dishonest than explicit argumentation.
- The term 'Project 2025' is fairly attributable to Trump despite originating from the Heritage Foundation.