I went into this podcast hoping for an actual investigation, but honestly it feels like the show decides the conclusion before the conversation even starts. From the opening minutes, Trump is placed alongside Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Putin, XI, before we hear a single piece of analysis. That kind of framing tells you the direction the story is heading before the experts even speak. Most of the guests are people who already specialise in studying authoritarianism, so naturally everything they see looks like another step on the “autocratic checklist”. It ends up sounding like a feedback loop - academics validating other academics who already share the same premise. So, not balanced. And the Stephen Miller part? The show treats having a behind-the-scenes adviser like it’s some uniquely sinister Trump-only phenomenon. Every administration has their “architects”, including Obama, but that context never gets mentioned. If Trump is genuinely becoming an autocrat - in the real, historically grounded sense - that does scare me. Not just for the U.S., but for the rest of the world. The idea of a major superpower shifting toward authoritarian rule comes with massive geopolitical consequences: weakened alliances, more global instability, and a huge question mark over checks and balances that used to feel solid. I don’t take that lightly. That is why I was hoping this podcast would approach the topic with real curiosity, not a pre-packaged narrative. When the stakes are this high, we need something deeper than an echo chamber. We need debate, not just [biased] diagnoses. I wanted a broader range of voices and a more open-minded investigation. What I got was a neatly framed answer to a question that deserved way more nuance. The Conversation keeps insisting on its academic neutrality, yet this podcast, and many articles besides, pushes an unmistakably left-leaning narrative into the public space - and its done under the guise of “expert analysis”. That doesn’t just weaken the argument; it makes it look like you’re not interested in keeping Australia’s political landscape neutral at all. Why is it that left-leaning institutions like universities and media outlets weren’t nearly this laser-focused when left-leaning presidents were in power? Obama oversaw massive deportations, drone warfare, and surveillance (of US citizens) policies, yet those rarely get framed in these grand “steps toward autocracy.” But suddenly, when the target is Trump, every decision is treated as an existential threat to democracy. It raises the obvious question: is the concern really about “autocracy, or is it simply about politics? - If this is meant to be objective journalism, it needs far more balance. If it’s political commentary, just admit it - because right now it is dressed up as analysis when it’s clearly anything but.
