Sure. There’s lots more to say, e.g., about whether Arendt got the history right, whether there’s an important theoretical break between totalitarianism and authoritarianism, whether her work is useful today, etc. I’m just trying to keep the various issues/concepts distinct.

Of course, none of this amounts to a defense of Arendt’s account.

That wasn’t clear to me from your initial post. The distinction matters because, for Arendt, totalitarianism was centrally defined by an all-encompassing ideology, which underwrote its claim to “natural law.” That’s potentially very different from an “arbitrary and capricious” authoritarianism.

Not sure if you mean “totalitarian” rather than “authoritarian,” but if so, I don’t think this gets Arendt right. See, e.g., this post the1313.law.columbia.edu/2023/12/06/b... by @bernardharcourt.bsky.social

I agree. And it is striking that many public-interest lawyers sought to defend litigation as democratic (with mixed success at best). You may enjoy my review of Sabin's book here: https://michiganlawreview.org/journal/beyond-big-government-toward-new-legal-histories-of-the-new-deal-orders-end/