I agree D4N. Trump seems to have studied il Duce's stage presence: scowling face, chin thrust out, arms fold across his chest - it all says "I am the boss; I am in charge; don't F*** with me."
And like Fromm says, there's method in this madness, because a lot of people with the authoritarian personality look for these strongman-leaders to tell them what to think, what to do, who to blame, who to hate. "I am your voice" says elite-ruling-class-billionaire Trump and his millions of weak cowardly gullible followers chant yes, yes, yes. Be my Daddy!
Mussolini actually invented the word "fascism" and for him it was all about projecting the Big Daddy, Big Man image. And in the end, when his country was in ruins, they hung him (upside down) from a lamppost.
Yes they did; He knew his audience well and appealed to their passionate natures - also an Achilles heel in some senses. Fittingly in the end, he was undone by those passionate natures. It occurs to me that we may have as many Italian and Italian descent souls in this country - perhaps more than the current population of Italy. In a craven way, that gives me hopes. Bravo friend
I wonder whether Italy's old experience with il Duce is influencing today's Italian-Americans' view of Trump as another il Duce? Do they see the danger? Or is it too far in the past?
You're too kind; Thank you for permitting my thoughts. From my own personal experience, I see lots of mixed reactions, but my gut tells me from a few experiences that they are still vulnerable, as an ethnicity and cultural history; some of it is ingrained it would seem. The young seems more so, owing to time / distance passage, and some of it 'lost cause' type mythology and passion; powerful stuff. I adore them anyway and keep one eye open.
Thank you for this review, Abraham. It sounds like an interesting read. But I'm skeptical about whether Donald Trump belongs in this grouping.
Given the multiple similarities among the various dictators named, I can't help but notice, and be grateful for, one trait that sets Trump apart from the others: laziness
Trump wants to act like an all powerful ruler, and revels in his image as a "Strongman". But it seems he never wanted to actually do anything of significance. Unlike Recep Erdogan or Victor Orban, each of whom has a life-long history of political activism, Trump never held or aspired to public office before he decided to run for president. Nor was he ever seriously involved in party politics. According to some reports, he didn't really care that much about becoming president in 2016. And once elected, he didn't even bother reading his daily briefings.
I'm fairly certain neither Erdogan nor Orban plays golf every day. The sad truth, one that his gullible followers are only now beginning to understand, is that Trump is not really a strongman at all. He's just a con man. Your designation of him as "America's Make-Believe Strongman in our Age of Delusion" is delightfully apt.
However, his being included in a study like this one only adds to the myth, and ultimately prolongs his con.
He still is; anyone who believes he's there for YOU is getting conned. He's just saying what you want to hear, but Trump doesn't give a shit about you or anyone else.
Trump is lot older than the other "dictators". He really isn't even physically fit for the job. We have to set an age limit so we don't have mentally unfit and sickly presidents.
Ted Turner was from wealth yet he was a hard worker and activist.
One of the "limits" on who can run for this office (ie, the 14th Amendment) is currently before SCOTUS - more than mentally or physically fit, it addresses "insurrectionists" - and I have a bad feeling that the Trump-heavy majority will back Trump. So if an insurrectionist can't be stopped from running, then I doubt there will ever be any limit.
If Jan.6th wasn't an insurrection I don't know what is. I was a tourist at the Capital on a day they were open. On Jan. 6th they were closed for the Electoral Count procedure of Congress. Rally leaders told to stay away.
We had to go threw security with IDs and be registered, etc. We had to stay with the tour guides at all times. No climbing up the building outside, breaking windows or stealing computers in Congressional offices. Putting up a hanging structure for VP Pense, etc. No people hanging from the trees with assault weapons. No beating Capital police with poles, etc til blood flowed. They killed them. They had no right to do any of that to the "People's House". Who the hell did they think they are? I feel minimum time in jail for an insurrectionist is 20yrs. I see little regret from all of them. They would be there again given the chance and funds. The event was paid for just like Trump rally people. Corporate money is laundered threw those rallies, etc. No way do I believe Trump poll numbers.
Really scary poll today: 62% of Republicans believe there is "solid evidence of wide-spread voter fraud in 2020" and 34% believe that "FBI organized the Jan.6 attacks".
Repeat lies enough times and (some) people believe them.
It's like millions of Americans are living in a fantasy world, and don't believe the reality that we all saw on Jan.6.
There were also Republican Congress members who actively helped the rioters, gave them tours of the tunnels, etc, while Mike Johnson was up to his ears in the fake electors plot.
The Republican party has become a criminal, treasonous enterprise, but millions of voters BELIEVE these guys, and will vote them back in unless a Bluenami crushes Trumpism once and for all. An existential election pitting lies against truth, fantasy against reality, autocratic fascism against democracy.
But some Dems have also been drinking the Koolade if they're considering voting for 3rd party candidates.
Trump belongs here and in prison for treason, fraud and being a mob leader. All Fascists are lairs, cons and crooks. Hitler melted down prisoner's gold teeth. Stole works of art all over the world. Took property in the name of the people (like RW Netanyahu).
Story is Trump didn't consider running for president until Melania's father's KGB connection told him he was a talented, wonderful man who should run for president. Donald always needed money from his bankrupted projects. He bragged he could make money on being president. They keep punishing him for his bad behavior which doesn't stop him since the corporations fund his loses. My opinion is It's not his cult at rallies but the CEO corporate funds who money launder millions to him. Our local food store corporate owners made twice its profits this year and send him our hard earned money to oppress us. "Doughnuts for Fascism" is what they should name those stores.
While everyone is blaming Biden for inflation, the oil companies and pharma companies and banks and agriculture corporations are raking in record profits, but no one blames them. Koch brothers (oil/gas/coal billionaires) pump gazillions into Republican campaigns to insure that no one interferes with their mega-profits (climate change? they don't give a damn).
Big Corporations call the shots, and reap the profits. It's a totally crooked system, but anyone who knocks it is called a communist!
Trump's been lying and cheating and grifting his whole life, and he was rewarded with the Presidency. In office he took millions from China (not to mention son-in-law Jared getting 2 billion from the Saudis - for what exactly?)
Trump and company are crooked as hell, and must be stopped.
I wonder if Trumper-lovers will ever wake up to what a treasonous crook he and his family are. But then again, Hitler was adored by masses of Germans, and we all know how that turned out.
Demand our laws be enforced. Hitler just ran over everyone without accountability. Now we know how it happened. You can't solve a problem until you acknowledge that it exists. Now we know it does. We should make sure they do. Demand accountability from our media for their propaganda and lies. The airways belong to the people not corporations.
Hitler had his cult believe they were "special" (like Fascist Israeli leader anti-Arab propaganda). Hitler's "superior Arian race" and hate of Jews, etc. Look how "superior" they were as murderers with their tyranny and hate. RW Israel has become who they despised. Ironic is it not?
Germany is the size of Texas. No way could they control the world. A fantasy like Trump's. They had to use children and Algerian mercenaries as military in the end. They also ran out of gas.
Israeli Zionists might think about wanting to rule the world cause they are "special". The Jewish Zionists are a small population compared to their Muslim enemies all over the world. The Muslims out number the Christians too. It is the same god and he doesn't do politics. It's man who uses god as a tool for power and wealth.
As you say, Trump's inclusion in a book about political Strongmen is questionable, and perhaps the author included him as a basic sales decision: including Trump in the discussion would definitely boost sales.
I think there are several points where he can legitimately be included (lying, nepotism, attacking democratic institutions the press, the courts, the election process itself, demeaning women, scapegoating immigrants, etc.)
But you're right about some points that would disqualify him: his legendary laziness, and his lack of political activism are good examples of what sets him apart from the others.
But on the author's "golden rule" - that these guys are in it for their own personal benefit rather than for the good of the nation - on that central point Trump should be included.
There are a number of "strongman" characteristics and profiles described in this book, and I found many places where Trump fit right in, but like you say, there are also points where he doesn't fit.
Overall, the editorial/sales decision to include him (I'm surprised the title isn't "From Mussolini to Trump") as well as the number of points where he fit the Strongman pattern - these warrant his inclusion. Whether it bolsters his myth and prolongs his con, yes, it probably does. But the author is a historian, and she makes her case and places Trump into the context of other historical "strongmen" (none of whom are presented in a positive light) so we can make our own decisions as to his place in history.
For those who continue to buy into his myth and con, there are photo-shopped "trading cards" of their Make-Believe Strongman, but for the rest of us, I think the book deserves credit for presenting a comprehensive study of "strongmen" past and present, and of her attempt to place Trump into that context.
She also notes that most of them had bad endings, leading their countries into wars, failing to fulfill their promises, and often facing the wrath of their gullible followers when the trance is broken, when the spell is lifted.
Even when it was written three years ago, the author suggested that the Trump-trance was beginning to break, and I thought it was a pivotal moment in his career arc when Matt Gaetz recently nominated him for Speaker of the House and Trump got - one vote! (And his trading cards appear to have lost 80% of their value.) So for all his desperate online tweeting, he's passed his expiry date.
The saddest part though is the Swamp Creatures that rose in his wake: MTG, Boebert, DeSantis - they're still operating from the Trump playbook (say outrageous stuff, grab the headlines!). Trump can fade away on his golf course, but these other Swamp Creatures will still be in our faces for years to come - and it's their fate that will seal the fate of the country - will Jim Jordan and MTG set the agenda for America, or will voters turf the whole lot of them in '24 and return to sanity?
But that will also depend, I think, on the quality of candidates and policies put forward by the Dems.
Trump is just beginning his dictator agenda. He will start on day one. His revenge is killing his enemies, destroying America (I believe for Russia) and making our military his SS police. "God and Country" tyranny.
Yes...he is not done yet and will fit into the other Fascist megalomaniacs of history. Killing 1M Americans over his lies about COVID and god knows how many deaths with his Afghani withdrawal and putting the Taliban religious crazies back in control. Who approved that? Not Congress...just Trump. That was unconstitutional and treasonous.
20 yrs of US war defeating the Taliban and Trump decides to put the enemy back in power. Insane no one was outraged...at least on the media. Bet a lot of X military were furious having risked their lives in Afghanistan. A lot of present military had to risk their lives to save themselves and Afghanis fleeing the country. Many of them having helped us defeat the enemy.
Remember the worst thing of all. Reagan created the RW religious Taliban to defeat the Russians in his Cold War. The Russians went bankrupt and we almost did. Talk about blow back.
It seems even Democrats are agreeing with Trump lately. Lots of them complaining about CNN and others propagating fake news. It just took them a bit longer to realize it.
As for your comment, I think there is one thing that all "sane democrats" will agree with about Trump - right from her 1st election he did predict that Marjorie Taylor Greene would be the "future" of the Republican Party, and in fact she does seem to be the one in charge (when she's not having hair-pulling fights with Boebert).
I kid you not, check out the Democrat threads of your choice and you will see them calling CNN fake news. Trump should have copyrighted the phrase instead of grifting me for donations.
Yes there are. They are not Fascists trying to become dictators. That violates our Constitution and laws. They think law breaking is acceptable to win at all costs. Who lie about COVID allowing millions of Americans to die, etc. Whose the sane ones?
GG, I always appreciate your comments, but don't you think it's a bit of an over-generalization when you talk about "Democrats" as if they are one homogenous block of like-minded people. There's probably as wide a diversity of thinking among Dems as Repubs. Sure, "some" Dems are expressing anger at CNN for over-playing the Biden-docs thing, but now we've got a Pence-doc thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get an Obama-docs thing - probably because all these guys go through so much material that there's bound to be stuff left behind in different places at the end of their terms.
But I personally think that Trump took his docs for nefarious purposes rather than just accidental carelessness that probably accounts for Biden and Pence.
My point is, it's not productive to stereotype and generalize about tens of millions of political followers in either party. There are moderates and extremists in both camps.
And it's interesting that you admit to being grifted by Trump. He's always been a great conman, and he's still at it. ps, did you buy his SuperHero Trading Cards? Just kidding. But they did come in handy as props for my review of Strongmen!
I don't believe CNN is fake news. I want every instance of illegal classified document storage reported, and I want every instance of resistance to recovery of documents reported. I usually vote Democratic. Obviously, I have a nose.
The term "fake news" originated during the 2016 election to label social media posts that presented "news" that was completely fabricated, often using visuals borrowed from unrelated items online. Mr. Trump appropriated the term to apply to networks whose reporting he didn't like. There was no fake news. There was, as there has always been, biased reporting according to partisan lean and journalistic errors. Mr. Trump set a new precedent by equating biased reporting with fake content. Very few reports on any network, liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning, are actually "fake," though breaking news can include big errors. I personally have never called anything on a major network (including Fox) "fake news"; the term is idiotic.
I have not found reports of any Democrats calling CNN "fake news." A search on the web hasn't shown me any (could be my choice of search terms), and the Wikipedia page on CNN controversies doesn't list this one. (I have encountered via search reports of Democrats criticizing Biden *on* CNN.) Where are you getting your information, GandalfGrey? Can you point us to a few specific instances from which you've drawn this universal conclusion.
No, the mainstream media term was "misinformation" or "disinformation", both being generically used for anything they deem not aligned with their fake narratives.
The Twitter files exposed the truth about our secret agencies collaborating and/or covertly coercing media outlets to silence the infidels opposing their fake narratives. This abuse of our own agencies was once limited to foreign manipulation and nation building. Today our own public services are conspiring to do this against their own client, we the people.
If you owned a company with a group of employees who lie to you with impunity you would have no choice future to have them fired and arrested for fraud. We are the employer and these agents should be fired and prosecuted.
This is not news to anyone with his eyes open. One such agent admitted to it before Congress several years ago.
Leaving out T Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Thatcher,... and also leaving out the history of collectivist power movements that always have some lead character, but are more deadly and dangerous in history.
Strongmen, or strong women are not a some monolithic crisis of human harm, it is timing and ideology that portends the crises of human harm.
I'm more puzzled about your comment than AM is, Mr. Lee. The topic of the book, according to AM's review is a delimited class of power-holders. "The single defining characteristic that all have in common is . . . 'doing whatever is necessary to gain, maintain, and expand their personal power.' Everything else, including the nation itself, is disposable and subordinate to the Strongman's insatiable drive for personal power." I have a tough time seeing in any of the six leaders you mention anything remotely fitting that definition.
Looking at Ms. Ben-Ghiat's introduction online it appears to me that her primary focus actually concerns a certain style of authoritarian machismo (TR, at least, had the latter), used for the purpose of undermining democratic institutions to consolidate power in a personalized executive. She specifically excludes Thatcher because she did not attempt to undermine democracy, although she (like Indira Gandhi) shared some characteristics with her main actors. (Her introduction also excludes communist leaders--Stalin is not on the list there--because she says she's looking at cases where authoritarianism displaces democratic institutions.)
-- Note to AM: "Orban," rather than Urban (unless she discusses one of those Popes somewhere).
Thanks Robert for catching some errors in my review (Stalin wasn't on her list, and it's Orban not Urban) and you've done a better job than me clarifying the author's "primary focus."
The book was a long dense read, and by the time I wrote the review I was probably just relieved to get it over with. Also it's all so serious (and disheartening) that I decided to lighten things up with some of my sick pics and humor.
And as for Frank's comments, I tend to be very accommodating to regular posters - maybe too accommodating, always looking for some point of agreement, but also trying to respect other points of view, because I learned from an early subscriber that in the end these are just my opinions so I try to understand others' opinions.
But I do take the current situation seriously - hence my somewhat extreme title "Neo-Fascism: A Warning" - but my primary purpose here is to encourage people to break out of their silos and find common ground because I believe civil discourse is a path to progress, even when I disagree.
But I also appreciate you standing up for what you believe without qualifications.
It's a delicate balance, and at least one subscriber left today over something I wrote either in the post or the comments.
Sometimes I go to Twitter - mainly to collect outrageous pics - but the nastiness and hyper-polarization I see there is deeply disturbing - people are simply shouting at each other (I'm right, you're nuts) - so I'm trying to avoid hyper-partisanship and instead to facilitate meaningful conversation, and also trying to add some entertainment value with pics and some off-the-wall stuff like, in this case, a focus on Trump's "declining virility."
So thanks again Robert for being forthright in your comments and I appreciate your corrections and clarifications.
Somehow I still believe in that old chestnut that there's more that unites us than divides us, but these days it's all straining my credulity.
I tend to agree with you Frank, especially on the significance of "timing and ideology" and the general threat of "collectivist power movements", but this is a review of Ben-Ghiat's book with her cast of characters, and so in this review I'm only responding to her characterizations of Strongmen, including Trump. (I'm sure you or someone else could write a totally different book on Strongmen, with different characters and perspectives; and I'd be glad to review it.) But it was her title that caught my interest, and because of my own time and space considerations, I focused on only 3 of her Strongman characteristics, especially as pertaining to Trump: lying, nepotism, and virility. That's my prerogative as reviewer. I bought the book, read it, and this is what I think. And of course you're entitled to question my review. In fact, I welcome it.
And I'll admit I had some fun with this, especially Trump's attempts to defy his declining virility with photo-shopped images. And at the end it occurred to me that his wannabe successors pale by comparison with the impact he's made on America, and on the world.
Love him or hate him, Donald J Trump wrote himself into the history books. And this is one of those books. I'm sure there will be many many more.
For perspective, I once thought George W Bush was evil; now he seems like a harmless old gentleman. I wonder what I'll think of Trump twenty years from now (if I make it that long)
Thanks again for your response, Frank. Your comments always stimulate my thinking.
And please feel free to add more comments - I might even incorporate some in an edited version.
"Make Germany Great Again" not withstanding, I find more of tfg in common with il Duce, Benito Mussolini. Perhaps that's just my take.
I agree D4N. Trump seems to have studied il Duce's stage presence: scowling face, chin thrust out, arms fold across his chest - it all says "I am the boss; I am in charge; don't F*** with me."
And like Fromm says, there's method in this madness, because a lot of people with the authoritarian personality look for these strongman-leaders to tell them what to think, what to do, who to blame, who to hate. "I am your voice" says elite-ruling-class-billionaire Trump and his millions of weak cowardly gullible followers chant yes, yes, yes. Be my Daddy!
Mussolini actually invented the word "fascism" and for him it was all about projecting the Big Daddy, Big Man image. And in the end, when his country was in ruins, they hung him (upside down) from a lamppost.
Yes they did; He knew his audience well and appealed to their passionate natures - also an Achilles heel in some senses. Fittingly in the end, he was undone by those passionate natures. It occurs to me that we may have as many Italian and Italian descent souls in this country - perhaps more than the current population of Italy. In a craven way, that gives me hopes. Bravo friend
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Dan.
I wonder whether Italy's old experience with il Duce is influencing today's Italian-Americans' view of Trump as another il Duce? Do they see the danger? Or is it too far in the past?
You're too kind; Thank you for permitting my thoughts. From my own personal experience, I see lots of mixed reactions, but my gut tells me from a few experiences that they are still vulnerable, as an ethnicity and cultural history; some of it is ingrained it would seem. The young seems more so, owing to time / distance passage, and some of it 'lost cause' type mythology and passion; powerful stuff. I adore them anyway and keep one eye open.
The problem is that President Joe Biden weakens his case against Trump by cozing up to dictators internationally!
https://shoaibsultan.substack.com/p/calling-the-kettle-black
Thank you for this review, Abraham. It sounds like an interesting read. But I'm skeptical about whether Donald Trump belongs in this grouping.
Given the multiple similarities among the various dictators named, I can't help but notice, and be grateful for, one trait that sets Trump apart from the others: laziness
Trump wants to act like an all powerful ruler, and revels in his image as a "Strongman". But it seems he never wanted to actually do anything of significance. Unlike Recep Erdogan or Victor Orban, each of whom has a life-long history of political activism, Trump never held or aspired to public office before he decided to run for president. Nor was he ever seriously involved in party politics. According to some reports, he didn't really care that much about becoming president in 2016. And once elected, he didn't even bother reading his daily briefings.
I'm fairly certain neither Erdogan nor Orban plays golf every day. The sad truth, one that his gullible followers are only now beginning to understand, is that Trump is not really a strongman at all. He's just a con man. Your designation of him as "America's Make-Believe Strongman in our Age of Delusion" is delightfully apt.
However, his being included in a study like this one only adds to the myth, and ultimately prolongs his con.
Trump has been active politically for most of his career. There are many interviews on youtube going way back.
He has been consistantly America First, even when he was a Democrat.
I think he's been consistently "ME First"
He still is; anyone who believes he's there for YOU is getting conned. He's just saying what you want to hear, but Trump doesn't give a shit about you or anyone else.
Trump is lot older than the other "dictators". He really isn't even physically fit for the job. We have to set an age limit so we don't have mentally unfit and sickly presidents.
Ted Turner was from wealth yet he was a hard worker and activist.
One of the "limits" on who can run for this office (ie, the 14th Amendment) is currently before SCOTUS - more than mentally or physically fit, it addresses "insurrectionists" - and I have a bad feeling that the Trump-heavy majority will back Trump. So if an insurrectionist can't be stopped from running, then I doubt there will ever be any limit.
If Jan.6th wasn't an insurrection I don't know what is. I was a tourist at the Capital on a day they were open. On Jan. 6th they were closed for the Electoral Count procedure of Congress. Rally leaders told to stay away.
We had to go threw security with IDs and be registered, etc. We had to stay with the tour guides at all times. No climbing up the building outside, breaking windows or stealing computers in Congressional offices. Putting up a hanging structure for VP Pense, etc. No people hanging from the trees with assault weapons. No beating Capital police with poles, etc til blood flowed. They killed them. They had no right to do any of that to the "People's House". Who the hell did they think they are? I feel minimum time in jail for an insurrectionist is 20yrs. I see little regret from all of them. They would be there again given the chance and funds. The event was paid for just like Trump rally people. Corporate money is laundered threw those rallies, etc. No way do I believe Trump poll numbers.
Really scary poll today: 62% of Republicans believe there is "solid evidence of wide-spread voter fraud in 2020" and 34% believe that "FBI organized the Jan.6 attacks".
Repeat lies enough times and (some) people believe them.
It's like millions of Americans are living in a fantasy world, and don't believe the reality that we all saw on Jan.6.
There were also Republican Congress members who actively helped the rioters, gave them tours of the tunnels, etc, while Mike Johnson was up to his ears in the fake electors plot.
The Republican party has become a criminal, treasonous enterprise, but millions of voters BELIEVE these guys, and will vote them back in unless a Bluenami crushes Trumpism once and for all. An existential election pitting lies against truth, fantasy against reality, autocratic fascism against democracy.
But some Dems have also been drinking the Koolade if they're considering voting for 3rd party candidates.
Dangerous times for democracy.
Trump belongs here and in prison for treason, fraud and being a mob leader. All Fascists are lairs, cons and crooks. Hitler melted down prisoner's gold teeth. Stole works of art all over the world. Took property in the name of the people (like RW Netanyahu).
Story is Trump didn't consider running for president until Melania's father's KGB connection told him he was a talented, wonderful man who should run for president. Donald always needed money from his bankrupted projects. He bragged he could make money on being president. They keep punishing him for his bad behavior which doesn't stop him since the corporations fund his loses. My opinion is It's not his cult at rallies but the CEO corporate funds who money launder millions to him. Our local food store corporate owners made twice its profits this year and send him our hard earned money to oppress us. "Doughnuts for Fascism" is what they should name those stores.
I agree, Judith.
While everyone is blaming Biden for inflation, the oil companies and pharma companies and banks and agriculture corporations are raking in record profits, but no one blames them. Koch brothers (oil/gas/coal billionaires) pump gazillions into Republican campaigns to insure that no one interferes with their mega-profits (climate change? they don't give a damn).
Big Corporations call the shots, and reap the profits. It's a totally crooked system, but anyone who knocks it is called a communist!
Trump's been lying and cheating and grifting his whole life, and he was rewarded with the Presidency. In office he took millions from China (not to mention son-in-law Jared getting 2 billion from the Saudis - for what exactly?)
Trump and company are crooked as hell, and must be stopped.
Secret government documents sold to the Saudis? $2B enough?
I wonder if Trumper-lovers will ever wake up to what a treasonous crook he and his family are. But then again, Hitler was adored by masses of Germans, and we all know how that turned out.
So how do we break the trance?
Demand our laws be enforced. Hitler just ran over everyone without accountability. Now we know how it happened. You can't solve a problem until you acknowledge that it exists. Now we know it does. We should make sure they do. Demand accountability from our media for their propaganda and lies. The airways belong to the people not corporations.
Hitler had his cult believe they were "special" (like Fascist Israeli leader anti-Arab propaganda). Hitler's "superior Arian race" and hate of Jews, etc. Look how "superior" they were as murderers with their tyranny and hate. RW Israel has become who they despised. Ironic is it not?
Germany is the size of Texas. No way could they control the world. A fantasy like Trump's. They had to use children and Algerian mercenaries as military in the end. They also ran out of gas.
Israeli Zionists might think about wanting to rule the world cause they are "special". The Jewish Zionists are a small population compared to their Muslim enemies all over the world. The Muslims out number the Christians too. It is the same god and he doesn't do politics. It's man who uses god as a tool for power and wealth.
Thanks for your comment Jerry.
As you say, Trump's inclusion in a book about political Strongmen is questionable, and perhaps the author included him as a basic sales decision: including Trump in the discussion would definitely boost sales.
I think there are several points where he can legitimately be included (lying, nepotism, attacking democratic institutions the press, the courts, the election process itself, demeaning women, scapegoating immigrants, etc.)
But you're right about some points that would disqualify him: his legendary laziness, and his lack of political activism are good examples of what sets him apart from the others.
But on the author's "golden rule" - that these guys are in it for their own personal benefit rather than for the good of the nation - on that central point Trump should be included.
There are a number of "strongman" characteristics and profiles described in this book, and I found many places where Trump fit right in, but like you say, there are also points where he doesn't fit.
Overall, the editorial/sales decision to include him (I'm surprised the title isn't "From Mussolini to Trump") as well as the number of points where he fit the Strongman pattern - these warrant his inclusion. Whether it bolsters his myth and prolongs his con, yes, it probably does. But the author is a historian, and she makes her case and places Trump into the context of other historical "strongmen" (none of whom are presented in a positive light) so we can make our own decisions as to his place in history.
For those who continue to buy into his myth and con, there are photo-shopped "trading cards" of their Make-Believe Strongman, but for the rest of us, I think the book deserves credit for presenting a comprehensive study of "strongmen" past and present, and of her attempt to place Trump into that context.
She also notes that most of them had bad endings, leading their countries into wars, failing to fulfill their promises, and often facing the wrath of their gullible followers when the trance is broken, when the spell is lifted.
Even when it was written three years ago, the author suggested that the Trump-trance was beginning to break, and I thought it was a pivotal moment in his career arc when Matt Gaetz recently nominated him for Speaker of the House and Trump got - one vote! (And his trading cards appear to have lost 80% of their value.) So for all his desperate online tweeting, he's passed his expiry date.
The saddest part though is the Swamp Creatures that rose in his wake: MTG, Boebert, DeSantis - they're still operating from the Trump playbook (say outrageous stuff, grab the headlines!). Trump can fade away on his golf course, but these other Swamp Creatures will still be in our faces for years to come - and it's their fate that will seal the fate of the country - will Jim Jordan and MTG set the agenda for America, or will voters turf the whole lot of them in '24 and return to sanity?
But that will also depend, I think, on the quality of candidates and policies put forward by the Dems.
Trump is just beginning his dictator agenda. He will start on day one. His revenge is killing his enemies, destroying America (I believe for Russia) and making our military his SS police. "God and Country" tyranny.
Yes...he is not done yet and will fit into the other Fascist megalomaniacs of history. Killing 1M Americans over his lies about COVID and god knows how many deaths with his Afghani withdrawal and putting the Taliban religious crazies back in control. Who approved that? Not Congress...just Trump. That was unconstitutional and treasonous.
20 yrs of US war defeating the Taliban and Trump decides to put the enemy back in power. Insane no one was outraged...at least on the media. Bet a lot of X military were furious having risked their lives in Afghanistan. A lot of present military had to risk their lives to save themselves and Afghanis fleeing the country. Many of them having helped us defeat the enemy.
Remember the worst thing of all. Reagan created the RW religious Taliban to defeat the Russians in his Cold War. The Russians went bankrupt and we almost did. Talk about blow back.
It seems even Democrats are agreeing with Trump lately. Lots of them complaining about CNN and others propagating fake news. It just took them a bit longer to realize it.
We are well aware of media lies. They are corporations.
No sane democrats that I am aware of are agreeing with Trump about anything. at all. ever.
Hi Patsy, always glad to hear from you.
As for your comment, I think there is one thing that all "sane democrats" will agree with about Trump - right from her 1st election he did predict that Marjorie Taylor Greene would be the "future" of the Republican Party, and in fact she does seem to be the one in charge (when she's not having hair-pulling fights with Boebert).
What crazy times we live in.
Are there sane Democrats?
I kid you not, check out the Democrat threads of your choice and you will see them calling CNN fake news. Trump should have copyrighted the phrase instead of grifting me for donations.
Yes there are. They are not Fascists trying to become dictators. That violates our Constitution and laws. They think law breaking is acceptable to win at all costs. Who lie about COVID allowing millions of Americans to die, etc. Whose the sane ones?
GG, I always appreciate your comments, but don't you think it's a bit of an over-generalization when you talk about "Democrats" as if they are one homogenous block of like-minded people. There's probably as wide a diversity of thinking among Dems as Repubs. Sure, "some" Dems are expressing anger at CNN for over-playing the Biden-docs thing, but now we've got a Pence-doc thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get an Obama-docs thing - probably because all these guys go through so much material that there's bound to be stuff left behind in different places at the end of their terms.
But I personally think that Trump took his docs for nefarious purposes rather than just accidental carelessness that probably accounts for Biden and Pence.
My point is, it's not productive to stereotype and generalize about tens of millions of political followers in either party. There are moderates and extremists in both camps.
And it's interesting that you admit to being grifted by Trump. He's always been a great conman, and he's still at it. ps, did you buy his SuperHero Trading Cards? Just kidding. But they did come in handy as props for my review of Strongmen!
I don't send a dime to any of them.
Nearly every Democrat now admits that CNN is fake news. I'll bet you do too. It's just another commonality among Americans
It's as obvious as the nose on your face.
I don't believe CNN is fake news. I want every instance of illegal classified document storage reported, and I want every instance of resistance to recovery of documents reported. I usually vote Democratic. Obviously, I have a nose.
The term "fake news" originated during the 2016 election to label social media posts that presented "news" that was completely fabricated, often using visuals borrowed from unrelated items online. Mr. Trump appropriated the term to apply to networks whose reporting he didn't like. There was no fake news. There was, as there has always been, biased reporting according to partisan lean and journalistic errors. Mr. Trump set a new precedent by equating biased reporting with fake content. Very few reports on any network, liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning, are actually "fake," though breaking news can include big errors. I personally have never called anything on a major network (including Fox) "fake news"; the term is idiotic.
I have not found reports of any Democrats calling CNN "fake news." A search on the web hasn't shown me any (could be my choice of search terms), and the Wikipedia page on CNN controversies doesn't list this one. (I have encountered via search reports of Democrats criticizing Biden *on* CNN.) Where are you getting your information, GandalfGrey? Can you point us to a few specific instances from which you've drawn this universal conclusion.
No, the mainstream media term was "misinformation" or "disinformation", both being generically used for anything they deem not aligned with their fake narratives.
The Twitter files exposed the truth about our secret agencies collaborating and/or covertly coercing media outlets to silence the infidels opposing their fake narratives. This abuse of our own agencies was once limited to foreign manipulation and nation building. Today our own public services are conspiring to do this against their own client, we the people.
If you owned a company with a group of employees who lie to you with impunity you would have no choice future to have them fired and arrested for fraud. We are the employer and these agents should be fired and prosecuted.
This is not news to anyone with his eyes open. One such agent admitted to it before Congress several years ago.
https://youtu.be/ANohtXQhkQw
Search Substack. Let me know if you still cannot find yourself. Chatting tonight with many of them.
Of course you won't find it in mainstream media. They are a one-way "conversation" which is another way of saying they don't allow public comment.
Half-truth is a lie, and that is what the MSM use. They also practice hypnosis (a real therputic tool in good hands).
Leaving out T Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Thatcher,... and also leaving out the history of collectivist power movements that always have some lead character, but are more deadly and dangerous in history.
Strongmen, or strong women are not a some monolithic crisis of human harm, it is timing and ideology that portends the crises of human harm.
I'm more puzzled about your comment than AM is, Mr. Lee. The topic of the book, according to AM's review is a delimited class of power-holders. "The single defining characteristic that all have in common is . . . 'doing whatever is necessary to gain, maintain, and expand their personal power.' Everything else, including the nation itself, is disposable and subordinate to the Strongman's insatiable drive for personal power." I have a tough time seeing in any of the six leaders you mention anything remotely fitting that definition.
Looking at Ms. Ben-Ghiat's introduction online it appears to me that her primary focus actually concerns a certain style of authoritarian machismo (TR, at least, had the latter), used for the purpose of undermining democratic institutions to consolidate power in a personalized executive. She specifically excludes Thatcher because she did not attempt to undermine democracy, although she (like Indira Gandhi) shared some characteristics with her main actors. (Her introduction also excludes communist leaders--Stalin is not on the list there--because she says she's looking at cases where authoritarianism displaces democratic institutions.)
-- Note to AM: "Orban," rather than Urban (unless she discusses one of those Popes somewhere).
Thanks Robert for catching some errors in my review (Stalin wasn't on her list, and it's Orban not Urban) and you've done a better job than me clarifying the author's "primary focus."
The book was a long dense read, and by the time I wrote the review I was probably just relieved to get it over with. Also it's all so serious (and disheartening) that I decided to lighten things up with some of my sick pics and humor.
And as for Frank's comments, I tend to be very accommodating to regular posters - maybe too accommodating, always looking for some point of agreement, but also trying to respect other points of view, because I learned from an early subscriber that in the end these are just my opinions so I try to understand others' opinions.
But I do take the current situation seriously - hence my somewhat extreme title "Neo-Fascism: A Warning" - but my primary purpose here is to encourage people to break out of their silos and find common ground because I believe civil discourse is a path to progress, even when I disagree.
But I also appreciate you standing up for what you believe without qualifications.
It's a delicate balance, and at least one subscriber left today over something I wrote either in the post or the comments.
Sometimes I go to Twitter - mainly to collect outrageous pics - but the nastiness and hyper-polarization I see there is deeply disturbing - people are simply shouting at each other (I'm right, you're nuts) - so I'm trying to avoid hyper-partisanship and instead to facilitate meaningful conversation, and also trying to add some entertainment value with pics and some off-the-wall stuff like, in this case, a focus on Trump's "declining virility."
So thanks again Robert for being forthright in your comments and I appreciate your corrections and clarifications.
Somehow I still believe in that old chestnut that there's more that unites us than divides us, but these days it's all straining my credulity.
Maybe I'm getting too old for all this.
Thanks again Robert.
I tend to agree with you Frank, especially on the significance of "timing and ideology" and the general threat of "collectivist power movements", but this is a review of Ben-Ghiat's book with her cast of characters, and so in this review I'm only responding to her characterizations of Strongmen, including Trump. (I'm sure you or someone else could write a totally different book on Strongmen, with different characters and perspectives; and I'd be glad to review it.) But it was her title that caught my interest, and because of my own time and space considerations, I focused on only 3 of her Strongman characteristics, especially as pertaining to Trump: lying, nepotism, and virility. That's my prerogative as reviewer. I bought the book, read it, and this is what I think. And of course you're entitled to question my review. In fact, I welcome it.
And I'll admit I had some fun with this, especially Trump's attempts to defy his declining virility with photo-shopped images. And at the end it occurred to me that his wannabe successors pale by comparison with the impact he's made on America, and on the world.
Love him or hate him, Donald J Trump wrote himself into the history books. And this is one of those books. I'm sure there will be many many more.
For perspective, I once thought George W Bush was evil; now he seems like a harmless old gentleman. I wonder what I'll think of Trump twenty years from now (if I make it that long)
Thanks again for your response, Frank. Your comments always stimulate my thinking.
And please feel free to add more comments - I might even incorporate some in an edited version.