You suppose it'll all be about personal charisma, and defiance of the press and managerial class? I wonder what sort of leader will plunge to the foreground. A part of me wonders if maybe we will see an Augustus or Ciceronian orator, with the rules defying streak of Musashi and the determination of a Bruce plunge forward in some countries.
Quebec will I imagine prefer a quieter politician par nature, France quelqu'un de bruyant qui imite De Gaulle et Napoleon.
Japan I suspect will go for a louder, sardonic Shinzo Abe Mk II, a kind of Toyotomi Hideyoshi mixed with Tokugawa Ieyasu. I can only imagine what sort of leader will appear to dominate Ireland. Likely a soldier. Hope you don't mind my theorizing.
Charismatic rule isn’t necessarily Trump-style bombast and trolling. It’s more that it’s about personal loyalty and organic bonds rather than credentials and managerial expertise. Franco ruled that way, and he was in no way a flashy character. I would argue that Putin does as well. The leader who emerges will be whoever develops patronage networks that engage energetic and talented young men currently overlooked by the system.
Caesar received his education in appealing to the plebs (and the army) by way of Gaius Marius, whose closest American counterpart was Abraham Lincoln. Both were specifically concerned about the impact of slavery purely because its impact on the labour of free men (Lincoln later altered his view about the slaves through reading dispatches of their heroism in battle).
My point would be that Caesar was a patrician. He was from one of the most esteemed families in Rome. Like Clodius, Caesar's 'love' of the common people was an instrumental artefact. Trump is nothing like this. He has the common touch. As well as being unmediated he has no internal mechanism for self-editing. One could argue that his desperate need for the adoration of the crowd is based upon his deep-rooted narcissism, but it's not difficult to see that the reason why a quarter of the country loves him is exactly why another quarter of the country hates him- the man has absolutely no filter.
People are fed up with empty platitudes and promises which are never delivered- that is unless you're a part of the educated or technocratic class who seem to endlessly pursue policy wonkery as a theoretical hobby- in which case you despise him. My conservative friends often accuse me of having a penchant for rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic- I fit into the 'mugged by reality' class. Old habits die hard. It puts me in a unique position- quite apart from having no skin in the game, I neither despise him nor adore him. I used the think he might have value as a disruptor. Now, not so much.
I remember a conversation amongst my family in the early stages of the 2016 elections. My sister and her husband, both Clinton supporters, were convinced it would be another Clinton v Bush election ("Jeb has all that money pouring in"), and I was equally convinced the voters would not bite on Jeb. Our two teenagers joined in and mentioned Trump, and how he seemed to be gaining attention, and all seemed to scoff at the idea he had a chance. My response was, and still is, that Donald, now former President, Trump has been convincing people for decades to fund his projects, watch his TV, and otherwise follow him despite his shortcomings - a man with that ability to market himself and keep a following should never be underestimated.
The voters elected Obama in 2008 solely because they saw him as an outsider and when that proved to be a false impression they voted for someone who was definitely an outsider. Without manipulating the system under plague law Biden never would have been elected and is poised to be repudiated unless similar drastic measures are taken. The gap between the pretensions of managerialism to democratic legitimacy and the reality of its constant rejection by actual voters will become increasingly impossible to ignore.
FROM THE LINK: The origin of fourth-generation war lies not in technology nor in tactics, but in a vastly larger phenomenon: a growing and near-universal crisis of the legitimacy of the state. All around the world, the state has become a prisoner of a new class—an elite class that can’t make things work, that uses its wealth and power to insulate itself from the consequences of things not working, and which cares about only one thing: remaining the elite. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-future-of-war/
How many people know that before he was cub reporter for the Washington Post, Bob Woodward was an intelligence officer for the U.S. Navy and worked at the Pentagon? I didn't--until I read “Bob Woodward’s Sins Of Omission” by James Rosen. After reading Rosen's article, what happened to Richard Nixon makes sense. The spooks torpedoed him. Here's the article. Take a look for yourself:
Like Napoleon Trump is unique. His long history as a famous entrepreneur allowed him 2 advantages in bypassing the gatekeepers: ordinary people already knew him since the 80's so media efforts to paint him as a fascist failed; he had enough of his own money to start a campaign without having to please donors. Beyond that he is confident in front of crowds and cameras alike and has a natural sense of humor.
I've long assumed Trump was just a harbringer for the Caesar(s) to come, though I imagine if he is elected again, his enemies have driven him to such a place, it would mostly depend on the kind of people he surrounds himself with. If his primary adviser remains that milksop Kushner, I expect little more than tax cuts and truth social taunts. If he goes with Bannon or some such, I would support him "retiring" 90% of the technocracy. I'm rather hoping he and RFKjr have a deal to put RFKjr in charge of HHS. If that does not happen, then Trump is little more than harbringer.
Trump’s greatest weakness is that he is fundamentally a boomer, and has thus far not shown any understanding that the system is not the rule of law he remembers from his youth. It remains to be seen if the campaign of law fare directed against him disabuses him of those notions.
He is a showman first and foremost. No one was more surprised he won in 2016. I would add his primary weakness is his general boomer refusal to admit any mistake, covid policy the epic example.
"Trump is but a forerunner of what is to come, a hint of the sort of leader who will come to the fore"
I don't think Trump is a forerunner, I think the way people reacted to him is the forerunner. Some day a leader who is worthy of such a reaction will arise, and I don't think he'll be much like Trump.
I could never make sense of Hegel's writings, which saved me from reading much Marx and Engels or taking any of that seriously. As for style, I'm with Schopenhauer and concerning reason I can work with Popper. What was the question again?
Yep. Like most of those who support him politically, Trump doesn't have a virtual face he presents to the outside world. Direct drive, no intervening clutch.
Leadership globally is currently in a nightmare state. People will gravitate to charisma and words rather than actions. While the Trump administration wasn't awful (great for small businesses, in fact, as well as other facets of the economy), it left a lot to be desired, especially where maturity was concerned.
This man had no credentials that would've made him worthy to be president. But he could talk. He could put on a good show. If he's the standard or even the prototype for what's to come, things are about to get more annoying than they already are.
His #1 virtue was that he wouldn't back down. Reps might talk tough, but as soon as a Dem calls their bluff they fold and whimper for mercy. Trump always attacked, doubled-down. Unfortunately, only with words while his enemies have come back with more than words, with lawfare.
What "credentials" do you have in mind? I could list a whole swath of politicians and bureaucrats whose credentials are simply being politicians and bureaucrats.
And their list of failures in the past 2 decades could stretch to the moon.
As for maturity, I would posit Trumps policies were the best the USA had from POTUS since Reagan.
Certainly better policiesbthan Biden, Obama, and W.
His foreign policy really stood out. And the elites around the globe hated him for it.
And it was all working until Covid.
Now we have an figurehead in a chair while the HARDLEFT runs amok behind him, barely seen, implementing whatever insane policy they can get away with.
Yes, I agree that the credentials of our managerial elites too often serve as a mark of status rather than competence. I think that there's mature and then there's senile; while I don't think every aspect of Trump as a leader is worthy of emulation I would have to say that he is better than what we've had over the last two decades at least.
Yup. He has personal characteristics that are abhorrent...but until after the 2020 election when his behavior went too far for me, I thought he performed admirably as President overall. I had written him off, yet here he is, where he will probably get my vote as the lesser of 2 evils because the HARD LEFT is out of control everywhere we look.
His personal behavior is awful, I totally agree. He had and used the military guys. Hes a prick but those guys werent innocent either. Mattis, mcmaster, Kelly, etc. They tried hard too. Sometimes its just a clash or policy disagreements; many presidents face that challenge.
But it's his show. When it became unworkable, he replaced them. But there was always experienced military guys there. You think there wasnt?
I see what you mean. And if anything, it calls the corruption in the military system that exists, with politicking becoming a valuable asset in absence of or in addition to wartime credentials.
There are, of course, a lot of other credentials for an "ideal" candidate. Though, such a list would perhaps be exhaustive. Essentially, it boils down to "Does this person have a good chance of successfully managing and improving a city/state/region/nation? Why or why not?"
While there certainly were benefits to Trump's administration and presidency, if he is elected again (and will most likely be), the status quo will only continue.
You’re correct. I think that a broad range of experience would be preferable to mere celebrity and the business world. However, corrupted as our institutions are, there’s something to be said for someone outside all the systems that sustain the existing order.
It certainly does say a lot to the builders of our government who were able to make such a well-oiled machine, that despite all of the corruption and incompetence, we haven't devolved into third world status yet and have managed to continue progress in various facets of our society.
That's what worries me. In true paradoxical fashion Trump, who will seemingly say whatever derogatory comment pops into his head, doesn't seem to actually hate his opponents. (Rather, I think he revels in the battle; the recent lawfare has brought him to life.) But in the future, when someone has his charisma but burns with hatred... well, I don't need to tell a history/government teacher where that leads.
The way the system goes after Trump just shows how detached from reality and feedback systems it really is. They genuinely imagine that if they got rid of Trump things would return to ‘normal’ rather than it clearing the way from someone far more serious.
I suppose it depends on who is attracted to power in a society like ours, and to whom a society like ours wishes to award power. Look around and ask yourself, who would they love? That’s the man of the future.
You suppose it'll all be about personal charisma, and defiance of the press and managerial class? I wonder what sort of leader will plunge to the foreground. A part of me wonders if maybe we will see an Augustus or Ciceronian orator, with the rules defying streak of Musashi and the determination of a Bruce plunge forward in some countries.
Quebec will I imagine prefer a quieter politician par nature, France quelqu'un de bruyant qui imite De Gaulle et Napoleon.
Japan I suspect will go for a louder, sardonic Shinzo Abe Mk II, a kind of Toyotomi Hideyoshi mixed with Tokugawa Ieyasu. I can only imagine what sort of leader will appear to dominate Ireland. Likely a soldier. Hope you don't mind my theorizing.
Charismatic rule isn’t necessarily Trump-style bombast and trolling. It’s more that it’s about personal loyalty and organic bonds rather than credentials and managerial expertise. Franco ruled that way, and he was in no way a flashy character. I would argue that Putin does as well. The leader who emerges will be whoever develops patronage networks that engage energetic and talented young men currently overlooked by the system.
Hmm sounds a lot like Caesar & Augustus
Caesar received his education in appealing to the plebs (and the army) by way of Gaius Marius, whose closest American counterpart was Abraham Lincoln. Both were specifically concerned about the impact of slavery purely because its impact on the labour of free men (Lincoln later altered his view about the slaves through reading dispatches of their heroism in battle).
My point would be that Caesar was a patrician. He was from one of the most esteemed families in Rome. Like Clodius, Caesar's 'love' of the common people was an instrumental artefact. Trump is nothing like this. He has the common touch. As well as being unmediated he has no internal mechanism for self-editing. One could argue that his desperate need for the adoration of the crowd is based upon his deep-rooted narcissism, but it's not difficult to see that the reason why a quarter of the country loves him is exactly why another quarter of the country hates him- the man has absolutely no filter.
People are fed up with empty platitudes and promises which are never delivered- that is unless you're a part of the educated or technocratic class who seem to endlessly pursue policy wonkery as a theoretical hobby- in which case you despise him. My conservative friends often accuse me of having a penchant for rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic- I fit into the 'mugged by reality' class. Old habits die hard. It puts me in a unique position- quite apart from having no skin in the game, I neither despise him nor adore him. I used the think he might have value as a disruptor. Now, not so much.
I remember a conversation amongst my family in the early stages of the 2016 elections. My sister and her husband, both Clinton supporters, were convinced it would be another Clinton v Bush election ("Jeb has all that money pouring in"), and I was equally convinced the voters would not bite on Jeb. Our two teenagers joined in and mentioned Trump, and how he seemed to be gaining attention, and all seemed to scoff at the idea he had a chance. My response was, and still is, that Donald, now former President, Trump has been convincing people for decades to fund his projects, watch his TV, and otherwise follow him despite his shortcomings - a man with that ability to market himself and keep a following should never be underestimated.
The voters elected Obama in 2008 solely because they saw him as an outsider and when that proved to be a false impression they voted for someone who was definitely an outsider. Without manipulating the system under plague law Biden never would have been elected and is poised to be repudiated unless similar drastic measures are taken. The gap between the pretensions of managerialism to democratic legitimacy and the reality of its constant rejection by actual voters will become increasingly impossible to ignore.
FROM THE LINK: The origin of fourth-generation war lies not in technology nor in tactics, but in a vastly larger phenomenon: a growing and near-universal crisis of the legitimacy of the state. All around the world, the state has become a prisoner of a new class—an elite class that can’t make things work, that uses its wealth and power to insulate itself from the consequences of things not working, and which cares about only one thing: remaining the elite. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-future-of-war/
How many people know that before he was cub reporter for the Washington Post, Bob Woodward was an intelligence officer for the U.S. Navy and worked at the Pentagon? I didn't--until I read “Bob Woodward’s Sins Of Omission” by James Rosen. After reading Rosen's article, what happened to Richard Nixon makes sense. The spooks torpedoed him. Here's the article. Take a look for yourself:
https://www.commentary.org/articles/james-rosen/bob-woodwards-sins-omission/
Like Napoleon Trump is unique. His long history as a famous entrepreneur allowed him 2 advantages in bypassing the gatekeepers: ordinary people already knew him since the 80's so media efforts to paint him as a fascist failed; he had enough of his own money to start a campaign without having to please donors. Beyond that he is confident in front of crowds and cameras alike and has a natural sense of humor.
People really overlook how funny he is and how powerful that is. His enemies are funny only when they try to be serious.
I've long assumed Trump was just a harbringer for the Caesar(s) to come, though I imagine if he is elected again, his enemies have driven him to such a place, it would mostly depend on the kind of people he surrounds himself with. If his primary adviser remains that milksop Kushner, I expect little more than tax cuts and truth social taunts. If he goes with Bannon or some such, I would support him "retiring" 90% of the technocracy. I'm rather hoping he and RFKjr have a deal to put RFKjr in charge of HHS. If that does not happen, then Trump is little more than harbringer.
Trump’s greatest weakness is that he is fundamentally a boomer, and has thus far not shown any understanding that the system is not the rule of law he remembers from his youth. It remains to be seen if the campaign of law fare directed against him disabuses him of those notions.
He is a showman first and foremost. No one was more surprised he won in 2016. I would add his primary weakness is his general boomer refusal to admit any mistake, covid policy the epic example.
Necessary is the best teaching...;)
"Betanktopped," lol
You know the look.
"Trump is but a forerunner of what is to come, a hint of the sort of leader who will come to the fore"
I don't think Trump is a forerunner, I think the way people reacted to him is the forerunner. Some day a leader who is worthy of such a reaction will arise, and I don't think he'll be much like Trump.
The appetite for his style of leadership revealed by Trump is far more important in the long run than Trump.
I could never make sense of Hegel's writings, which saved me from reading much Marx and Engels or taking any of that seriously. As for style, I'm with Schopenhauer and concerning reason I can work with Popper. What was the question again?
Hegel was the Steven Pinker of his day. Or perhaps the Turchin. Make of that what you will.
Yep. Like most of those who support him politically, Trump doesn't have a virtual face he presents to the outside world. Direct drive, no intervening clutch.
Re-politicization of politics is inevitable.
Not even coronavirus could stop it; which however won't stop them from trying monkeypox, bird flu or whatever is in fashion these days.
Leadership globally is currently in a nightmare state. People will gravitate to charisma and words rather than actions. While the Trump administration wasn't awful (great for small businesses, in fact, as well as other facets of the economy), it left a lot to be desired, especially where maturity was concerned.
This man had no credentials that would've made him worthy to be president. But he could talk. He could put on a good show. If he's the standard or even the prototype for what's to come, things are about to get more annoying than they already are.
His #1 virtue was that he wouldn't back down. Reps might talk tough, but as soon as a Dem calls their bluff they fold and whimper for mercy. Trump always attacked, doubled-down. Unfortunately, only with words while his enemies have come back with more than words, with lawfare.
***clearing out a duplucate comment***
What "credentials" do you have in mind? I could list a whole swath of politicians and bureaucrats whose credentials are simply being politicians and bureaucrats.
And their list of failures in the past 2 decades could stretch to the moon.
As for maturity, I would posit Trumps policies were the best the USA had from POTUS since Reagan.
Certainly better policiesbthan Biden, Obama, and W.
His foreign policy really stood out. And the elites around the globe hated him for it.
And it was all working until Covid.
Now we have an figurehead in a chair while the HARDLEFT runs amok behind him, barely seen, implementing whatever insane policy they can get away with.
Yes, I agree that the credentials of our managerial elites too often serve as a mark of status rather than competence. I think that there's mature and then there's senile; while I don't think every aspect of Trump as a leader is worthy of emulation I would have to say that he is better than what we've had over the last two decades at least.
Yup. He has personal characteristics that are abhorrent...but until after the 2020 election when his behavior went too far for me, I thought he performed admirably as President overall. I had written him off, yet here he is, where he will probably get my vote as the lesser of 2 evils because the HARD LEFT is out of control everywhere we look.
What I mean by maturity is this: what proper LEADER (not politician) goes around insulting people on Twitter or insulting the people they just fired?
And as for credentials, what about, I dunno, say military experience for starters? That's a little important when it comes to running a country.
The president should be the example all other politicians in this nation follow.
His personal behavior is awful, I totally agree. He had and used the military guys. Hes a prick but those guys werent innocent either. Mattis, mcmaster, Kelly, etc. They tried hard too. Sometimes its just a clash or policy disagreements; many presidents face that challenge.
But it's his show. When it became unworkable, he replaced them. But there was always experienced military guys there. You think there wasnt?
I see what you mean. And if anything, it calls the corruption in the military system that exists, with politicking becoming a valuable asset in absence of or in addition to wartime credentials.
There are, of course, a lot of other credentials for an "ideal" candidate. Though, such a list would perhaps be exhaustive. Essentially, it boils down to "Does this person have a good chance of successfully managing and improving a city/state/region/nation? Why or why not?"
While there certainly were benefits to Trump's administration and presidency, if he is elected again (and will most likely be), the status quo will only continue.
You’re correct. I think that a broad range of experience would be preferable to mere celebrity and the business world. However, corrupted as our institutions are, there’s something to be said for someone outside all the systems that sustain the existing order.
It certainly does say a lot to the builders of our government who were able to make such a well-oiled machine, that despite all of the corruption and incompetence, we haven't devolved into third world status yet and have managed to continue progress in various facets of our society.
"Trump is a forerunner of what's to come..."
That's what worries me. In true paradoxical fashion Trump, who will seemingly say whatever derogatory comment pops into his head, doesn't seem to actually hate his opponents. (Rather, I think he revels in the battle; the recent lawfare has brought him to life.) But in the future, when someone has his charisma but burns with hatred... well, I don't need to tell a history/government teacher where that leads.
The way the system goes after Trump just shows how detached from reality and feedback systems it really is. They genuinely imagine that if they got rid of Trump things would return to ‘normal’ rather than it clearing the way from someone far more serious.
Authenticity. Trump (like Popeye) is who he is, no more no less
Very Max Weber! And you're right that there's no reason why political power couldn't revert to charisma. And Trump is an example of that.
Although I hope that charismatic leadership could establish itself in a person with qualities I esteem.
I suppose it depends on who is attracted to power in a society like ours, and to whom a society like ours wishes to award power. Look around and ask yourself, who would they love? That’s the man of the future.
Someone who would attack the 10% of the rich and powerful on behalf of the 90% without all the trump baggage.
I do extended commentaries at random on pieces I read, and yours came up. It was a great experience, lots to mull over in your essay. See here for the commentary: https://open.substack.com/pub/sojournfortress/p/r-and-d-the-librarians-my-hegelian?r=ufawr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web