The 'Strongmen Era' Is Here. Here's What It Means for You - TIME
By Ian Bremmer
In response to the social upheavals of the 1960s, Hollywood produced a series of highly popular angry man crime dramas in the 1970s. These are the stories of vigilantes and renegade cops, played by the likes of Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson, who push past weak-willed bureaucrats, corrupt politicos and political correctness to restore justice in violent times. These are men who never let law undermine order.
The U.S. is now emerging from another period of sweeping social change, economic anxiety, urban crime and pointless wars, which again has stoked demand for a tough-talking vigilante to pay weak-minded liberals a lesson. But this time, he isnt a creation of Hollywood. He lives in the White House, and hes playing his role with gusto.
This trend is not confined to the U.S. In every region of the world, changing times have boosted public demand for more muscular, assertive leadership. These tough-talking populists promise to protect us from them. Depending on whos talking, them can mean the corrupt elite or the grasping poor; foreigners or members of racial, ethnic or religious minorities. Or disloyal politicians, bureaucrats, bankers or judges. Or lying reporters. Out of this divide, a new archetype of leader has emerged. Were now in the strongman era.
Perhaps the most prominent of these can be found in Russia... Strongmen can also be seen across Asia. In China, memories of Tiananmen traumas and the horror of the Soviet collapse have pushed the Communist Party to keep a tight hold on dissent. .. In the Philippines, a rising tide of violent street crime helped elect Rodrigo Duterte, a former mayor who talked more like a Mob boss than a President, on his promises to wipe out the drug trade with his own brand of justice.
(snip)
In economically stricken Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro has detained opposition figures and violently stamped out protests...Then theres the Middle East, where some imagined that the Arab Spring might usher in democracy. In Egypt, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, the general whose forces violently quashed protests over the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, was elected President the following year. Like Putin, he won another landslide victory this spring over handpicked opponents.
(snip)
In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party, in power since 2003, have won a passionate following among socially conservative Turks by challenging the dominance of secular elites... The character of strongman is also making a comeback in the heart of Europe. Following a migrant crisis that aroused fear and indignation in Eastern Europe, Hungarys Viktor Orban has just won another term as Prime Minister while embracing illiberal democracya political system with free elections but scant regard for civil liberties.
Which brings us back to Donald Trump. Voters who say lost manufacturing jobs, immigration and urban crime have created a crisis for the American working class have a personalized loyalty to Trump that extends well beyond allegiance to party. An August 2017 poll published in the Washington Post found that 52% of Republican voters would support postponing the 2020 election if Trump said the delay was needed to ensure that only eligible American citizens could vote.
These leaders have won followers by targeting them, including the familiar U.S. and European sources of power and influence. But they have succeeded because they know something about us, or the people theyre speaking to. They understand the sense of threatand theyre willing to exploit it.
(snip)
What is Trumps place in all this? The U.S. President has expressed sincere admiration for the likes of Putin, Xi, al-Sisi and Duterte. Like many such leaders, he knows well what his supporters want to hear. He has pointed at many forms of them and pledged to build a big beautiful wall.
But the U.S. political system has demonstrated its own set of strengths. Trump may complain about judges, but he cant avoid their rulings. He thrills audiences with attacks on the press, but public fascination with his every utterance replenishes media financial reserves. His party may not control Congress after November. His approval rating is unlikely to ever reach 50%. He might be impeached.
That doesnt mean theres nothing to worry about. The impact this President has had on U.S. politicsincluding the very fact that he was able to get electedhas exposed holes in the systemic makeup of what was once the Wests beacon of democracy. Right now, some Americans think the U.S. is more urgently in need of structural political reform than China. Thats a win for the strongmen.
(snip)
Perhaps the most worrying element of the strongmans rise is the message it sends. The systems that powered the Cold Wars winners now look much less appealing than they did a generation ago. Why emulate the U.S. or European political systems, with all the checks and balances that prevent even the most determined leaders from taking on chronic problems, when one determined leader can offer a credible shortcut to greater security and national pride? As long as that rings true, the greatest threat may be the strongmen yet to come.
http://time.com/5264170/the-strongmen-era-is-here-heres-what-it-means-for-you/
True Dough
(17,246 posts)PSPS
(13,579 posts)As Les Moonves said, their propping up Trump "may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS.
Uncle Joe
(58,284 posts)Donald Trump didn't spend nearly as much on advertising as typical presidential candidates, and he didn't have to -- he relied on billions of dollars of free mentions in media ranging from major TV news networks to Buzzfeed and Twitter instead.
The real estate magnate got $4.96 billion in free earned media in the year leading up to the presidential election, according to data from tracking firm mediaQuant. He received $5.6 billion throughout the entirety of his campaign, more than Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio combined.
(snip)
To be sure, not all buzz is good buzz, and that was certainly the case with Trump. According to mediaQuant's estimates, as much as 23% of free earned media attention given to Trump during the election was negative, compared to about 12% for Clinton.
(snip)
"It is going to cause some pause in the campaigns and the parties to assess the extent to which the celebrity element, the entertainment element, the shock and awe element for the candidate can have an impact on pulling audience and building awareness," said Senatori.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)When a narcissistic sociopath is addressed as "Mr. President" each and everyday, he hears "You are the most powerful person in the world and you ARE above the law! You answer to no one!"
If the two other co-equal branches of our government concede to his authoritarian delusions, then we are in a world of danger. The election in 2016 warned us once again that we do not live in a democracy - more of a political cabal of financial elites (true oligarchy) that knows no limits in their quest for dominant political advantage.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,523 posts)Men like Duterte, Putin, and so on.
He is not above the law, and if he doesn't know that yet, he soon will.
We must, and will, stop him.