There's a looming problem with this unscripted show: the plot is getting stale. The whole tariff thing has gotten old, and its effects are too technical and delayed to make good TV. A cast of toadies is pathetic. He needs antagonists to build tension and appear as the great leader and negotiator. But other world leaders won't meet with him; even Putin won't. Most Democrats won't either. Who wants to be 'Zelenskied'?
I expect a new dominant plotline. Options include: 'War w/ Iran!', 'You're Deported!', and 'water ski jump over shark'. Even these will get stale unless there are good human interest stories and/or personal terror.
There are those who believe that a Totalitarian Leader—one with no scruples, no policies, no vision other than his ever-expanding power—consciously *refutes* Policy, Lieutenants, any Government Institutions other than those that further enrich/empower himself. Such a (Dear) Leader must bypass these trappings of Good Governance so that only his whims matter; “interests” and industries must repeatedly beg him for (corrupt) exemptions to his previous pronouncements, while his faceless (even, masked) minions and the disorganized Mob enforce his new whims thru terror
And now I will claim the status of the ten-millionth person to mention the debt the Totalitarian Leader owes to the Romantic conception of The Hero-Artist, unbound by rules, allowed anything in the pursuit of his (it doesn't seem to work that way for ladies) Creativity.
AFAICT, 100.00000% of Totalitarians have been humans so would you say they owe a debt to being human?
They similarly exhibit their *particular* form of will—driven by God or “free” will—but I don’t find it helpful to say that human will is necessary to totalitarianism. Like our romanticism, it’s hardly sufficient to cause totalitarian delusions and the destruction totalitarianism inevitably wreaks on our crowded planet
I implied a connexion noticeably greater than their common humanity. I can not give you good statistics, but where authoritarians used to claim a Divine mandate, now and recently (about one century) they seem to need to be seen as inspired geniuses.
On the third and fourth hands, there was something of a cult of Napoleon back when he was casting himself (and some others helped) as an Enlightenment Philosopher-King, so it could have run the other way around, or maybe, as you perhaps were implying, the tendency to worship both independently arise from common human traits, e.g. our regrettable ability to worship (that is, refuse to see fault in an authority-figure).
An interview with Fiona Hill (below) suggests a method to his madness.
In the case of the Putin/Trump Helsinki meeting Ms. Hill says Trump imagined himself getting some great nuclear arms agreement with Putin, so his demeanor wasn't so much "owned" but rather dejected.
He sees China as an existential threat. However, he doesn't grasp the utility of constraining China via trade. Thus the trade war.
Admittedly, faith that President Xi might be forced to change course due to domestic turmoil seems far less grounded since Covid.
Not arguing these are sane goals, just suggesting that someone who has worked under him doesn't see him as totally crazy. Her phrase was "out of touch."
(2751s is about where discussion of the Helsinki meeting is...much of the interview was enlightening)
I've often considered the competence of Trump's choice of flunkies as being limited by the extent to which competent people make him feel inferior*, or for that matter to what extent any person with some level of mastery at something would accept Trump as master. —and of course, when personal loyalty matters most, it's better to have people just smart enough to know that they got their jobs not through any great ability of their own, but because of _you_…and no smarter.
*Exceptions: people good at things no racehorse-gened White Man would bother-with, like accountancy or football.
Much tighter -- good.
There's a looming problem with this unscripted show: the plot is getting stale. The whole tariff thing has gotten old, and its effects are too technical and delayed to make good TV. A cast of toadies is pathetic. He needs antagonists to build tension and appear as the great leader and negotiator. But other world leaders won't meet with him; even Putin won't. Most Democrats won't either. Who wants to be 'Zelenskied'?
I expect a new dominant plotline. Options include: 'War w/ Iran!', 'You're Deported!', and 'water ski jump over shark'. Even these will get stale unless there are good human interest stories and/or personal terror.
There are those who believe that a Totalitarian Leader—one with no scruples, no policies, no vision other than his ever-expanding power—consciously *refutes* Policy, Lieutenants, any Government Institutions other than those that further enrich/empower himself. Such a (Dear) Leader must bypass these trappings of Good Governance so that only his whims matter; “interests” and industries must repeatedly beg him for (corrupt) exemptions to his previous pronouncements, while his faceless (even, masked) minions and the disorganized Mob enforce his new whims thru terror
The key concept being TOTALITARIANISM
And now I will claim the status of the ten-millionth person to mention the debt the Totalitarian Leader owes to the Romantic conception of The Hero-Artist, unbound by rules, allowed anything in the pursuit of his (it doesn't seem to work that way for ladies) Creativity.
AFAICT, 100.00000% of Totalitarians have been humans so would you say they owe a debt to being human?
They similarly exhibit their *particular* form of will—driven by God or “free” will—but I don’t find it helpful to say that human will is necessary to totalitarianism. Like our romanticism, it’s hardly sufficient to cause totalitarian delusions and the destruction totalitarianism inevitably wreaks on our crowded planet
I implied a connexion noticeably greater than their common humanity. I can not give you good statistics, but where authoritarians used to claim a Divine mandate, now and recently (about one century) they seem to need to be seen as inspired geniuses.
On the third and fourth hands, there was something of a cult of Napoleon back when he was casting himself (and some others helped) as an Enlightenment Philosopher-King, so it could have run the other way around, or maybe, as you perhaps were implying, the tendency to worship both independently arise from common human traits, e.g. our regrettable ability to worship (that is, refuse to see fault in an authority-figure).
An interview with Fiona Hill (below) suggests a method to his madness.
In the case of the Putin/Trump Helsinki meeting Ms. Hill says Trump imagined himself getting some great nuclear arms agreement with Putin, so his demeanor wasn't so much "owned" but rather dejected.
He sees China as an existential threat. However, he doesn't grasp the utility of constraining China via trade. Thus the trade war.
Admittedly, faith that President Xi might be forced to change course due to domestic turmoil seems far less grounded since Covid.
Not arguing these are sane goals, just suggesting that someone who has worked under him doesn't see him as totally crazy. Her phrase was "out of touch."
(2751s is about where discussion of the Helsinki meeting is...much of the interview was enlightening)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKlv3T-nfk&t=2751s
I've often considered the competence of Trump's choice of flunkies as being limited by the extent to which competent people make him feel inferior*, or for that matter to what extent any person with some level of mastery at something would accept Trump as master. —and of course, when personal loyalty matters most, it's better to have people just smart enough to know that they got their jobs not through any great ability of their own, but because of _you_…and no smarter.
*Exceptions: people good at things no racehorse-gened White Man would bother-with, like accountancy or football.