"Tall trees catch a lot of wind." This traditional Dutch expression translates to something like: "people in high places catch a lot of flack." This is something we are all familiar with. No matter who runs our government, critics will quickly attach labels in an attempt to pigeonhole them, sometimes even well before they take power. These days many seem tempted to simplistically compare current political leaders to historical figures. Two of the more popular characterizations we have all become familiar with are: "Fascist" and "Machiavellian." Hitler's moustache has adorned George Bush as well as Barack Obama, while Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were often considered to be Machiavellian. No surprise therefore that Donald Trump is receiving the same treatment - be it probably more prevalent because he is currently more visible and more intensely controversial. However, none of this should imply that the characterizations being bantered about this time are somehow less simplistic or more appropriate.
Political antagonists from all sides of the political spectrum have made ignorant use of the term "Fascist" to describe their opposition to mean something or someone cruel, unscrupulous or arrogant. Political affiliation doesn't protect against this kind of assault. Back in 20017, Keith Oberman, political commentator for MSNBC, chastised then President George W. Bush for commuting Lewis Libby's prion sentence by exclaiming: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describe that toxic blend. You're a Fascist!" Ten years later, Seth Connell, writing for "The Federalist Papers," penned a piece headlined: "The Democratic Party Has Officially Gone Full Fascist." Any political leader in between has at some point become the focus of similar treatment. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright points out in her new book: "Fascism, a warning," "at this point, anybody who disagrees with us is a Fascist."
Many who use the term have often degraded it to the level of a swearword. It is usually not the "ideology" behind the term, such as it is, but the visual impression of Adolf Hitler that gets highlighted. As Secretary Albright explains, "Fascism is not an ideology, it is a process for taking and holding power." She continues: "A Fascist is someone who is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence - to achieve his or her goals. A Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist." The adoption of violence to impose fascist authority is key to Fascism. Hitler's objective was cleansing his Aryan race. He was a sociopathic narcissist, delusional egomaniac, unfeeling and cruel. Whatever tendencies Donald Trump is perceived to have, they don't raise to that level. Those equating Trump's supposed fascism with that of Benito Mussolini, in many ways the father of fascism, are wrong as well. Mussolini was obsessed with power, a trait Trump also appears to possess, but he was more cerebral, resorting to extreme manipulation by writing interpretative entries on the definition of fascism for the Italian Encyclopedia, and composing multiple biographies and speeches. Trump does not have the mental capacity to do these without the use of a ghostwriter. "The Art of the Deal" does not qualify.
Those depicting Donald Trump as being Machiavellian generally focus on philosophical content rather than propagandistic imagery. Superficially, being Machiavellian refers to being sneaky, cunning, lacking a moral code, and the idea that the end justifies he means. Early on, before Trump was even inaugurated, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post column, proclaimed that: "Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli." (Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2016.) He explained that: "Rarely in the United States have we seen the embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump," while referring to Machiavelli's masterpiece "The Prince," a book Trump had listed as one of his favorites. Ignatius goes on to enumerate some of the character traits Machiavelli listed as an advantageous or even necessary part of leadership, including: occasionally lying, bullying, mocking political correctness, decisively exercising power, and the proclivity to rather be feared than loved. The prince's task was to create a "strong state," not necessarily a "good one."
Several months later, Ignatius reversed himself, and wrote: "Trump is not so Machiavellian after all." (Washington Post, March 23, 2017). He stated that Trump embodied some of the moral qualities Machiavelli had recommended in his book: "He is ruthless, he lies, deceives and manipulates where necessary." However, he did not believe that our president, among other qualities, really embodies the spirit of "virtue," something Machiavelli regarded as essential for political success. Multiple analysts and observers agreed, sometimes even referring to Trump as the "Anti-Machiavelli." (See for instance: Stefano Albertini, "La Voce di New York," Jan. 14, 2018.)
One might wonder whether the attempt to attach superficially defined labels to our political leaders represents an act of convenience, not intended to educate but to agitate, counting on the unquestioning acceptance of a receptive audience. Then again, some critics may use ill-defined, but recognizable labels in lieu of what could be called "Trumpism," something even more difficult to define, since it tends to refer to unpredictability, and is ever changing, without a philosophical or ideological underpinning.
No comments:
Post a Comment