“Strongmen” (2020) by US historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat compares and contrasts right-wing authoritarian rulers from Mussolini to Trump. Most of what makes Trump seem strange when compared to other US presidents is what he has in common with – strongmen.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a Professor of History and Italian Studies at New York University. She is a Mussolini expert.
Her strongmen:
- fascists (1922-45):
- Mussolini (Italy, 1925-43)
- Hitler (Germany, 1933-45)
- Franco (Spain, 1939-75)
- military dictators (1945-91):
- Mobutu (Zaire, 1965-97)
- Gaddafi (Libya, 1969-2011)
- Pinochet (Chile, 1973-90)
- the new authoritarians (1991- ):
- Berlusconi (Italy, 1994, 2001-06, 2008-11)
- Putin (Russia, 2000- )
- Erdogan (Turkey, 2014- )
- Trump (USA, 2017- ) – still in power at the time of publication.
With cameo appearances by Idi Amin (Uganda), Bolsonaro (Brazil), Modi (India), Orban (Hungary), Duterte (Philippines), and Siad Barre (Somalia).
She says little to nothing about communist leaders like Stalin, Castro, Mao, or Xi. Or characters like Assad, Netanyahu, or MBS. Or all that much about US foreign policy.
She mainly writes about the life cycle of a strongman as illustrated by her favourites: How they rise to power, how they maintain power, and how they fall.
Rise: Some come to power violently, like Gaddafi and Pinochet, but many do not, like Hitler and Trump. While military dictators come to power mainly by controlling the military, the new authoritarians mainly do it through control or mastery of the media.
Fall: Strongmen almost always fall, though it can take decades. They are mostly brought down by elites, though mass uprisings certainly help:
“More personalist rulers are toppled by elites than by popular revolutions, especially in situations of economic or military distress. While they may last longer than other kinds of authoritarians, 80 percent of them are booted out of office eventually.
“Mobutu’s fall from power is symptomatic. By 1990, twenty-five years of kleptocracy and violent behavior had turned elites and the population against him.”
Tools of the trade – aka the red flags of strongman rule:
- Promise national greatness – Make America Great Again! Stand up against the marginalized religious, racial, ethnic, sexual or political minorities that are trying to destroy the nation. Be a bigot and call it courage.
- Propaganda – Lie! It works. Especially if you control enough of the media. Truth is the enemy of power. But be careful not to believe your own lies! Reality bites.
- Displays of virility – Be a misogynist! Grab them by the pussy! Or pose bare-chested. Or devote part of the government bureaucracy to provide an endless stream of sexual partners. Show that you are the alpha dog! But stay away from underaged girls. That might be a bridge too far for many of your supporters.
- Corruption – Rob the state! But make sure to give elites a cut of the action so that they have a stake in your continued power. Corruption is why loyalty matters more than merit.
- Violence – Keep your subjects in fear through terror, torture, massacre, disappearances, etc.
Not all of these are required. Hitler, for example, never bared his chest and seemed to be a one-woman man. Nor was he particularly corrupt. But he nailed all the others.
– Abagond, 2021.
See also:
- books – books I read in 2021
- strongmen:
- Ur-Fascism
- Autocracy: Rules for Survival
526
Abagond 
LMAO! And the name of the “bare-chester” is….?
A premium for who guesses the name right…. The name begins by “P”…
Another form to keep your subjects in line with your wishes, that Trump used various times, is to keep the menace of demoting or firing, over the their necks, specially for people who have a job dependent of your wish. You are fired!, let them tremble in anticipation. Total terror!
Very useful!
…and civilized!
LikeLike
By the way, the “would be strongman/king” is already planing his return to the top job of the country,
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/donald-trump-plans-family/index.html
And his friends are already reshaping the rules of the game to allow for his victory,
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/24/politics/arizona-voting-bills/index.html
(Even the top GOP senator who criticized him for the January 6, 2021 insurrection, appears to have changed his mind and became a Trump-fan again!)
Be aware, people of the USA, next time, the “would be dictator” will have the former experience to learn from and will be more effective in imposing his will to everybody else. It will not be a walk in the park!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting that this fits perfectly with Lula (2002-2016) and not with Bolsonaro (2019-2026). The only way Bolsonaro fits is the barechestedness. Or, rather, the barebellyness: he likes to show the scars left by the left’s failed murder attack
LikeLike
“Not all of these are required. Hitler, for example, never bared his chest and seemed to be a one-woman man. Nor was he particularly corrupt. But he nailed all the others.”
You forgot to add that he was a vegetarian and animal lover. What’s the opposite of a “strongman”, a “weakman”? Were Churchill and Roosevelt “weakmen”? Nuking Japan and firebombing Germany tells me they were just as “strong” as any “strongmen”. This concept, like “athleticism”, is lazy journalese to avoid describing the phenomenon at hand.
“Trump (USA, 2017- ) – still in power at the time of publication.” Please explain.
LikeLike
@ Gro Jo
Strongman refers to how a leader rules internally, not to conduct in external warfare:
“A leader who rules by the exercise of threats, force, or violence.”
https://www.lexico.com/definition/strongman
“a political leader who controls by force; dictator.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/strongman
“Trump (USA, 2017- ) – still in power at the time of publication.” Please explain.
The book was published in 2020, while Trump was still president. Looks like the publication date was shortly after the election, but that means the book itself was written (and had gone through final edits) well before November.
LikeLike
Also, I’m not really sure what you find vague about athleticism?
1835, “devotion to athletics,” from athletic + -ism. Also, by late 19c., “physical strength and capability of robust activity.”
https://www.etymonline.com/word/athleticism
LikeLike
@ gro jo @ Solitaire
The events in the book go up to July 2020.
LikeLike
@ gro jo
Ben-Ghiat gave Trump’s dates as (2017- ) because he was still in office when she wrote the book in 2020.
LikeLike
@ Munubantu
“Be aware, people of the USA, next time, the “would be dictator” will have the former experience to learn from and will be more effective in imposing his will to everybody else”
Fiona Hill says that what Trump attempted in January is called a “self-coup.” She broke down exactly why it failed:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/capitol-riot-self-coup-trump-fiona-hill-457549
He would not necessarily have needed to win over all these elements to succeed. The support of the military alone might have allowed him to pull it off. Same with the courts.
LikeLike
” on Sat Feb 27th 2021 at 23:14:11
Solitaire
@ Gro Jo
Strongman refers to how a leader rules internally, not to conduct in external warfare:
“A leader who rules by the exercise of threats, force, or violence.”
https://www.lexico.com/definition/strongman
“a political leader who controls by force; dictator.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/strongman…Also, I’m not really sure what you find vague about athleticism?
1835, “devotion to athletics,” from athletic + -ism. Also, by late 19c., “physical strength and capability of robust activity.”
https://www.etymonline.com/word/athleticism”
Solitaire, I don’t mean to sound ungrateful for your reference to dictionaries, but I’m quite capable of making use of them on my own. If I recollect correctly, FDR qualified for the “strongman” label with alphabet agencies intervening in the US economy that collapsed shortly before he was elected. He had no qualms using the federal purse to pressure his enemies. He even sent the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party to jail for their program to fight against Hitler, the Nation Of Islam got the same treatment. I hear that his “fireside” chats were quite effective, so why isn’t he included as a “strongman”?
(https://socialistworker.org/2016/07/08/when-socialism-was-put-on-trial)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Elijah_Muhammad's_leadership)
Don’t get me started on Churchill the butcher, like Stalin, he caused starvation in India among his many crimes against the slaves of the British Empire.
My problem with “athleticism” is that it is used to avoid describing what the athlete did, instead, the ‘journalist’ babbles on about “athleticism. Duh, they are professional athletes, their ‘athleticism’ is a given, I want to know what one did better than the other. That word absolves them of coming up with interesting descriptions of the action.
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
Politicians who want to become unrestricted strongmen or dictators, as soon as they come to power, proceed to put their key men in critical positions, like the commandeer of the army, the police, the secret services, etc.
I sense that Trump tried to make some “adjustments” at the top of the army only very belatedly, and it didn’t work. The available time was already limited for it to function.
He spent much of his four years of presidency lamenting the supposed or real opposition he felt from the so called “deep state”. A true strongman would instead replace the heads of the relevant bodies with “his men” at the beginning of his time in power.
Next time, maybe he (Trump) will try something along this road. And you, as American citizens, should be aware of that possibility.
LikeLike
The US has bombed 30 countries and killed 20-30 million people (mostly brown and black people) around the planet since FDR died. This has been a Democratic and Republican bipartisan foreign policy where every America POTUS has been a war criminal in my lifetime. And I was born in 1949.
LikeLike
@ Gro Jo
“Solitaire, I don’t mean to sound ungrateful for your reference to dictionaries, but I’m quite capable of making use of them on my own.”
Perhaps you should have made use of a thesaurus instead of posing a silly question about “weakman”.
“If I recollect correctly, FDR qualified for the “strongman” label with alphabet agencies intervening in the US economy that collapsed shortly before he was elected.”
How so? Did FDR use violence or the threat of violence to establish those agencies?
“He had no qualms using the federal purse to pressure his enemies.”
Name one president who hasn’t. I don’t see how this falls under the definition of a strongman.
“He even sent the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party to jail for their program to fight against Hitler”
Yes, and he put Japanese Americans in internment camps and did other bad things. Did he use violence to keep himself in power and to intimidate his foremost political opponents, the GOP?
“Don’t get me started on Churchill the butcher, like Stalin, he caused starvation in India among his many crimes against the slaves of the British Empire.”
Well, that’s an interesting point. I don’t think Churchill meets the definition of “strongman” because he respected the democratic processes within the British parliamentary system and didn’t try to use violence or force to remain in power. But he did use violence to try to keep control over imperial colonies. In that respect, how was he any different from the prime ministers who came before him? With that view, you could argue that every U.S. president was a “strongman” based on their treatment of Native Americans alone. But again, the term applies to how a leader goes about maintaining and retaining control over the whole nation and its government. A leader can not be a strongman, not be a dictator, and still terribly mistreat minority/subjugated populations.
“My problem with “athleticism” is that it is used to avoid describing what the athlete did, instead, the ‘journalist’ babbles on about “athleticism.”
Hadn’t noticed that myself. I’ll have to take your word for it.
LikeLike
@ Munubantu
“A true strongman would instead replace the heads of the relevant bodies with “his men” at the beginning of his time in power.”
I think one of the reasons Trump found it difficult to do that is the president doesn’t have a free hand. His appointments have to be approved by Congress.
Trump also is very difficult to work for and kept having his people resign, when he wasn’t firing them or they weren’t being indicted. He doesn’t seem to have found a way to either inspire unquestioning loyalty in his people or frighten them enough with dire consequences if they resigned against his wishes.
“Next time, maybe he (Trump) will try something along this road. And you, as American citizens, should be aware of that possibility.”
Or if not Trump, someone else may try it with more success. I definitely agree with you that we need to be more aware and more vigilant.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Does Ben-Ghiat address how to distinguish a strongman from a leader who is not fascist, authoritarian, or a dictator yet who exhibits one or more of these red flags (such as corruption)?
LikeLike
“Perhaps you should have made use of a thesaurus instead of posing a silly question about “weakman”…Yes, and he put Japanese Americans in internment camps and did other bad things. Did he use violence to keep himself in power and to intimidate his foremost political opponents, the GOP?…Well, that’s an interesting point. I don’t think Churchill meets the definition of “strongman” because he respected the democratic processes within the British parliamentary system and didn’t try to use violence or force to remain in power. But he did use violence to try to keep control over imperial colonies. In that respect, how was he any different from the prime ministers who came before him? With that view, you could argue that every U.S. president was a “strongman” based on their treatment of Native Americans alone. But again, the term applies to how a leader goes about maintaining and retaining control over the whole nation and its government. A leader can not be a strongman, not be a dictator, and still terribly mistreat minority/subjugated populations…Hadn’t noticed that myself. I’ll have to take your word for it.”
Strongmen imply the existence of weakmen. FDR lied, used violence, corruption and Displays of virility.
“Black and Tans (Irish: Dúchrónaigh)[1] were constables recruited into the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) as reinforcements during the Irish War of Independence.[2] Recruitment began in Great Britain in January 1920 and about 10,000 men enlisted during the conflict. The vast majority were unemployed former soldiers from Great Britain who fought in the First World War, although some were from Ireland.” “Winston Churchill ordered Black and Tans into Ireland in 1920”. Sounds pretty virile of W. C.
Solitaire, it’s obvious you resent me so let’s go back to our former mutual ignore pact until you’re ready to get off the broomstick you’re on.
LikeLike
@ Gro Jo
“Strongmen imply the existence of weakmen.”
I see where you’re getting that from, but I disagree that the actual word usage posits such a dichotomy.
“Solitaire, it’s obvious you resent me so let’s go back to our former mutual ignore pact until you’re ready to get off the broomstick you’re on.”
Wow, you’re still convinced I’m mad at you when I know I’m not. Ok, I did say above that you posed “a silly question” but I meant it playfully. I thought my comment was in the same vein as when you said I was spouting “nonsense” on the other thread. If it was too much, then I’m sorry for it.
And speaking of broomsticks, I didn’t get upset about that video you linked to, suggesting such was your image of me. I took that in stride.
But sure, if you want to go back to the mutual ignore pact, I will honor that request for as long as you want.
LikeLike
Ok, since you’re being reasonable again and being “playful” by showing you can take a joke (“And speaking of broomsticks, I didn’t get upset about that video you linked to, suggesting such was your image of me. I took that in stride.”) we can go back to being friendly, more or less.
LikeLike
💕
…And after a long journey of mutual altercation, the beautiful princess on a broom and the vigorous maharajah on a rug have found the path of reciprocal understanding and love. And their marriage was blessed by patriarch Abagond under the ovation of his numerous admirers. 👏👏👏
And they lived happily ever after!
Happy End!
💕
LikeLike
Hilarious.
LikeLike