Il Duce, Il Donald?

Cartoon by Mike Luckovich.

Lately some political pundits have been asserting that it's not Donald Trump the man but Trump's message that is appealing to Republican voters, at least as reflected in the polls.  They're only partially right.  It's the message but also the man. 

Trump presents himself as a super dealmaker who can make America great again by making great deals with China, Mexico, and other rising competitors.  He's not unlike Mussolini in the way he holds himself out as a strong man who can face down the rest of the world.  His approach is grounded in a politics of personal charisma very different from Ronald Reagan's appeal.  Reagan avowed the essential goodness of Americans and the American system and campaigned on a promise to get government out of people's way.  By contrast, Trump sees the American people as dupes of greedy and incompetent politicians and offers himself as a strong leader with no need to enrich himself finacially from holding public office, someone who possesses the business skills to negotiate tough trade deals with tough foreign adversaries.

Of course, much of this rhetoric is Trump making extravagant promises without acknowledging -- or appreciating -- that making deals with foreign companies is not the same as making decisions as a president.  Yet a certain percentage of likely voters think the two roles are identical and that a President Trump can save us. Far too many people underestimate the importance of political skills, which are not the same as those of a businessman. They may overlap, but there is still a distinctive difference. It may be why America has never elected a businessman who never held political office to the presidency.  

(Victorious generals are another story -- it would appear that military command bears some resemblance to political leadership.  But anyone who makes the quick but facile connection between military leaders-turned politician and fascism should bear in mind that American presidents who were previously generals have a record of being more hesitant to rely on the military than presidents with little or no military experience.)

A conservative politician must always cut the Gordian knot which requires him or her to espouse limited government while at the same time presenting him or herself as strong and competent, someone who can inspire yet does not encourage a cult of personal charisma.

Trump is certainly no fascist.  But his own rather unique politics of personal charisma ought to concern us as his poll numbers continue to rise and his proposals for solving problems still bear closer scrutiny.


UPDATE -- 3/8/16:

On February 28th, candidate Trump quoted Mussolini in one of his early-morning tweets:

"It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep."

According to the New York Times, Trump was not aware that the quotation comes from Il Duce, but said he likes it anyway.

Exceptional? Or "Indispensable"?

(Painting: "Spirit of America," Norman Rockwell, 1979)

On Friday afternoon, CNN reported that, during his press conference at the White House earlier that day, President Obama declared that America is "indispensable" to the world in such crises as the current ones in the Middle East because "we're willing to plunge in and try where other countries don't bother trying." 

This may come as something of a surprise to those who remember Obama's view of "American exceptionalism" as something he, well, took exception to; who remember him saying at the NATO summit in France last year that "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism," and other occasions when he seemed to play down or dismiss the "myth of American exceptionalism.  Certainly many liberals, leftists, and Obama supporters have voiced the same disbelief in a uniquely American exceptionalism, and in fact many essays on the pervasiveness of this "myth" have been penned by fierce critics of the idea, who worry that it breeds chauvinism and an attitude that "America doesn't have to play by the same rules" as other nations. So Obama's recent comments may cause some to wonder: Is there a difference between being "indispensable" and being "exceptional'? Is the former word just a softer, more  utilitarian way of expressing the latter?  Is "indispensable" simply a more down-to-earth sounding notion, conjuring up a vision of an America ready to roll up its sleeves and help the world (but only when called-upon), while "exceptional" implies an almost metaphysical sense of entitlement?  Perhaps Obama has been reading James Flexner's 1994 biography of our first president, Washington: The Indispensable Man.  (If being indispensable was good enough for Washington, it must be good enough for America.)   You can be sure the White House speechwriters have mulled this over during more than one brainstorming session.

Actually, Friday wasn't the first time Obama moved away from his previous skepticism about the idea of American exceptionalism. In the video clip above, taken during Obama's speech to the graduating class at West Point in May, he pointedly said, ""America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else will" And in the final debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama stated "America remains the one indispensable nation, and the world needs a strong America." Needless to say, Obama also told the West Pointers that military action is not always necessary or wise, that we must "act with restraint," and that collective action is preferable to America going it alone; and he added after his debate remark about America's strength the admittedly self-serving comment "and it is stronger now than when I came into office." But Obama has been saying this sort of thing for some time now.  Is it pure politics, a convenient way to wave the flag to get re-elected in 2012 or to get fellow Democrats elected in 2014?  Or has he really come to appreciate that there's something America brings to the table that no other nation does, that it is indeed, exceptional -- or "indispensable,"  If so, it would be a major leap in Obama's thinking -- exceptionalism suggests far more than merely being indispensable ("Jim is an indispensable part of our corporate team.")  Has Obama become -- shut the barn doors, Mabel -- a neoconservative?  Or is his rhetoric, as is the way of politics, a mixture of both?  Skeptics should rightly remain skeptical -- especially of political language.  Time for us all to reread George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language."  For the time being, our president has designated America as indispensable, but not inherently exceptional.  At least the Greeks -- not the ancients, but the modern ones -- will be relieved.

In any event, I have no doubt that the debate about American exceptionalism will continue for a long time, not least among those who believe that America is exceptional for its wickedness, not its goodness. I suspect that you, gentle reader, lean towards one or the other. For myself, I'll paraphrase a line from Pauline Kael's famous essay on Orson Welles: "In a less confused world, its glory would be greater than its guilt.