7 ms·

What I find most upsetting is the return of "great leader" - some overconfident old man who loves power. Putin, Jinping, Trump, Orban, Modi, Netanyahu etc. are

by vvpan 3y ago

What I find most upsetting is the return of "great leader" - some overconfident old man who loves power. Putin, Jinping, Trump, Orban, Modi, Netanyahu etc. are detestable phenomena that won't lead to no good. How did we get here? Crisis of ideology? Counter-reaction to relative social liberalization? In a more controversial phrasing I'd call it "the return of the big penis".

wizardforhire 3y ago
> More like the small…
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  In the immortal words of Team America : World Police... https://youtube.com/watch?v=E7Sr-cpFwUc https://youtube.com/watch?v=E7Sr-cpFwUc
vsnf 3y ago
Was it ever gone? Much of the world never got over this phenomenon, even if the western nations in the aftermath of WW2 kind of did, and even that was arguably just an anomalous period of time. The open questions for us now are, can this anomaly be turned into something truly permanent and if so how, or is regression to the historic status quo basically inevitable?
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Yes, even for "western nations in the aftermath of WW2" we can look at Spain and Portugal with Franco and Salazar as counterexamples, as well as some post-war leaders in e.g. USA and UK.
burningChrome 3y ago
Kind of interesting you included the guy who you said loves power but somehow never started any new wars, keep all the other dictators on the list in check during his time in office and ended several long standing conflicts we were engaged in the Middle East and safely and effectively brought our troops home. He also normalized relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. An accord that has withstood the current Israel/HAMAS conflict and remains intact. Now that the guy who loves power is out of office? Putin has invaded Ukraine, HAMAS has attacked Israel, Iran proxies have committed over 150+ attacks on our troops and China continues to threaten Biden with an invasion of Taiwan. But he was sending out mean tweets, so that makes him "detestable" in your book amiright?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jemmyw 3y ago
  Probably due to him not wanting to let go his grasp on power and not accepting a loss, trying to illegally hold on to power, and actually saying that he wants to be president permanently and would like to suspend the constitution. > included the guy who you said loves power but somehow never started any new wars Not sure those are correlated anyway
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Plenty of dictators were isolationists and didn't start any new wars. Xi also hasn't. Kim Jong-Il hasn't. Does that mean they don't like power?
lmm 3y ago
> How did we get here? Crisis of ideology? Counter-reaction to relative social liberalization? Well yeah. The alternatives we tried didn't exactly go so great did they.
eli_gottlieb 3y ago
> How did we get here? Crisis of ideology? Yeah, there's a nice book about it: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/technopopulism-9780198807766?cc=us&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/technopopulism-97801...
arduanika 3y ago
Xi is the surname, FYI. Not Jinping. Doesn't help with the actual problem you're talking about, which I agree sucks.
colechristensen 3y ago
I think you might just have a bias for the time period you know most. There was maybe a bit of a drop off around the end of the Cold War, these things go in cycles. Many of them just died in the 70s, so it seems almost generational. The circumstances around the deaths and rise to power were shaped by the ages of these strongmen and the geopolitical events that led to their beginnings and ends.
fbdidiansii 3y ago
As all developers know, distributed systems are extremely hard to scale. It’s much easier to simply beef up the single instance you have. An effective, just and trustworthy leader is likely the most efficient form of human governance. The men you listed are examples of corrupt, weak leaders - a good ruler makes history. In contrast, fully representative democracy is only treated with a religious reverence in the west because it benefits those in power. It’s effective at balkanizing the populace and allowing elites to abuse the populace with little repercussion. After all, we voted for them. We’ve only ourselves to blame.
- GolfPopper 3y ago
  No, no, no, no, no! The killer app for democracy is not efficient governance, it is peaceful transfer of power. With any sort of autocracy, no matter how honest or just "efficient" the autocrat is, inevitably you end up with an autocrat who is far worse than least functional democracy. Autocrats make history by making lots of corpses. History makes this absolutely clear.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > peaceful transfer of power. Exactly. There's a long tradition in this country of not prosecuting former Presidents, even those who were obviously guilty of crimes (a lot of them, TBH, a lot more than the ones that come immediately to mind). The proximate cause of the end of the Roman Republic was the Senate's determination to prosecute Julius Caesar after he left office (many Roman officials had immunity while they were in office). They were basically running around chortling "Oh, we are really going to prosecute the living shit out of Caesar! He's in big trouble now! Hah HAH!" Caesar had other ideas. He marched his troops on Rome, his enemies ran away like a pack of scared rabbits, and he made himself dictator. The Roman Republic was never restored. Not many people today study this part of history, but the Founders certainly had.
    - GolfPopper 3y ago
      The difference with the US being, of course, that the only former President to be prosecuted was charged after he had marched on Rome, rather than before.
michelsedgh 3y ago
It will always people who will run things whether you like it or not. Each person at any organization is making decisions and is a person. I think its better someone confident and with a good track record rather than idk what ur even suggesting. They have a better chance of giving me a better outcome than someone who’s not confident, not charismatic and doesn’t know what they want.There is a reason each country has a person that ultimately makes the last minute decision.
randomdata 3y ago
> How did we get here? Because it is easier. Most people don't want to put in the hard work that democracy requires. They want to go to their job, play with their children, see their friends, exercise at the gym, go on dates, etc. They quite like that there is a "great leader" ready to take the load of community off their backs so that they can focus on the personal things they deem more important. A terribly unsettling event can cause people to change priorities pretty quickly, but when things are comfortable and everything appears to be running smoothly enough, it's hard to see why, when someone has happily stepped up to do the work, there is any reason to put in the time and effort too.
rayiner 3y ago
> How did we get here? Crisis of ideology? Counter-reaction to relative social liberalization? It’s a reaction to top-down liberalization by elites. Immigration, globalization, and social liberalization were imposed by elites (economic and cultural) on the masses. Modi is a good example. Socialism and secularism were brought to India from Oxford by western-educated elites. Modi is a populist reaction to that: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial.... The authoritarian aspect arises because only an authoritarian can control the control the cultural and economic institutions where elites exercise soft power. Modi is aligned with your average Indian on the issue of secularism, against your average Indian college professor. Likewise, Trump is aligned with your average American over racial preferences, against your average American college professor.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  > Trump is aligned with your average American Considering he lost the popular* vote in 2016, that's a strong claim. If he manages the popular vote this time, I'll grant you it. > No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. — HLM * which distinguishes itself from the electoral results by clearly including the opinion of the median voter.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I think the other way to look at it is that Trump is a terrible candidate for idiosyncratic and personal reasons, stuck in a party with a “tax cuts and foreign wars” legacy, and is viable at all only because he is on the right side against the elite on a bunch of issues. Immigration was his defining issue in 2016, and he has won with the public that issue. He won on the rioting and law and order issue. He has won against affirmative action, both with the public and with SFFA. He sides with the majority view on the Iraq war and using the American military to underpin the world order. The GOP’s biggest liability has been abortion, which is an area where Trump has gone against the party and pushed for a 15-week middle ground that commands majority support (once you extricate the policy from voters’ worries about total bans). My mom—who is a steadfast Democrat—was commenting the other day that Trump could’ve been a great president. She hates how he talks, what he did on January 6, etc. She won’t vote for anyone with an (R) because of the Iraq War, but she (and my dad) basically agree with Trump on all of his signature policies.
foul 3y ago
The arguments they represent are very convincing for the general public, the medium by whom they are conveyed is just designed for the people who would support the transfer of power. This people grew without a father.

by vvpan 3y ago

wizardforhire 3y ago

> More like the small…

BlueTemplar 3y ago
In the immortal words of Team America : World Police... https://youtube.com/watch?v=E7Sr-cpFwUc https://youtube.com/watch?v=E7Sr-cpFwUc

vsnf 3y ago

Was it ever gone? Much of the world never got over this phenomenon, even if the western nations in the aftermath of WW2 kind of did, and even that was arguably just an anomalous period of time. The open questions for us now are, can this anomaly be turned into something truly permanent and if so how, or is regression to the historic status quo basically inevitable?

PeterisP 3y ago
Yes, even for "western nations in the aftermath of WW2" we can look at Spain and Portugal with Franco and Salazar as counterexamples, as well as some post-war leaders in e.g. USA and UK.

burningChrome 3y ago

Kind of interesting you included the guy who you said loves power but somehow never started any new wars, keep all the other dictators on the list in check during his time in office and ended several long standing conflicts we were engaged in the Middle East and safely and effectively brought our troops home. He also normalized relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. An accord that has withstood the current Israel/HAMAS conflict and remains intact. Now that the guy who loves power is out of office? Putin has invaded Ukraine, HAMAS has attacked Israel, Iran proxies have committed over 150+ attacks on our troops and China continues to threaten Biden with an invasion of Taiwan. But he was sending out mean tweets, so that makes him "detestable" in your book amiright?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jemmyw 3y ago
Probably due to him not wanting to let go his grasp on power and not accepting a loss, trying to illegally hold on to power, and actually saying that he wants to be president permanently and would like to suspend the constitution. > included the guy who you said loves power but somehow never started any new wars Not sure those are correlated anyway
tsimionescu 3y ago
Plenty of dictators were isolationists and didn't start any new wars. Xi also hasn't. Kim Jong-Il hasn't. Does that mean they don't like power?

lmm 3y ago

> How did we get here? Crisis of ideology? Counter-reaction to relative social liberalization? Well yeah. The alternatives we tried didn't exactly go so great did they.

eli_gottlieb 3y ago

> How did we get here? Crisis of ideology? Yeah, there's a nice book about it: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/technopopulism-9780198807766?cc=us&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/technopopulism-97801...

arduanika 3y ago

Xi is the surname, FYI. Not Jinping. Doesn't help with the actual problem you're talking about, which I agree sucks.

colechristensen 3y ago

I think you might just have a bias for the time period you know most. There was maybe a bit of a drop off around the end of the Cold War, these things go in cycles. Many of them just died in the 70s, so it seems almost generational. The circumstances around the deaths and rise to power were shaped by the ages of these strongmen and the geopolitical events that led to their beginnings and ends.

fbdidiansii 3y ago

As all developers know, distributed systems are extremely hard to scale. It’s much easier to simply beef up the single instance you have. An effective, just and trustworthy leader is likely the most efficient form of human governance. The men you listed are examples of corrupt, weak leaders - a good ruler makes history. In contrast, fully representative democracy is only treated with a religious reverence in the west because it benefits those in power. It’s effective at balkanizing the populace and allowing elites to abuse the populace with little repercussion. After all, we voted for them. We’ve only ourselves to blame.

GolfPopper 3y ago
No, no, no, no, no! The killer app for democracy is not efficient governance, it is peaceful transfer of power. With any sort of autocracy, no matter how honest or just "efficient" the autocrat is, inevitably you end up with an autocrat who is far worse than least functional democracy. Autocrats make history by making lots of corpses. History makes this absolutely clear.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > peaceful transfer of power. Exactly. There's a long tradition in this country of not prosecuting former Presidents, even those who were obviously guilty of crimes (a lot of them, TBH, a lot more than the ones that come immediately to mind). The proximate cause of the end of the Roman Republic was the Senate's determination to prosecute Julius Caesar after he left office (many Roman officials had immunity while they were in office). They were basically running around chortling "Oh, we are really going to prosecute the living shit out of Caesar! He's in big trouble now! Hah HAH!" Caesar had other ideas. He marched his troops on Rome, his enemies ran away like a pack of scared rabbits, and he made himself dictator. The Roman Republic was never restored. Not many people today study this part of history, but the Founders certainly had.
  - GolfPopper 3y ago
    The difference with the US being, of course, that the only former President to be prosecuted was charged after he had marched on Rome, rather than before.

michelsedgh 3y ago

It will always people who will run things whether you like it or not. Each person at any organization is making decisions and is a person. I think its better someone confident and with a good track record rather than idk what ur even suggesting. They have a better chance of giving me a better outcome than someone who’s not confident, not charismatic and doesn’t know what they want.There is a reason each country has a person that ultimately makes the last minute decision.

randomdata 3y ago

> How did we get here? Because it is easier. Most people don't want to put in the hard work that democracy requires. They want to go to their job, play with their children, see their friends, exercise at the gym, go on dates, etc. They quite like that there is a "great leader" ready to take the load of community off their backs so that they can focus on the personal things they deem more important. A terribly unsettling event can cause people to change priorities pretty quickly, but when things are comfortable and everything appears to be running smoothly enough, it's hard to see why, when someone has happily stepped up to do the work, there is any reason to put in the time and effort too.

rayiner 3y ago

> How did we get here? Crisis of ideology? Counter-reaction to relative social liberalization? It’s a reaction to top-down liberalization by elites. Immigration, globalization, and social liberalization were imposed by elites (economic and cultural) on the masses. Modi is a good example. Socialism and secularism were brought to India from Oxford by western-educated elites. Modi is a populist reaction to that: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial.... The authoritarian aspect arises because only an authoritarian can control the control the cultural and economic institutions where elites exercise soft power. Modi is aligned with your average Indian on the issue of secularism, against your average Indian college professor. Likewise, Trump is aligned with your average American over racial preferences, against your average American college professor.

082349872349872 3y ago
> Trump is aligned with your average American Considering he lost the popular* vote in 2016, that's a strong claim. If he manages the popular vote this time, I'll grant you it. > No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. — HLM * which distinguishes itself from the electoral results by clearly including the opinion of the median voter.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
- rayiner 3y ago
  I think the other way to look at it is that Trump is a terrible candidate for idiosyncratic and personal reasons, stuck in a party with a “tax cuts and foreign wars” legacy, and is viable at all only because he is on the right side against the elite on a bunch of issues. Immigration was his defining issue in 2016, and he has won with the public that issue. He won on the rioting and law and order issue. He has won against affirmative action, both with the public and with SFFA. He sides with the majority view on the Iraq war and using the American military to underpin the world order. The GOP’s biggest liability has been abortion, which is an area where Trump has gone against the party and pushed for a 15-week middle ground that commands majority support (once you extricate the policy from voters’ worries about total bans). My mom—who is a steadfast Democrat—was commenting the other day that Trump could’ve been a great president. She hates how he talks, what he did on January 6, etc. She won’t vote for anyone with an (R) because of the Iraq War, but she (and my dad) basically agree with Trump on all of his signature policies.

foul 3y ago

The arguments they represent are very convincing for the general public, the medium by whom they are conveyed is just designed for the people who would support the transfer of power. This people grew without a father.