The cancer infecting the political Left

[Eric the Green]

(12-09-2020, 05:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-09-2020, 12:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-09-2020, 02:33 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Obama had a personality cult behind him. What's wrong with your eyes and mind because the two don't seem to be working as well as mine?

Personality cults are covers for leaders of moral and intellectual inadequacy. Example:



Puppet leaders don't have it easy. They must create the myth that they are independent actors while compelled or tricked into doing horrible things on behalf of the overlord. Think of the much-despised King Herod of the New Testament. In the case of Petain one has a leader who was no longer up to the job, someone often derided as senile, depending upon his glories of his past to redeem what he did in what was then the present - like consigning French workers to be cheap labor in the Workers' Hell that was Nazi Germany, stripping refugees from Franco of protection, and acquiescing to the deportation of Jews from France to their deaths in the Holocaust. Other people did worse things than he did, but they were able to cajole him into him into countersigning criminal orders. 

Petain might have been an adequate leader of France in the 1920's... but definitely not in the 1940's.

Senility is not yet accepted as a mitigating factor in a criminal sentence as 'diminished responsibility'. 

Soulless, overmatched political figures, especially those who have a thinly-covered evil beneath the surface are prone to the cult of personality.  

......................

Trump obviously isn't Petain... but he certainly has gross inadequacies as a leader while posing as an exemplar of greatness.  He was a neophyte as a political figure, so he had no idea of how the American political system operates. Contrast Barack Obama, who recognized the complexity of the American political system and of electoral politics, and made his adjustments accordingly. Obama could draw upon history for symbolism and practical solutions. He could even exploit the lore of Chicago gangsters; accounts of the assassination of Osama bin Laden (who of course deserved his end) suggest a gangland hit with more sophistication -- and full recognition of the international optics. 

Bill Clinton had a rakish sex life... but even he recognized it as something to push as much as possible into the background. Trump uses his serial adultery as proof of his manhood. (Gee, how could Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Corazon Aquino, or Angela Merkel get away with failing at that!) Trump had an affair with a porn star... a porn star! Considering how unreal pornography is, that affair reflects that Trump is out of touch with the sexual norms of most Americans.  Most people in America's economic elites (and for that matter the middle class) want nothing to do with mobsters... but Trump has had plenty of sordid dealings with the Russian Mafia, which has the viciousness of the old Neapolitan or Sicilian Mafia... and more brains.  Trump is not smart enough to recognize the complexity of political discourse. Can you imagine screeds like those of Donald Trump coming from Twitter  from the Obama Administration? Hardly. Before something got released by Obama as an official communication, he had others read the draft for grammatical flaws, logical gaps, spelling errors, typos, and ambiguities. That is exactly what a good attorney does because any one of those can create an opening for something unwelcome. Words have rigid meanings in legal documents... 

Trump's achievements are slight, on the whole. His biggest achievement (for which a servile Republican party is culpable) is for forcing the nomination and appointment of judicial figures, including three Justices of the US Supreme Court, who believe in an arcane theory of law that fits the idea that, to put it bluntly, "He who owns the gold makes the rules". Maybe it is a good thing, in view of his support of ideas that a majority of voters thought objectionable in November 2020, that he wasn't effective.

His biggest achievement to date is operation Warp Speed. 

Possibly.

[Einzige]

I mean, Trump and Obama both had cults of personality behind them. So.

[pbrower2a]

Cults of personality are generally for leaders with little personality or with extreme flaws of personality. Blandness is not a fault.

[Einzige]

Every President has a personality cult

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-11-2020, 04:33 AM)Einzige Wrote: Every President has a personality cult

To some degree. As I said, in a democracy you have to build a bunch of voters that like you. If you define personality cult a bit off, the above statement could very well be true. I suspect Trump's followers are a bit different. Members of the press who strive to articulate that difference came up with personality cult.

I would add that revolutionary leaders form personality cults too. You have to to lead any major violent action. It is part of the job. Lenin, Mao, Castro... All in their own way had followers. Of course, in time the attraction became poorer among the workers, greater among the Communist elites who came to control the means of production. But, it is the same thing.

[pbrower2a]

(12-11-2020, 05:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 04:33 AM)Einzige Wrote: Every President has a personality cult

To some degree.  As I said, in a democracy you have to build a bunch of voters that like you.  If you define personality cult a bit off, the above statement could very well be true.  I suspect Trump's followers are a bit different.  Members of the press who strive to articulate that difference came up with personality cult.

I would add that revolutionary leaders form personality cults too.  You have to to lead any major violent action.  It is part of the job.  Lenin, Mao, Castro...  All in their own way had followers.  Of course, in time the attraction became poorer among the workers, greater among the Communist elites who came to control the means of production.  But, it is the same thing.

"Personality cult" is a derogatory term as most see it. It is obviously more difficult to put the label on someone like Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter... If we are talking about national leaders, do you really want to assign one to Barack Obama as you would to Benito Mussolini? If one can attach it to any leader, then the term becomes meaningless. 

In a genuine democracy, one would not expect to see the image of the President attached everywhere. To be sure, the personality cult around Trump is still 100% voluntary... but I can only imagine that having no Trump paraphernalia might have become harmful to one's business opportunities or advancement on the job had Trump won. (He didn't, so I guess we can flush the Valium down the toilet and save the vodka for a suitable celebration -- like getting a vaccine for COVID-19). 

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Winston Churchill,  Mohandas Gandhi, or Charles de Gaulle get the recognition for legitimate deeds.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-11-2020, 05:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: "Personality cult" is a derogatory term as most see it. It is obviously more difficult to put the label on someone like Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter... If we are talking about national leaders, do you really want to assign one to Barack Obama as you would to Benito Mussolini? If one can attach it to any leader, then the term becomes meaningless. 

In a genuine democracy, one would not expect to see the image of the President attached everywhere. To be sure, the personality cult around Trump is still 100% voluntary... but I can only imagine that having no Trump paraphernalia might have become harmful to one's business opportunities or advancement on the job had Trump won. (He didn't, so I guess we can flush the Valium down the toilet and save the vodka for a suitable celebration -- like getting a vaccine for COVID-19). 

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Winston Churchill,  Mohandas Gandhi, or Charles de Gaulle get the recognition for legitimate deeds.

Personality cult, political popularity, legitimate recognition for deeds, they have some similarity.  A bunch of people get behind a leader for good (or perhaps not good) reason.  You are correct that 'personality cult' is a derogatory label.  We would have to define exactly what such a personality cult is other than working towards something something you don’t like.  

What is the difference between the cultures following Churchill and Mussolini other than your admiring one culture over another?  Is there something specifically in the style of leadershp that can be pointed out as bad?

[Einzige]

Both Ford and Carter had cults of personality. Particularly Carter, who began his career as a race baiting conservative before developing his New South centrist branding. And the end result is the same: pro-business policies, except one is wrapped in the guise of liberal virtue and one in traditional values.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-11-2020, 06:34 AM)Einzige Wrote: Both Ford and Carter had cults of personality. Particularly Carter, who began his career as a race baiting conservative before developing his New South centrist branding. And the end result is the same: pro-business policies, except one is wrapped in the guise of liberal virtue and one in traditional values.

The above goes with the definition of personality cults as having to do with whether you approve of the culture. Obviously, one can approve of liberal virtue or traditional values. Neither suggests more than a worthy approval of what they accomplished. In both cases, they accomplished very little. Both Ford and Carter had negatives which came to result in a lack of political approval which resulted in lost elections. These include the pardon of Nixon for Ford, and the hostage and oil crises for Carter. Carter also spotted the national malaise, the lack of confidence that America could meet any challenge. His mistake was in speaking of it, trying to solve it. Reagan's optimism while trying to do less was a more constructive approach.

But if accomplishments and building a democratic following do not define a personality cult, what does? Neither Ford nor Carter were Mussolini. What if anything in their modes of operation made them a personality cult leader or not? That you approve of the cultures and virtues they tried to advance doesn't count.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-11-2020, 05:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 05:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 04:33 AM)Einzige Wrote: Every President has a personality cult

To some degree.  As I said, in a democracy you have to build a bunch of voters that like you.  If you define personality cult a bit off, the above statement could very well be true.  I suspect Trump's followers are a bit different.  Members of the press who strive to articulate that difference came up with personality cult.

I would add that revolutionary leaders form personality cults too.  You have to to lead any major violent action.  It is part of the job.  Lenin, Mao, Castro...  All in their own way had followers.  Of course, in time the attraction became poorer among the workers, greater among the Communist elites who came to control the means of production.  But, it is the same thing.

"Personality cult" is a derogatory term as most see it. It is obviously more difficult to put the label on someone like Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter... If we are talking about national leaders, do you really want to assign one to Barack Obama as you would to Benito Mussolini? If one can attach it to any leader, then the term becomes meaningless. 

In a genuine democracy, one would not expect to see the image of the President attached everywhere. To be sure, the personality cult around Trump is still 100% voluntary... but I can only imagine that having no Trump paraphernalia might have become harmful to one's business opportunities or advancement on the job had Trump won. (He didn't, so I guess we can flush the Valium down the toilet and save the vodka for a suitable celebration -- like getting a vaccine for COVID-19). 

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Winston Churchill,  Mohandas Gandhi, or Charles de Gaulle get the recognition for legitimate deeds.

You assigned one to Trump. Are you and Obama off limits? Obama is directly associated with one of the largest and most powerful personality cults this country has seen since the Nazi's. We got to see it in action and see what it can do last summer and we got to see the preparation for the violence and carnage that would ensue if the personality cult didn't get the President that it wanted in office. What's different for them here, we're here waiting for justification to wipe them off the face of the Earth and replace them with better people. However it gets done, the majority of country won't care when the time comes to eliminate them. I figure we are about a half a term away from the beginning of that endeavor.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-11-2020, 09:21 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You assigned one to Trump. Are you and Obama off limits? Obama is directly associated with one of the largest and most powerful personality cults this country has seen since the Nazi's. We got to see it in action and see what it can do last summer and we got to see the preparation for the violence and carnage that would ensue if the personality cult didn't get the President that it wanted in office. What's different for them here, we're here waiting for justification to wipe them off the face of the Earth and replace them with better people. However it gets done, the majority of country won't care when the time comes to eliminate them. I figure we are about a half a term away from the beginning of that endeavor.

So far, no one has defined what a personality cult is. I suppose it would be up to Pbower and Einzige to define since they are the ones who want to use the term. Thus far the only difference is that the goals that the politician are working for are undesirable. That is not at all satisfactory. It changes too much between people.

The protest this summer were much more about ending a systematic racism that has been going on for centuries. Trump took actions which seem supportive of the racism and violence, while the blues sought to avoid both. I do not see the protests as demanding a specific candidate for president, or a specific style of leadership. Most protestors would support whoever the Democrats ended up nominating.

I do see Trump gathering a quite personal loyalty. It seems people are more loyal to him than to the party. This enables him to hold the party hostage, to force the Republicans to support absurd positions like his election stealing lawsuits. I see him also as focused much more on improving his own position rather than improving the party's positions or Americans of all political affiliations.

Obama and Michelle have cults of loyalty as well. They cared about being good representatives of their race, about being the best as humans that they could be, to give no excuse other than prejudice to vote against another person of color. They also pursued the blue agenda. They definitely had a different style than Trump. I'm just not sure I can put a finger on what might make one the head of a personality cult, the other honored for his achieving his ideals.

[David Horn]

(12-11-2020, 09:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: So far, no one has defined what a personality cult is.  I suppose it would be up to Pbower and Einzige to define since they are the ones who want to use the term. Thus far the only difference is that the goals that the politician are working for are undesirable.  That is not at all satisfactory.  It changes too much between people...

My understanding of that phrase is more about politics than anything else, but surely Charles Manson is a non-political example, so here goes my attempt.  For a personality cult to actually be one, the person at the center has to be elevated to superhuman standards by his acolytes.  Once that occurs, judgementalism disappears, and the word of the cult leader becomes the word of authority, period, full stop. No one questions the current Kim anymore than they did his father and grandfather.  It's hard to say the same about Vladimir Putin, for example, who is certainly powerful and feared, but not adored enough to be at the center of a cult.

[Eric the Green]

(12-11-2020, 01:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 09:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: So far, no one has defined what a personality cult is.  I suppose it would be up to Pbower and Einzige to define since they are the ones who want to use the term. Thus far the only difference is that the goals that the politician are working for are undesirable.  That is not at all satisfactory.  It changes too much between people...

My understanding of that phrase is more about politics than anything else, but surely Charles Manson is a non-political example, so here goes my attempt.  For a personality cult to actually be one, the person at the center has to be elevated to superhuman standards by his acolytes.  Once that occurs, judgementalism disappears, and the word of the cult leader becomes the word of authority, period, full stop. No one questions the current Kim anymore than they did his father and grandfather.  It's hard to say the same about Vladimir Putin, for example, who is certainly powerful and feared, but not adored enough to be at the center of a cult.

That's a good definition. I would say Putin barely qualifies. As for Trump as opposed to Obama, etc., Trump qualifies, and Obama does not, because Trump's ability to create a cult following is his only virtue. His policies are unpopular and ineffective, and his personal qualities and corrupt behavior are abominable otherwise. Only his cult following enabled him to slip into the presidency through the electoral college, and to screw up his job as president and still win 74 million votes.

Obama may be handsome, cool and personally popular, and hated by others for his race, but he is also articulate, his policies were popular and effective, and his behavior is beyond reproach.

[pbrower2a]

(12-11-2020, 09:21 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 05:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 05:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 04:33 AM)Einzige Wrote: Every President has a personality cult

To some degree.  As I said, in a democracy you have to build a bunch of voters that like you.  If you define personality cult a bit off, the above statement could very well be true.  I suspect Trump's followers are a bit different.  Members of the press who strive to articulate that difference came up with personality cult.

I would add that revolutionary leaders form personality cults too.  You have to to lead any major violent action.  It is part of the job.  Lenin, Mao, Castro...  All in their own way had followers.  Of course, in time the attraction became poorer among the workers, greater among the Communist elites who came to control the means of production.  But, it is the same thing.

"Personality cult" is a derogatory term as most see it. It is obviously more difficult to put the label on someone like Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter... If we are talking about national leaders, do you really want to assign one to Barack Obama as you would to Benito Mussolini? If one can attach it to any leader, then the term becomes meaningless. 

In a genuine democracy, one would not expect to see the image of the President attached everywhere. To be sure, the personality cult around Trump is still 100% voluntary... but I can only imagine that having no Trump paraphernalia might have become harmful to one's business opportunities or advancement on the job had Trump won. (He didn't, so I guess we can flush the Valium down the toilet and save the vodka for a suitable celebration -- like getting a vaccine for COVID-19). 

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Winston Churchill,  Mohandas Gandhi, or Charles de Gaulle get the recognition for legitimate deeds.

You assigned one to Trump. Are you and Obama off limits? Obama is directly associated with one of the largest and most powerful personality cults this country has seen since the Nazi's. We got to see it in action and see what it can do last summer and we got to see the preparation for the violence and carnage that would ensue if the personality cult didn't get the President that it wanted in office. What's different for them here, we're here waiting for justification to wipe them off the face of the Earth and replace them with better people. However it gets done, the majority of country won't care when the time comes to eliminate them. I figure we are about a half a term away from the beginning of that endeavor.

Obama insisted on no better and no worse treatment than American usually give to the President. People can support Obama for reasons having nothing to do with adulation of his personality. As I see him he is a bit above average in just about everything. My support for him was quiet, and that was good enough.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-12-2020, 02:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 01:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 09:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: So far, no one has defined what a personality cult is.  I suppose it would be up to Pbower and Einzige to define since they are the ones who want to use the term. Thus far the only difference is that the goals that the politician are working for are undesirable.  That is not at all satisfactory.  It changes too much between people...

My understanding of that phrase is more about politics than anything else, but surely Charles Manson is a non-political example, so here goes my attempt.  For a personality cult to actually be one, the person at the center has to be elevated to superhuman standards by his acolytes.  Once that occurs, judgementalism disappears, and the word of the cult leader becomes the word of authority, period, full stop. No one questions the current Kim anymore than they did his father and grandfather.  It's hard to say the same about Vladimir Putin, for example, who is certainly powerful and feared, but not adored enough to be at the center of a cult.

That's a good definition. I would say Putin barely qualifies. As for Trump as opposed to Obama, etc., Trump qualifies, and Obama does not, because Trump's ability to create a cult following is his only virtue. His policies are unpopular and ineffective, and his personal qualities and corrupt behavior are abominable otherwise. Only his cult following enabled him to slip into the presidency through the electoral college, and to screw up his job as president and still win 74 million votes.

Obama may be handsome, cool and personally popular, and hated by others for his race, but he is also articulate, his policies were popular and effective, and his behavior is beyond reproach.

I'm not sure Trummp's policies are so unipolar to his base.  Sure, as a blue person they would be judged poorly, but...

If you are thinking short term, Voodoo economics is a popular theory, stimulate in good times and bad.  It usually is good for two terms before you invite a responsible person in, but this time COVID cut it short.  If you want to avoid crashes at regular intervals, Voodoo is less good.

If you are a racist, the encouraging of racist memes and behavior is good.  The notion of undoing whatever Obama did seems cool.  Violence against minorities seems cool.  Ugh.

If you are the right flavor of religious, his policy of appeasing fundamentalist will get him votes.

If you are an elite, the tax cuts for the rich are good.  The favors he does to those who slip him bribes are great.  Shipping more jobs abroad will increase prophets by avoiding things like unions, benefits, regulations and the environment.

Problems are not as obvious in rural areas.  Not solving them seems like a good idea.  Small government, low taxes, not getting ready for the inevitable problem seems attractive if you are in the middle of nowhere and ready to deal with anything that is likely to come up.  Planning, preparation and teamwork?  Why bother?

Granted, many of these are questionable from a long term or urban perspective.   The corruptness, criminality, selfishness and narcissism are problematic.  He doesn't seem to understand or value democratic or military ideals.  Still, if you are twisted enough or a one issue voter, some of his policies seem worth it.  For me?  No.  Still, if you are going to have to defeat him, understanding how he acquired his fanatic following is critical.  You have to point out the flaws early and often.  It is not just his smiling charm.

[pbrower2a]

(12-11-2020, 09:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 09:21 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You assigned one to Trump. Are you and Obama off limits? Obama is directly associated with one of the largest and most powerful personality cults this country has seen since the Nazi's. We got to see it in action and see what it can do last summer and we got to see the preparation for the violence and carnage that would ensue if the personality cult didn't get the President that it wanted in office. What's different for them here, we're here waiting for justification to wipe them off the face of the Earth and replace them with better people. However it gets done, the majority of country won't care when the time comes to eliminate them. I figure we are about a half a term away from the beginning of that endeavor.

So far, no one has defined what a personality cult is.  I suppose it would be up to Pbrower and Einzige to define since they are the ones who want to use the term.  Thus far the only difference is that the goals that the politician are working for are undesirable.  That is not at all satisfactory.  It changes too much between people.

It's a gradation. Insisting that one's image or symbols related to him be everywhere, even in incongruous places, would suggest a personality cult. Consequences for inadequate support could be anything from on-the-job discipline to criminal sanctions. Even inadvertent abuse of the image, as in using a newspaper with the image of Josef Stalin on  it for wrapping fish in a market, might get one sent to the Gulag and a great likelihood of death.   

Quote:The protest this summer were much more about ending a systematic racism that has been going on for centuries.  Trump took actions which seem supportive of the racism and violence, while the blues sought to avoid both.  I do not see the protests as demanding a specific candidate for president, or a specific style of leadership.  Most protestors would support whoever the Democrats ended up nominating.

Trump endorsed the racism and expected others to trivialized occasional incidents in which black people are assumed to be criminals, perhaps in error, with the cops over-reacting lethally. As with a dictator, the President established what he expected people to think and how to speak of him.  He has his fanatical supporters, and he seems to have expected the rest of us to go along.  One of the salient characteristics of a personality cult is that people are to do things even if such sacrifices their freedom, their moral compass, and even their personal safety in support of the Leader. 

I have seen characteristics of foreign personality cults in Trump and no analogue in American history. I recognize the commonplace yard signs... everyone has had those at one time or another. The news media have not gone along except for those that accept the Trump agenda without reservation as do their devoted users. The most benign explanation is that Donald Trump has adopted the practices stars of pop music who had their swooning fans, as did Frank Sinatra in his time (Sinatra did not need it, as his talent was solid enough to allow him to top the charts) or "Beatle-mania". This said, Sinatra didn't have command over anything and the Beatles did not set social policies. 

With a personality cult one is expected to recognize the harm that people do, whether the degradation of political life, the destruction of civil liberties, corruption of the political process, or even military blunders as brilliance. His long and disorganized harangues and his insulting tweets are the antithesis of what one expects of a President. Ideally the expressions of a President (and it is acceptable that these be composed by a speechwriter) be clear, simple, and complete in a small passage. Even if one disagreed with him, Ronald Reagan did that well. Obama is much the same. Trump is muddled, excessively complex, and meandering... or he turns to shock-jock language of the sort that one associates with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Add to this the mass of Trump banners that people treat as if objects of reverence. I can see through it.  

Quote:I do see Trump gathering a quite personal loyalty.  It seems people are more loyal to him than to the party.  This enables him to hold the party hostage, to force the Republicans to support absurd positions like his election stealing lawsuits.  I see him also as focused much more on improving his own position rather than improving the party's positions or Americans of all political affiliations.

 

And what happens when he is gone? Unless they realize that they have been had, that their idol has clay feet and that Donald Trump. People who have fallen for one cult without facing consequences for its failure would seem the people most likely to fall for the next one. Some slimeball pol may be thinking of how to use the techniques of the Trump cult for the service of his ambition. Trump failed, but someone else might destroy American democracy with a personality cult more pervasive that has more ruthlessness and brutality behind it.    

Quote:Obama and Michelle have cults of loyalty as well.  They cared about being good representatives of their race, about being the best as humans that they could be, to give no excuse other than prejudice to vote against another person of color.  They also pursued the blue agenda.  They definitely had a different style than Trump.  I'm just not sure I can put a finger on what might make one the head of a personality cult, the other honored for his achieving his ideals.

No worse than John and Jacqueline Kennedy. Obama is about as good a person as Trump isn't, and if that is not a huge difference, then what is? I can't see what segment of the American public that President Trump represents unless it is extreme narcissists or abusive sex fiends.  I expect any President to pursue the agenda upon which he ran in the election. Incumbent pols run on their records and usually win -- or run from their records and invariably lose. Maybe at some time the Red Agenda will be the right one, and I am not going to say that that will be when America is in need of some deep chastisement for economic or cultural wickedness. Blue America is not largely associated with any "anything goes" ethos in personal lives.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-12-2020, 04:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump endorsed the racism and expected others to trivialized occasional incidents in which black people are assumed to be criminals, perhaps in error, with the cops over-reacting lethally. As with a dictator, the President established what he expected people to think and how to speak of him.  He has his fanatical supporters, and he seems to have expected the rest of us to go along.  One of the salient characteristics of a personality cult is that people are to do things even if such sacrifices their freedom, their moral compass, and even their personal safety in support of the Leader. 

I have seen characteristics of foreign personality cults in Trump and no analogue in American history. I recognize the commonplace yard signs... everyone has had those at one time or another. The news media have not gone along except for those that accept the Trump agenda without reservation as do their devoted users. The most benign explanation is that Donald Trump has adopted the practices stars of pop music who had their swooning fans, as did Frank Sinatra in his time (Sinatra did not need it, as his talent was solid enough to allow him to top the charts) or "Beatle-mania". This said, Sinatra didn't have command over anything and the Beatles did not set social policies. 

With a personality cult one is expected to recognize the harm that people do, whether the degradation of political life, the destruction of civil liberties, corruption of the political process, or even military blunders as brilliance. His long and disorganized harangues and his insulting tweets are the antithesis of what one expects of a President. Ideally the expressions of a President (and it is acceptable that these be composed by a speechwriter) be clear, simple, and complete in a small passage. Even if one disagreed with him, Ronald Reagan did that well. Obama is much the same. Trump is muddled, excessively complex, and meandering... or he turns to shock-jock language of the sort that one associates with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Add to this the mass of Trump banners that people treat as if objects of reverence. I can see through it.  



 

So, what are you going to do without Trump around to pick on or whine, bitch, cry, complain or make fun of as stock markets decline and money moves and tax protests take hold as Bumbling Biden clings to power by his feeble finger tips as I'm telling you and every other Liberal fool  who are prone to becoming members of personality cults that I told you so or telling you tough as you're being drug into a Democratic fray over entitlements that Progressive Gen Xr's have no chance in hell  to win.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-11-2020, 01:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 09:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: So far, no one has defined what a personality cult is.  I suppose it would be up to Pbower and Einzige to define since they are the ones who want to use the term. Thus far the only difference is that the goals that the politician are working for are undesirable.  That is not at all satisfactory.  It changes too much between people...

My understanding of that phrase is more about politics than anything else, but surely Charles Manson is a non-political example, so here goes my attempt.  For a personality cult to actually be one, the person at the center has to be elevated to superhuman standards by his acolytes.  Once that occurs, judgementalism disappears, and the word of the cult leader becomes the word of authority, period, full stop. No one questions the current Kim anymore than they did his father and grandfather.  It's hard to say the same about Vladimir Putin, for example, who is certainly powerful and feared, but not adored enough to be at the center of a cult.

Good answer.  

[Classic-Xer]

(12-11-2020, 06:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 05:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: "Personality cult" is a derogatory term as most see it. It is obviously more difficult to put the label on someone like Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter... If we are talking about national leaders, do you really want to assign one to Barack Obama as you would to Benito Mussolini? If one can attach it to any leader, then the term becomes meaningless. 

In a genuine democracy, one would not expect to see the image of the President attached everywhere. To be sure, the personality cult around Trump is still 100% voluntary... but I can only imagine that having no Trump paraphernalia might have become harmful to one's business opportunities or advancement on the job had Trump won. (He didn't, so I guess we can flush the Valium down the toilet and save the vodka for a suitable celebration -- like getting a vaccine for COVID-19). 

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Winston Churchill,  Mohandas Gandhi, or Charles de Gaulle get the recognition for legitimate deeds.

Personality cult, political popularity, legitimate recognition for deeds, they have some similarity.  A bunch of people get behind a leader for good (or perhaps not good) reason.  You are correct that 'personality cult' is a derogatory label.  We would have to define exactly what such a personality cult is other than working towards something something you don’t like.  

What is the difference between the cultures following Churchill and Mussolini other than your admiring one culture over another?  Is there something specifically in the style of leadershp that can be pointed out as bad?

Personality cults are usually indoctrinated which is why they're considered derogatory. Liberal's are into indoctrination. Trump's not. Trump's a practical businessman who built a small empire of his own and achieved celebrity status by creating his own hit show who took a major cut in pay and a reduction in lifestyle to serve as our President.

[Classic-Xer]

(12-12-2020, 03:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-12-2020, 02:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 01:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 09:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: So far, no one has defined what a personality cult is.  I suppose it would be up to Pbower and Einzige to define since they are the ones who want to use the term. Thus far the only difference is that the goals that the politician are working for are undesirable.  That is not at all satisfactory.  It changes too much between people...

My understanding of that phrase is more about politics than anything else, but surely Charles Manson is a non-political example, so here goes my attempt.  For a personality cult to actually be one, the person at the center has to be elevated to superhuman standards by his acolytes.  Once that occurs, judgementalism disappears, and the word of the cult leader becomes the word of authority, period, full stop. No one questions the current Kim anymore than they did his father and grandfather.  It's hard to say the same about Vladimir Putin, for example, who is certainly powerful and feared, but not adored enough to be at the center of a cult.

That's a good definition. I would say Putin barely qualifies. As for Trump as opposed to Obama, etc., Trump qualifies, and Obama does not, because Trump's ability to create a cult following is his only virtue. His policies are unpopular and ineffective, and his personal qualities and corrupt behavior are abominable otherwise. Only his cult following enabled him to slip into the presidency through the electoral college, and to screw up his job as president and still win 74 million votes.

Obama may be handsome, cool and personally popular, and hated by others for his race, but he is also articulate, his policies were popular and effective, and his behavior is beyond reproach.

I'm not sure Trummp's policies are so unipolar to his base.  Sure, as a blue person they would be judged poorly, but...

If you are thinking short term, Voodoo economics is a popular theory, stimulate in good times and bad.  It usually is good for two terms before you invite a responsible person in, but this time COVID cut it short.  If you want to avoid crashes at regular intervals, Voodoo is less good.

If you are a racist, the encouraging of racist memes and behavior is good.  The notion of undoing whatever Obama did seems cool.  Violence against minorities seems cool.  Ugh.

If you are the right flavor of religious, his policy of appeasing fundamentalist will get him votes.

If you are an elite, the tax cuts for the rich are good.  The favors he does to those who slip him bribes are great.  Shipping more jobs abroad will increase prophets by avoiding things like unions, benefits, regulations and the environment.

Problems are not as obvious in rural areas.  Not solving them seems like a good idea.  Small government, low taxes, not getting ready for the inevitable problem seems attractive if you are in the middle of nowhere and ready to deal with anything that is likely to come up.  Planning, preparation and teamwork?  Why bother?

Granted, many of these are questionable from a long term or urban perspective.   The corruptness, criminality, selfishness and narcissism are problematic.  He doesn't seem to understand or value democratic or military ideals.  Still, if you are twisted enough or a one issue voter, some of his policies seem worth it.  For me?  No.  Still, if you are going to have to defeat him, understanding how he acquired his fanatic following is critical.  You have to point out the flaws early and often.  It is not just his smiling charm.

I'm telling you Bob, you're going to have to drop the racism if you want to come out this in one piece and remain an American. How long have you been repeating/encouraging racist memes and behavior? How long have I've been telling to knock it off before you get hurt?