Donald Trump: America's Berlusconi?

[TeacherinExile]

(01-06-2017, 04:46 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Actually, on this thread anyway, I'm arguing Door #3: Trump as Berlusconi.  Why?  Because the similarity between these two men is--in a word--eerie, which is easily supportable, the evidence for which I will continue to cite.  Too, why must an analogue be limited to past American leaders, as you seem to suggest with Possibility #1 (which I can buy in to somewhat) and Possibility #2?  Adolf Hitler, after all, believed in a Third Reich, a Teutonic pattern of sorts.  Was Hitler analogous in the end to either Charlemagne or Bismarck?  What precedent in the long Germanic history suggested that an ultimately reviled leader, such as Hitler, would spring forth in one of the most sophisticated cultures in the world, only to rule with such utter barbarism?  None that I can detect. 

All I'm saying is that the model of leadership that Trump may follow could be that of Berlusconi, or Putin, or indeed anyone outside the American experience.  Can you allow for that?

Fixed that for you.  Unless you are providing evidence that Trump actually IS Berlusconi, you are providing supporting data FOR an assessment.  One which I can see, and have seen the case for from Daniel Larison et al. at the American Conservative for the last year-ish.

I have no problem allowing for it, in fact, I was originally anticipating an American general playing the part of Putin in the event of a Hillary presidency leading to war.  Could still happen, I suppose.

My only objection to the Berlusconi comparison in terms of my examples above is simply in terms of turning placement, and role in history.  In terms of affect, absolutely.  He's even the right color.

Thanks for the grammatical correction.  Shame on this retired English teacher; I must be getting sloppy in my old age.

Can you explain what you mean by "in terms of turning placement, and role in history"?

Your point about my beating the subject of "neoliberalism" with a cudgel is well taken.  But I'll not stop and here's why--

Strauss and Howe make liberal reference to the "old civic order," or some such words to that effect, that is defeated or cast aside in each Fourth Turning.  By civic order, I think they meant the prevailing political/economic system that, however long it may have endured, or how well it may have served the ruling class, reaches a point where the subjugation or oppression of a people, class of people, or country becomes so dire that it precipitates an existential crisis.  What would we call those political/economic systems of our past turnings?  The Revolutionary War: colonialism; the Civil War: slavery; the Great Depression/World War II: laissez-faire capitalism/fascism. 

Don't we similarly have to put a name--some name--to the current political/economic system that has become so pathological that it, too, must be overturned and replaced with something better?  If not the term "neoliberalism," then what?  Again, I prefer we attack its basic tenets--like privatization--which the public can more readily get its arms around.

As much as I object to Trump's insistence that we label the jihadism of ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc. as "radical Islamic terrorism," he is simply doing what every leader does in a time of war, that is, naming the enemy.  That can be done fairly or in propagandistic terms.  I much prefer "neoliberalism," as confusing as the term may be to the masses.  I believe it fairly describes the civic order that has prevailed here and abroad for nearly four decades now.  It is part ideology, part political project, but above all the predominant civic order in much of the Western world.  It has reached the point of morbidity, though it yet lives on, like the Walking Dead...