An aura of crude strength and machismo
Robert Kagan on Trump back in May:
We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies—his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others”—Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees—whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.
And what is that? That is fascism. An aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of democratic culture, playing on feelings of resentment and disdain intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger, attacking “others” and threatening them with violence: that is fascism.
As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France—that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Fuhrer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how.
He wrote that before the Convention, before Trump got up and screamed that he alone can fix it.
Two points I’ve seen recently that puncture the apologies that Trump’s success “isn’t about racism, it’s just blue-collar frustration with the economy”:
1. Interesting how blue-collar African Americans and Hispanics seem not to share this economic frustration.
2. Likelihood of supporting Trump actually correlates positively with income.
Except this particular strongman is not alone: Erdogan, Putin, Pol Pot, those guys in Guatemala or Venezuela and so on. Note: No mention of anyone British here. We do try to be polite even if it hurts.
Italian Fascism shed its anti-clerical component at the first opportunity.
Machismo, perhaps, but strength? Drumpf exudes weakness, not strength.