DiscussMormonism.com

Since Donald Trump’s ascent nearly a decade ago, political discourse has thrummed with warnings of approaching American fascism. The talk has only grown louder since the former president’s attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021, his vows to lock up political opponents, and his boosters’ 2024 campaign video invoking a “Unified Reich.”

But despite chilling parallels to 1930s and ’40s regimes, what’s actually on the rise isn’t fascism. It’s “Caesarism,” a strain of despotic leadership historians have described for more than a century.

Charismatic Caesarist leaders, sociologist Max Weber argued in the early 1900s, occupy a murky middle ground between democracy and autocracy. Like the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, they frame their rule as the ultimate expression of the people’s will. “Caesarism,” wrote 20th-century historian Oswald Spengler, “grows on the soil of democracy.”

Caesarism is distinct from fascism, a word whose casual usage far outstrips its real meaning — and Trump critics should consider that it’s easy for people to dismiss warnings freighted with a term that doesn’t quite fit.

True fascist leaders are openly anti-democratic, and they demand national unity and sacrifice. Neither condition seems likely anytime soon in countries like the United States, where democratic processes are entrenched and the drive to form associations is historically weak.

Fascism permeates all of politics and civil society, says University of Pennsylvania political scientist Damon Linker, with distinctive trappings like secret police forces. Benito Mussolini’s regime in fascist Italy, for instance, banned opposing political parties, censored the press, and established a network of secret police, the OVRA.

“Caesarism doesn’t envision that happening,” Linker says. “It’s much more an expression of something ancient or pre-modern: A tyrant seizing power and wielding it without restraint.”

This doesn’t mean Caesarist leaders are less dangerous than fascist ones. They’re actually more threatening in one sense: They mislead people about their intentions by conjuring an illusion of democracy. Historians peg Napoleon Bonaparte, ruler of France from 1804 to 1814, as a classic Caesarist. Though he hoped to become a perpetual “consul,” or despot, he’d once backed the French Revolution — fought to install democratic ideals — and claimed he’d come to power to “save the Republic.” He even insisted French citizens vote on whether he should be named consul for life.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 1:22 pm

I like this analysis. I have wondered why all of this seems eerily familiar, but I lacked the mastery of later history to see the pattern in modern times.

Since Donald Trump’s ascent nearly a decade ago, political discourse has thrummed with warnings of approaching American fascism. The talk has only grown louder since the former president’s attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021, his vows to lock up political opponents, and his boosters’ 2024 campaign video invoking a “Unified Reich.”

But despite chilling parallels to 1930s and ’40s regimes, what’s actually on the rise isn’t fascism. It’s “Caesarism,” a strain of despotic leadership historians have described for more than a century.

Charismatic Caesarist leaders, sociologist Max Weber argued in the early 1900s, occupy a murky middle ground between democracy and autocracy. Like the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, they frame their rule as the ultimate expression of the people’s will. “Caesarism,” wrote 20th-century historian Oswald Spengler, “grows on the soil of democracy.”

Caesarism is distinct from fascism, a word whose casual usage far outstrips its real meaning — and Trump critics should consider that it’s easy for people to dismiss warnings freighted with a term that doesn’t quite fit.

True fascist leaders are openly anti-democratic, and they demand national unity and sacrifice. Neither condition seems likely anytime soon in countries like the United States, where democratic processes are entrenched and the drive to form associations is historically weak.

Fascism permeates all of politics and civil society, says University of Pennsylvania political scientist Damon Linker, with distinctive trappings like secret police forces. Benito Mussolini’s regime in fascist Italy, for instance, banned opposing political parties, censored the press, and established a network of secret police, the OVRA.

“Caesarism doesn’t envision that happening,” Linker says. “It’s much more an expression of something ancient or pre-modern: A tyrant seizing power and wielding it without restraint.”

This doesn’t mean Caesarist leaders are less dangerous than fascist ones. They’re actually more threatening in one sense: They mislead people about their intentions by conjuring an illusion of democracy. Historians peg Napoleon Bonaparte, ruler of France from 1804 to 1814, as a classic Caesarist. Though he hoped to become a perpetual “consul,” or despot, he’d once backed the French Revolution — fought to install democratic ideals — and claimed he’d come to power to “save the Republic.” He even insisted French citizens vote on whether he should be named consul for life.

For rest of the article:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/07/17/ ... caesarism/

Morley wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 2:52 pm

I love this, Kish! It's pretty easy to think of other historical leaders who fit this model. One that immediately springs to mind is Sweden's Gustavus Adolphus.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 4:28 pm

Kishkumen, would Trump bring back arena games, where an enraged swarm of Christian Nationalists could tear apart former Democratic Congresspeople?

Moksha wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 4:28 pm

Kishkumen, would Trump bring back arena games, where an enraged swarm of Christian Nationalists could tear apart former Democratic Congresspeople?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 5:06 pm

Thanks for posting that, Kish.