Member-only story
What’s the appeal of an aspiring dictator who offers both?
The United States wouldn’t be the first country to choose to follow a dictator. England had its Cromwell, France its Napoleon, Italy its Mussolini, Spain its Franco, Germany its Hitler, China its Mao, Cambodia its Pol Pot, and on and on — “Strong men” who crushed people with their strength.
What’s exceptional in the American case is that the Republicans seem bent on nominating a candidate who, judging from his record as past President, offers decision-making abilities that are both dictatorial and incompetent — an aspiring “strong man” who is, so far, just a con-man.
Even in his first term, when he appointed cabinet ministers and others to his government who had fairly respectable reputations, he failed to deliver on his exaggerated promises. Many members of his government soon came to realize how ignorant and narcissistic he was, and they resigned or were fired when they disagreed with his ideas and tried to curb his radical instincts.
If he were to be re-elected, he would appoint only sycophants on whom he thinks he could depend to carry out his radical ideas — retribution against political enemies, mass deportation of undocumented residents, support for foreign dictators that he likes, and swift, possibly nuclear, military actions against countries that he…
