Benito Trump: An American Il Duce

From the first time I saw him on stage during a presidential debate, I was struck by the way Donald Trump carried himself.  There was something about his demeanor that reminded me of another political figure.  Soon enough, I realized it was Benito Mussolini.

Trump thrust his chin forward just as the fascist dictator once did.  And when he was under pressure, he bobbed his head in the same way.  It was as if I were looking at a reincarnation of this long gone demagogue.

The more I contemplated this coincidence, the more I realized that there were other parallels between the two men.  Not just the way they looked, but the way they operated had much in common.  Both were bombastic rabble-rousers who promised to save their nations.

Today we think of Mussolini as a slightly comic figure, but at the beginning of his political career he was widely admired.  Indeed, Cole Porter, when he wrote the song You’re the Top, included him right up there with the Eifel Tower and the Louvre museum.

Mussolini came to power a few years after the end of the First World War.  Although on the winning side of that conflict, Italians were disappointed by how poorly they were compensated in the Versailles Treaty.  They were also in the midst of an economic recession that did not square with their victory.

Now in a surly mood, the public sought a savior.  They were looking for a strong leader who could pull them out of this quagmire.  Then along came Mussolini, a journalist, who used his media position to offer promises of salvation.  Fascism would bring the nation together and lift it to dazzling heights.

Mussolini would revive the Roman Empire.  He would make the trains run on time and drain the Pontine Marshes.  Unlike like the feckless politicians who could not seem to agree on anything, he would be a strong man who kept his pledges.  Not only did he sound powerful, he would be powerful.

And so tens of thousands of Italians took up the cause.  As Black Shirts, they marched on Rome to install Benito as their nation’s leader.  He would be Il Duce, the man on the white horse who knew how to get things done.

Does this sound familiar?  Isn’t Donald Trump an American-style redux of this scenario?  Isn’t he also an outsider who uses his media prominence to assure a disgruntled people that he will save them from bungling politicians?  Doesn’t he too pose as someone so strong that he can deliver on what he says?

Benito Trump is not a fascist.  He is not contemplating a coup.  If he becomes president, it will be via the ballot box and not a march on Washington.  Yet he too is leading battalions of ill-informed zealots to initiate changes the depth of which they do not understand.

Trump is a charlatan.  His bluster is not backed up by knowledge or competence.  Donald is a real estate developer.  He puts up buildings.  His much vaunted negotiation skills have nothing to do with enacting legislation or coming to terms with foreign heads of state.

This is a vulgar man whose ignorance of governmental issues is matched only by his disinterest in learning.  A man totally bereft of intellectual curiosity, he assumes that he will make good choices because he has “common sense.”

Yet where did Mussolini’s common touch get him?  Yes, he made the trains run on time.  But he also invaded Ethiopia and Albania.  And then when his troops ran into trouble in Greece, he had to be bailed out by his ally Adolf Hitler.  Benito might have sounded like a conquering general, but he was nothing of the sort.

Nor is Benito Trump.  Of course, he is not a despot.  His is not going to open any concentration camps.  But he does have fascistic impulses.  After all, he is the “boss,” who now wants to be the boss of all of us.  In other words, our Il Duce.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of  Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Marco Rubio: A Conservative JFK

Marco Rubio: A Conservative JFK

The scene was Kings Highway in Brooklyn NY, just in front of Dubrow’s Cafeteria.  The time was the fall of 1960.  John F. Kennedy had come to my neighborhood to campaign for president of the United States.  Although I could not yet vote, I was swept away by the enthusiasm of a crowd that packed the street as far as one could see.

This was to be a new frontier: the passing of the political baton from one generation to the next.  Instead of the ramblings of a tired old general, a vibrant young man would lead us into a new era of unprecedented accomplishment.  Indeed, Kennedy won his election and soon Camelot was upon us.

Today we have an opportunity for another political upheaval.  Another young man is running for the presidency; one every bit as articulate and potentially inspirational as JFK.  That candidate is Marco Rubio, but the big difference is that he is a conservative.

Conservatism is usually regarded as stogy.  It is thought of as the wave of the past, rather than the future.  Instead of being interpreted as a defense of freedom and a clarion call for innovation and social growth, it is viewed as heralding a retreat into dogmatism and apathy.

This need not be the case.  The rising tide of which Kennedy spoke can come flooding back in an era of personal responsibility, smaller government, and a strong military defense.  All that is needed is a figure around which the nation can rally.  That person may just be Rubio.

Some people think that Marco is too young and inexperienced for the job.  In fact he is older and has a longer resume than did Kennedy.  Actually, he is the same age as Ted Cruz.  The reason he gets tarred with the immaturity brush is that he has a baby face.

Yet consider Rubio’s advantages.  He has a long legislative history that provides him the skills to mobilize a cascade of statutory achievements.  Thus, he will be able to roll back the Obama legacy and replace it with less restrictive programs.  ObamaCare and the EPA hegemony will, as a result, be relegated to an historical asterisk.

Rubio has also been tutoring himself on foreign affairs.  Of all the candidates, he has developed the best understanding of the risks that we confront.  Steady and sensible in his approach, there will be nothing resembling a missile gap on his watch.

The difficulty that worries many people is his approach to immigration.  They fear that he will sponsor amnesty for illegal aliens.  In this, however, they are mistaken.  Rubio absorbed a vital lesson from his initial exuberance in this area.  He now recognizes that the number one concern is gaining control of our borders.

In short, Rubio learns.  This is an asset that should not be discounted.  In truth, this was one of JFK’s greatest strengths.  After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he gained crucial insights into the communist menace that served him well during the missile crisis.  These enabled him to stand down the Russians.

There is also the problem of Rubio’s blunder during the New Hampshire debate.  Can he recover his balance?  Barack Obama did after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright incident.  The real question is will the target placed on his back by the other candidates prove too much of a handicap.

And one more thing.  After New Hampshire, Rubio took responsibility for his gaffe.  He did not attempt to blame someone else, nor seek to downplay the impact of the incident.  Did Cruz do the same after Iowa?  Has Trump ever owned up to a weakness?  As for Hillary—well, you figure it out!

I like honesty!  I like sincerity!  I like stable good sense!  Just as importantly, I like the possibility of resurrecting the promise of conservatism.  JFK’s appealing personality managed this for liberalism.  Will we allow Rubio’s appealing personality to do the same for a more balanced political agenda?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Shameless

Bill Clinton taught me an important lesson.  This occurred during the Monica Lewinski scandal.  Even after the stained dress came to light, our president insisted that he had not had sex with “that woman.”  What was more impactful, however, was the way that he said it.

Clinton went before the American people without a shred of shame.  Whereas most men would have been embarrassed to have been caught with their pants down in the oval office, he acted as if nothing untoward had happened.  Monica might have been an intern and he the president, but what was the problem?

Contrast this with Richard Nixon.  Once the tapes began trickling out, he went before the public to declare that he was not a crook.  This didn’t work, in large part, because Nixon looked as if he had done something unethical.  Unlike Clinton, who would laugh things off, Nixon could not hide his discomfort.

What lesson does this impart?  It is this.  People conclude that someone has done something shameful not just from the act, but from the way that he (or she) responds to exposure.  If a person does not appear to be ashamed, that is, is shameless, it is generally assumed that there must have been nothing to be humiliated about.

Most people, when caught in a lie, become red-faced.  They begin stumbling over their words and would like nothing better than to disappear from sight.  The shameless, in comparison, are bold.  They greet ridicule and skepticism with confidence—and even humor.

Barack Obama is a master of this tactic.  Hence when he was embroiled in the IRS scandal, he did not run away or become flustered.  Instead he brazenly told the public that there was not a smidgeon of corruption—and then he chuckled.  Nor, when he lied about ObamaCare, did he feel compelled to apologize for his deceit.

So well does this strategy work that it has become an integral part of contemporary politics.  Now that we are in the middle of the political silly season, shamelessness has become as common as cold weather in winter.  Candidates on both sides of the aisle are obviously addicted to it.

Consider Hillary Clinton.  She learned her trade at the foot of a master.  Hence when she is asked about her server or the top secret e-mails that she sent or received, she insists that she is one hundred percent sure that she will not be indicted.  And then she gives her patented horse whinny.

The trouble is that although she is shameless, she is not effortlessly so.  Altogether too loud and adamant, she does not sound innocent.  Nor, with her face thrust forward in a feminine imitation of General Patton, does she look innocent.

Donald Trump is much better at this sort of audacity.  For example, he can stand before an audience and boast about having gone into bankruptcy four times.  Not once does he allude to the people who lost their jobs or the creditors who were cheated.  These fiascoes are all about him and how he came out with his fortune intact.

Nor did having lost in Iowa embarrass him.  Despite his initial modesty, he quickly reverted to form and insisted that he had won after all.  Clearly, the Donald is never a loser—even when he loses.  Indeed, if need be he will cover up a defeat with vulgarity.

Of course, Trump is not alone.  Cruz, Christie, and Bush have all been caught in whoppers that they pretend are truths.  While some of these are more brazen than others, nowadays political expediency evidently demands a large measure of shamelessness.

So who is at fault?  Although the politicians are obviously not choirboys, the real guilt—dear Brutus—lies with us.  If we, the American public, cannot see through this lack of integrity, we will continue to get what we deserve.  If we allow ourselves to be fooled, wouldn’t some of the candidates be fools not to try to deceive us?

Who then should be feeling shame?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Donald Trump: A Trojan Horse

You know the story of the Trojan Horse.  After a long and inconclusive siege, the Greek army ostensibly admitted defeat by sailing away from Troy.  But they left behind an enormous wooden horse, evidently as a token of their respect for an indomitable enemy.

The Trojans, who were flattered by this gift, tore down part of their wall in order to bring it into the city.  Then, after night fell, a selected band of Greek warriors, who had been sequestered inside the horse, came out to do their worst.  They opened the city gate and then went door to door to slaughter the inhabitants.

This much is well known.  Less well appreciated was why this offering was a horse.  The Trojans, it seems, were horse traders.  They raised and sold these animals far and wide.  The horse was for them a sacred animal.  No wonder they were prepared to take an effigy of it to their bosom.

We are now watching the same story unfold within the Republican Party.  Donald Trump is nothing other than a Trojan Horse.  If the Democrats had intentionally chosen someone to create havoc within their adversary’s ranks, they could scarcely have found a better man.

Trump, a Democrat in Republican clothing, is not a conservative.  When asked during a debate to explain what conservatism is, he lamely answered that it meant to “conserve.”  He did not say it stood for smaller government, liberty, and a strong defense.  Why?  Because he stands for none of these.

Trump has long been an advocate of a big centralized government.  And although he now claims to treasure our freedoms, he has not hesitated to use the government to deprive others of their property.  As for a strong defense, this is man who did not even know what the nuclear triade was.

So why is he now trying to talk like a Republican?  It is because, like the Greeks, he knows the weak point of his foes.  He tells people what they want to hear—pretending that he believes it.  He will strengthen the borders, carpet bomb ISIS, and make America great again.

But this is a man who cannot be believed.  Time and again on the campaign trail he insists that “I never said that” after saying exactly that the previous day.  Time and again he has been forced to soften his rhetoric because it sounds so crudely jingoistic.  (My goodness, he even endorsed ObamaCare.)

Why then are so many Republics buying his brand of lunchmeat?  Why do they confuse loud-mouthed bullying with strength?  Do they actually think that Trump will be a great negotiator?  The Donald tells us that he gets along with everyone.  So why has he had such a difficult time getting along with any of his Republican rivals?

As for the purported conservatives who are dazzled by his displays of foul-mouthed ignorance, why have they allowed themselves to be fooled?  Many of them are apparently so angry about the devastation wrought during the last seven years that they cannot think clearly.

When I worked as a methadone counselor, most of my clients were angry.  Life had been cruel to them and they longed for revenge.  Nonetheless they were impotent and so they turned their wrath on themselves.  More than a few literally killed themselves in an attempt to get even with those who had abused them.

Are Republican voters doing the same?  Have they decided to shoot themselves in the foot so that others will realize how distressed they are?  The trouble is that their aim is so bad they are apt to kill their party—and the nation.

All of this is, of course, completely unnecessary.  The Republican Party has several good candidates who are bona fide conservatives.  They may not be as flamboyant or as destructive, but they can get the job done.  Obama’s liberal agenda can be rolled back, but only by someone who actually intends to do so.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University