Hard Times and Great Men

 

The way governments like the Tories in the UK, or Trudeau in Canada, are imploding looks like divine intervention. But so does the concomitant rise of political figures with unique, uncanny talents: Farage, Poilievre, and Trump. All are masterful rhetoricians; all are brilliant off the cuff; all work without notes; all convey sincerity.

How is it that these hard times seem to produce the needed man?

We saw the same thing circa 1980. After a time of ennui, of decline and relative social chaos, we saw at once Thatcher in Britain, Reagan in the US, and Pope John Paul II; one might also cite Trudeau in Canada, although he was not new in power. He rose in response to an earlier crisis, that of Quebec separatism; but was still in power 80-84.

And we saw it in the great leaders who rose in response to WWII: Churchill, De Gaulle, Tito. 

I theorize that such talents are always about. However, so long as things are going well, nobody wants to listen to them. Churchill spent years in the wilderness. Partly due to envy, partly due to a sense that they might change things too much: safer to elect a cipher, so long as things are going well enough. There is also, in the back of our minds, the fear that any one individual who is too skilful and strong might be able to turn his office into a dictatorship.

I think, however, this last fear is misplaced. Those who are especially skilful are least tempted to seize power; they can achieve it legitimately. Not only did Churchill leave office peacefully, for example; he declined a peerage. A guaranteed office was an insult to his talents as a “man of the commons.” De Gaulle walked away from power twice. Washington limited himself to two terms. Dictators are usually unimpressive sorts who rise above their competence, and so need to strongarm to stay there. They are the relatively obscure backroom players, like Putin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Ghaddafi, or Saddam, or Franco, or Kim Il-Sung, or Pol Pot, or, I might say, Pope Francis, who seem to emerge from the shadows. They appear on the dias, and people ask themselves, “Who is this guy?”

Granted that some dictators are the exception. Hitler and Mussolini are exceptions; as is Canada’s Trudeau. They were prominent figures before being elected, and had political skills. But I think it can fairly be said that they were all three clearly unqualified for their role of governing, of management. So they resorted to force and subterfuge.

Trump, Poilievre, and Farage all, in their way, have extensive management experience. 

Nor did Hitler, or Mussolini, radiate spontaneity and a sense of sincerity, as Poilievre, Farage, and Trump do.

They are not the stuff of which dictators are made.

Is China the Emerging Hegemon Already?

 

Although it has often been quoted for scare value, perhaps we have paid too little attention to Justin Trudeau’s open assertion, years ago, that he admires China’s “basic dictatorship.”

This sentiment might manage to explain a series of otherwise seemingly irrational acts not only by Trudeau, but by other leaders around the world. Why limit fertilizer use just as the world faces famine? Why prevent fracking, tax carbon, and force an energy shortage? Why impose vaccine mandates and force mass firings of truckers and medical professionals in the middle of a supply shortage and a pandemic? Why are governments so keen on payments to stay at home, and universal basic income, in the middle of a critical labour shortage? It all makes no sense except in this context: a top-down revolution trying to impose a Chinese-style system. The apparent plan is to make people dependent on the government, and afraid of the government.

Even without being in the pay of China, a lot of politicians seem to want to emulate China’s basic dictatorship.

The thought has been attractive, perhaps, because China has seemed to work so well. Just as, a few decades ago, business execs were all talking about importing “Japanese management techniques,” back when Japan seemed to be developing faster than anyone else, and had the cachet. In more recent years, it has been China. Even if they were not prepared, like Trudeau, to say so openly, “Chinese management techniques” might have looked attractive. China could, as Trudeau further observed, turn on a dime in terms, of, say, meeting its environmental goals.

One indication that China is the model for other governments now is how almost everyone else quickly mimicked the Chinese response to COVID; the lockdowns.

Of course, the key Chinese management practice is dictatorship; along with Fascist collaboration between government and the big corporations. For this, the common people must be cowed into submission, by whatever means necessary. Voluntary associations, civil society, must be attacked and humbled. Occupations allowing too much personal freedom, like trucking or farming, must be suppressed. 

Then matters can be left to the mandarinate, who, of course, think themselves smarter than the average working stiff. A plausible enough argument, one relied on by Confucius, or Plato, before Marx. It is all for the public good.

How to get around the inconvenience of democracy? No doubt there are ways. Control the media. Threaten opposition with seizure of their assets. Make public demonstrations illegal. Introduce new voting procedures open to tampering, like voting machines and mail-in ballots. As Stalin said, it does not matter who votes. What matters is who counts the ballots.

We are seeing these things happen before our eyes.

On the other hand, the growth of information technology is exposing incompetence in the mandarinate. This makes them vulnerable, and some of their overreach may be due to fear. No government can stand if the people will no longer obey. Here too, China might still seem a model to a panicked elite. They have kept their people under their thumb. 

Governments everywhere are undergoing a stress test as they in effect declare war on their own people. There seems a decent chance that the government of China will collapse first, discrediting the whole enterprise. There are runs on the banks and tanks in the streets. Big developers are defaulting. Will the CCP be able to paper it all over and hold things together?

It would be a happier time if we could point to at least one clear counter-example, of a government opening up further to the people. If it then clearly succeeded, a new paradigm might emerge.

Perhaps we see something of this in Ron DeSantis’s Florida. There is hope we might see it in a Canada led by Pierre Poilievre.