DICTATORS FOLLOW THE SAME PLAYBOOK
Poll - Total Votes: 1
I agree with Mr. Taylor's article - here's why (comments please)
I disagree with Mr. Taylor's article - here's why (comments please)
You can only vote on one answer.
I'm posting this re-write as an eye-opener to those who refuse to look into the light. You may take that either way, but if you do a bit of research into the references that Mr. Taylor has quoted (and not just hide behind your own closed eyes), you may wake up refreshed!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday October 26, 2025,
Autocrats and dictators follow a similar playbook – even if they themselves don’t realize what they’re doing. The Assads in Syria, Erdogan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Modi in India, and you-know-who in America – all rode a similar path to power.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a world expert on the "strongman" playbook employed by authoritarian demagogues. A professor of history at New York University, her book Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present, came out in 2020 – unfortunately before she could include Donald Trump’s second presidency in the prevailing pattern.
In addition to Hitler and Mussolini, Ben-Ghiat examined Vladimir Putin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Augusto Pinochet, Muammar Gaddafi, Silvio Berlusconi, and Donald Trump’s first presidency.
Hitler is probably the most notable example of the Authoritarian Playbook -- a term coined by Project Democracy -- although I’m personally loath to cite Hitler as an example. Godwin’s Law, stated as a mathematical probability in 1990, asserts (roughly) that the longer any acrimonious debate goes on, the greater the likelihood that Hitler will be cited as a conclusive argument. A corollary, common in newsgroups and Internet discussion forums, contends that a Nazi or Hitler comparison automatically ends the thread. Whoever made the comparison loses.
Distinctive patterns
So let’s ignore Hitler for the moment, and get back to the research done by Ben-Ghiat and others, such as UBC’s Leanne ten Brink, which suggests a series of basic principles for wannabe dictators.
First, modern dictators use existing political systems to gain power. (In this, they differ from Genghis Khan and his ilk who simply used military might.)
· Then, having gained power, they demonize a minority.
· They politicize formerly independent institutions.
· They spread disinformation.
· They seize executive power, weakening checks and balances.
· They squash criticism or dissent.
· They scapegoat already vulnerable communities.
· They corrupt the election process.
· They encourage violence against a loosely labelled opposition.
Does any of that sound familiar? It should, because that pattern seems so universal that I suspect any historian could find parallels among the many dictators who preceded the modern age.
Disturbed personalities
Ben-Ghiat defines the tactics of authoritarian rulers as self-proclaimed saviors of a nation who evade accountability while robbing their people of truth, treasure, and civil protections. Her “strong men” promise law and order, then legitimize lawbreaking by financial, sexual, and other predators.
They typically use masculinity as a symbol of strength and as a political weapon. Taking what you want, and getting away with it, becomes proof of male authority.
UBC professor Leeanne ten Brinke has similarly studied “strong men.” She describes them as “dark personalities” – a term psychologists use to encompass psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and Machiavellian manipulativeness. She calls these the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits.
“Dark Tetrads usually appear together,” ten Brinke was quoted in a UBC Alumni publication. “People who score high on one often have high scores on all four.”
Dark personalities tend to strive for positions of power, and often obtain that power through lies, manipulation, and intimidation.
Sitting ducks
Ten Brinke wonders why people fall for these tactics. One possible answer, she suggests, is that humans are naturally trusting. We tend not to tell lies. Or to intentionally persecute or denigrate other people. And we expect the same from other humans.
“We’re sitting ducks,” ten Brink says.
Much depends on our own attitudes, she adds: “Where one voter sees impulsivity, ruthlessness, and deceit, others may see decisiveness, strength, and cunning.”
That difference in perception probably accounts for Donald Trump’s continued popularity among certain segments of the American population. It can’t be just based on his economic performance. Which -- as Ben-Ghiat and ten Brinke have both documented -- has been dismal.
The European Journal of Political Economy published a study, last year, showing that countries around the world run by dictators or autocrats have weaker economies than democratic countries – even though the dictators consistently falsify statistics to make themselves look good.
This is a depressing prospect. Because very few dictators have been removed from office by peaceful means; most are deposed by an internal coup, an armed rebellion, external intervention, or death. They are rarely voted out, because that would require the dictator to acknowledge voters as a superior power.
But they can be de-throned, and have been.
Amid the pessimism about dictators and autocrats generally, Ben-Ghiat recounts acts of solidarity and dignity that have undone strongmen over the past 100 years. In her view, only by seeing the strongman for what he is — and by valuing each other as the Strongman is unable to do — can we stop him, now and in the future. To keep alive the virtues of decency and honesty, so that they can flower again once the dictator is gone.
I can only hope…
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2025 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday October 26, 2025,
Autocrats and dictators follow a similar playbook – even if they themselves don’t realize what they’re doing. The Assads in Syria, Erdogan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Modi in India, and you-know-who in America – all rode a similar path to power.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a world expert on the "strongman" playbook employed by authoritarian demagogues. A professor of history at New York University, her book Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present, came out in 2020 – unfortunately before she could include Donald Trump’s second presidency in the prevailing pattern.
In addition to Hitler and Mussolini, Ben-Ghiat examined Vladimir Putin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Augusto Pinochet, Muammar Gaddafi, Silvio Berlusconi, and Donald Trump’s first presidency.
Hitler is probably the most notable example of the Authoritarian Playbook -- a term coined by Project Democracy -- although I’m personally loath to cite Hitler as an example. Godwin’s Law, stated as a mathematical probability in 1990, asserts (roughly) that the longer any acrimonious debate goes on, the greater the likelihood that Hitler will be cited as a conclusive argument. A corollary, common in newsgroups and Internet discussion forums, contends that a Nazi or Hitler comparison automatically ends the thread. Whoever made the comparison loses.
Distinctive patterns
So let’s ignore Hitler for the moment, and get back to the research done by Ben-Ghiat and others, such as UBC’s Leanne ten Brink, which suggests a series of basic principles for wannabe dictators.
First, modern dictators use existing political systems to gain power. (In this, they differ from Genghis Khan and his ilk who simply used military might.)
· Then, having gained power, they demonize a minority.
· They politicize formerly independent institutions.
· They spread disinformation.
· They seize executive power, weakening checks and balances.
· They squash criticism or dissent.
· They scapegoat already vulnerable communities.
· They corrupt the election process.
· They encourage violence against a loosely labelled opposition.
Does any of that sound familiar? It should, because that pattern seems so universal that I suspect any historian could find parallels among the many dictators who preceded the modern age.
Disturbed personalities
Ben-Ghiat defines the tactics of authoritarian rulers as self-proclaimed saviors of a nation who evade accountability while robbing their people of truth, treasure, and civil protections. Her “strong men” promise law and order, then legitimize lawbreaking by financial, sexual, and other predators.
They typically use masculinity as a symbol of strength and as a political weapon. Taking what you want, and getting away with it, becomes proof of male authority.
UBC professor Leeanne ten Brinke has similarly studied “strong men.” She describes them as “dark personalities” – a term psychologists use to encompass psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and Machiavellian manipulativeness. She calls these the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits.
“Dark Tetrads usually appear together,” ten Brinke was quoted in a UBC Alumni publication. “People who score high on one often have high scores on all four.”
Dark personalities tend to strive for positions of power, and often obtain that power through lies, manipulation, and intimidation.
Sitting ducks
Ten Brinke wonders why people fall for these tactics. One possible answer, she suggests, is that humans are naturally trusting. We tend not to tell lies. Or to intentionally persecute or denigrate other people. And we expect the same from other humans.
“We’re sitting ducks,” ten Brink says.
Much depends on our own attitudes, she adds: “Where one voter sees impulsivity, ruthlessness, and deceit, others may see decisiveness, strength, and cunning.”
That difference in perception probably accounts for Donald Trump’s continued popularity among certain segments of the American population. It can’t be just based on his economic performance. Which -- as Ben-Ghiat and ten Brinke have both documented -- has been dismal.
The European Journal of Political Economy published a study, last year, showing that countries around the world run by dictators or autocrats have weaker economies than democratic countries – even though the dictators consistently falsify statistics to make themselves look good.
This is a depressing prospect. Because very few dictators have been removed from office by peaceful means; most are deposed by an internal coup, an armed rebellion, external intervention, or death. They are rarely voted out, because that would require the dictator to acknowledge voters as a superior power.
But they can be de-throned, and have been.
Amid the pessimism about dictators and autocrats generally, Ben-Ghiat recounts acts of solidarity and dignity that have undone strongmen over the past 100 years. In her view, only by seeing the strongman for what he is — and by valuing each other as the Strongman is unable to do — can we stop him, now and in the future. To keep alive the virtues of decency and honesty, so that they can flower again once the dictator is gone.
I can only hope…
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2025 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
70-79, M
