Mussolinoids is a brillaint term as it reminds me of something similar that only leads to backside pain and discomfort. Another wonderful post and most of all, unlike a lot of writing, you often stake a claim not commonly asserted and defend it with evidence and observation.
Have you read Dan Slater's "Ordering Power," about Southeast Asian authoritarian governments?
Slater argues that authoritarians delivered economic growth, when they did, because their supporting elites were nervous about revolution and foreign invasion.
That is, authoritarians delivered growth because growth was the best hope of security.
Jobs and land reform kept the masses compliant; foreign exchange and/or heavy industry made the military strong. (Park's Korea, Deng's China.)
Conversely, where elites were less afraid of invasion and/or revolutionaries, authoritarians delivered "security" by the easy routes of stagnation and crony perquisites, not growth. (Philippines, or arguably today's China.)
It's not a perfect theory. Mussolini certainly thought he was there to deliver a strong army and keep the leftists down, but he didn't give Italy an economic miracle. Conversely, Erdogan and Modi started out genuinely delivering economic growth, albeit back when they were less politically invincible and less authoritarian.
But up to a point, I like the idea: authoritarians focus on "security," and "security" only means growth when the alternative is imminent revolution or invasion.
More often, the feeling of security is the reality of stagnation. Which is one reason why authoritarians promise to save the country, and end up stalling it.
Firstly, the term 'effective governing' needs to be defined in a way that incorporates the entire geo-political and social realities and permits to track progress.
I think the conclusion is dangerous mostly because it's hard to correlate liberal-democracies with success. What can we infer about failing liberal-democracies?
An economically isolated Iran, with tremendous pressure on all fronts from almost everyone in the international community cannot measure in a fair and unbiased way how effective the administration was. I'm using administration instead of governing, on purpose. China rejected western vaccines. Iran was only offered western vaccines when the pandemic was past its peak, for economic reasons.
Interestingly, if we look into recent history, the western liberal democracies deposed a democratically elected government in Iran to create a monarchy that serves their interests.
UK liberal democratic government bet on Brexit, China 'authoritarian' regime bet on the Belt and Road initiative. I still believe China's bet was more realistic and anchored in geopolitical and economic realities than UK's direction of travel.
China is very often reduced to Xi's will and whims. The entire administration apparatus behind him is completely disregarded in spite of showing profound thinking about their own economy and synergies with the rest of the world.
In the west we are told to give up some privacy in favour of protecting national security and integrity. In China, Iran, Russia, they trade off different freedoms in an attempt to protect their own national interests and security as well as be able to catch up with their adversaries. I'm not saying I agree with their situation but I understand where they come from.
In Eastern Europe the are countries who's national integrity is guaranteed by US in exchange to almost delegating their foreign and economic policies to external parties. Is this 'effective governing'?
An interesting question is if a country can have an effective governing without having a direct, unmediated control over their national integrity, security and interest?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what is China doing well that perhaps the liberal democracies should start doing too.
I think we have reached a new Peak Noah, particularly the paragraph referring to China and India. As with previous pieces, on Indonesia for instance, it is quickly coming across (fairly or unfairly) as though Noah has never set foot in these places. Which is then doubly ironic since he exhorts readers to use the "simple evidence of our own eyes" ....
Do you think that ban on immigrant’s from India,might lead to economic dysfunction in The USA,but can be beneficial to India as the brain-drain problem is resolved upto an extent?
I think it's worth noting that while Trump talked big about the Foxconn deal in Wisconsin, it was actually pushed by a mini-Mussolinoid in Scott Walker. And the presence of others making noise, DeSantis chief among them, makes me wonder how authoritarians rise in other countries. Are they also, like provincial governors or something?
Also, are other Mussolinoids as terrible at hiring as Trump was? Up close, we saw how often his appointments were a perfect blend of corrupt and incompetent. (Scott Pruitt is my favorite example, because I remain convinced his resignation was only sparked by Alexandra Petri's column that made fun of his hand lotion and therefore made Trump think of him as effeminate.) Are Xi's and Putin's subordinates also bad at their jobs? I don't get the feeling they are, but I don't live in their countries.
Great article and insights. However, my question is given the governance failures, why do Mussolinoids have such staying power? Even in the U.S. it is highly likely that Trump will be the next President again.
You left the Brexiteers off this list who completely fit the model of failure that the other Mussolinoids have displayed, only as Brexit is locked in the ‘culture war over economics’ fear is being realised every day
There's a quote from the twentieth century French rightist Charles Maurras that reminds me of natcons (and maybe conservatives in general these days: "in order to love France today, it is necessary to hate what she has become." They consider themselves super patriots, but they think the way to love America is to hate what it is here and now.
"But immigrants are the lifeblood of the American economy (...)"
I read sentences like this rather often, too often. Which immigrants ? Illegal, legal, non-immigrants ? Family-reunion newcomers, investors, small business owners, work-bound immigrants, who does the expression pertain to ? In the past or nowadays or both ?
Just by itself the remark is nothing. more than feel-good interjection, meaningless. And for some of us, rather hurtful.
The problem with authoritarians is they value loyalty over competent execution, which inevitably leads to incompetence and corruption. Authoritarian leaders measure their underlings by how well they follow orders, not the successes in their jobs. Putin's troops in Ukraine follow stupid orders and screw up. Xi's apparatchiks hide incompetence and corruption. Trump's people can barely form a rational thought, but they stroke their boss.
The real problem in the U.S. is that our billionaires lose touch with competent execution too quickly and begin to value loyalty to short-term profit over sharp vision.
Loyalty puts on an excellent show but fizzles in action.
That's a very favorable presentation of the views of our nation's authoritarians. Their principal concerns are radically right-wing - deregulation, defunding education/healthcare/welfare, and lowering taxes. Who cares that they think about woke culture when schools in the South are moving to 4-day workweeks because they can't pay teachers enough to come in for 5 days...
Might it be the case that the dysfunctional authoritarianism precedes or causes wars and the disciplined authoritarianism follows wars, or is that overfitting to the 20th century? That would not bode well for us, especially having nukes this time.
"Park Chung-hee, Deng Xiaoping, and Lee Kuan Yew certainly put that notion to rest." You are forgetting the most impressive example of authoritarian rule -- the Meiji oligarchy. These autocrats' successes are mostly just about them mimicking Meiji era Japan in the first place.
Mussolinoids is a brillaint term as it reminds me of something similar that only leads to backside pain and discomfort. Another wonderful post and most of all, unlike a lot of writing, you often stake a claim not commonly asserted and defend it with evidence and observation.
Have you read Dan Slater's "Ordering Power," about Southeast Asian authoritarian governments?
Slater argues that authoritarians delivered economic growth, when they did, because their supporting elites were nervous about revolution and foreign invasion.
That is, authoritarians delivered growth because growth was the best hope of security.
Jobs and land reform kept the masses compliant; foreign exchange and/or heavy industry made the military strong. (Park's Korea, Deng's China.)
Conversely, where elites were less afraid of invasion and/or revolutionaries, authoritarians delivered "security" by the easy routes of stagnation and crony perquisites, not growth. (Philippines, or arguably today's China.)
It's not a perfect theory. Mussolini certainly thought he was there to deliver a strong army and keep the leftists down, but he didn't give Italy an economic miracle. Conversely, Erdogan and Modi started out genuinely delivering economic growth, albeit back when they were less politically invincible and less authoritarian.
But up to a point, I like the idea: authoritarians focus on "security," and "security" only means growth when the alternative is imminent revolution or invasion.
More often, the feeling of security is the reality of stagnation. Which is one reason why authoritarians promise to save the country, and end up stalling it.
Firstly, the term 'effective governing' needs to be defined in a way that incorporates the entire geo-political and social realities and permits to track progress.
I think the conclusion is dangerous mostly because it's hard to correlate liberal-democracies with success. What can we infer about failing liberal-democracies?
An economically isolated Iran, with tremendous pressure on all fronts from almost everyone in the international community cannot measure in a fair and unbiased way how effective the administration was. I'm using administration instead of governing, on purpose. China rejected western vaccines. Iran was only offered western vaccines when the pandemic was past its peak, for economic reasons.
Interestingly, if we look into recent history, the western liberal democracies deposed a democratically elected government in Iran to create a monarchy that serves their interests.
UK liberal democratic government bet on Brexit, China 'authoritarian' regime bet on the Belt and Road initiative. I still believe China's bet was more realistic and anchored in geopolitical and economic realities than UK's direction of travel.
China is very often reduced to Xi's will and whims. The entire administration apparatus behind him is completely disregarded in spite of showing profound thinking about their own economy and synergies with the rest of the world.
In the west we are told to give up some privacy in favour of protecting national security and integrity. In China, Iran, Russia, they trade off different freedoms in an attempt to protect their own national interests and security as well as be able to catch up with their adversaries. I'm not saying I agree with their situation but I understand where they come from.
In Eastern Europe the are countries who's national integrity is guaranteed by US in exchange to almost delegating their foreign and economic policies to external parties. Is this 'effective governing'?
An interesting question is if a country can have an effective governing without having a direct, unmediated control over their national integrity, security and interest?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what is China doing well that perhaps the liberal democracies should start doing too.
I think we have reached a new Peak Noah, particularly the paragraph referring to China and India. As with previous pieces, on Indonesia for instance, it is quickly coming across (fairly or unfairly) as though Noah has never set foot in these places. Which is then doubly ironic since he exhorts readers to use the "simple evidence of our own eyes" ....
Do you think that ban on immigrant’s from India,might lead to economic dysfunction in The USA,but can be beneficial to India as the brain-drain problem is resolved upto an extent?
I think it's worth noting that while Trump talked big about the Foxconn deal in Wisconsin, it was actually pushed by a mini-Mussolinoid in Scott Walker. And the presence of others making noise, DeSantis chief among them, makes me wonder how authoritarians rise in other countries. Are they also, like provincial governors or something?
Also, are other Mussolinoids as terrible at hiring as Trump was? Up close, we saw how often his appointments were a perfect blend of corrupt and incompetent. (Scott Pruitt is my favorite example, because I remain convinced his resignation was only sparked by Alexandra Petri's column that made fun of his hand lotion and therefore made Trump think of him as effeminate.) Are Xi's and Putin's subordinates also bad at their jobs? I don't get the feeling they are, but I don't live in their countries.
You've laid out in elegant fashion why authoritarianism isn't just bad for "them" but also for "us." Timely and appreciated piece.
Great article and insights. However, my question is given the governance failures, why do Mussolinoids have such staying power? Even in the U.S. it is highly likely that Trump will be the next President again.
You left the Brexiteers off this list who completely fit the model of failure that the other Mussolinoids have displayed, only as Brexit is locked in the ‘culture war over economics’ fear is being realised every day
There's a quote from the twentieth century French rightist Charles Maurras that reminds me of natcons (and maybe conservatives in general these days: "in order to love France today, it is necessary to hate what she has become." They consider themselves super patriots, but they think the way to love America is to hate what it is here and now.
"But immigrants are the lifeblood of the American economy (...)"
I read sentences like this rather often, too often. Which immigrants ? Illegal, legal, non-immigrants ? Family-reunion newcomers, investors, small business owners, work-bound immigrants, who does the expression pertain to ? In the past or nowadays or both ?
Just by itself the remark is nothing. more than feel-good interjection, meaningless. And for some of us, rather hurtful.
I always joke that, with kleptocrats, the problem is they eventually have to govern.
The problem with authoritarians is they value loyalty over competent execution, which inevitably leads to incompetence and corruption. Authoritarian leaders measure their underlings by how well they follow orders, not the successes in their jobs. Putin's troops in Ukraine follow stupid orders and screw up. Xi's apparatchiks hide incompetence and corruption. Trump's people can barely form a rational thought, but they stroke their boss.
The real problem in the U.S. is that our billionaires lose touch with competent execution too quickly and begin to value loyalty to short-term profit over sharp vision.
Loyalty puts on an excellent show but fizzles in action.
That's a very favorable presentation of the views of our nation's authoritarians. Their principal concerns are radically right-wing - deregulation, defunding education/healthcare/welfare, and lowering taxes. Who cares that they think about woke culture when schools in the South are moving to 4-day workweeks because they can't pay teachers enough to come in for 5 days...
Might it be the case that the dysfunctional authoritarianism precedes or causes wars and the disciplined authoritarianism follows wars, or is that overfitting to the 20th century? That would not bode well for us, especially having nukes this time.
"Park Chung-hee, Deng Xiaoping, and Lee Kuan Yew certainly put that notion to rest." You are forgetting the most impressive example of authoritarian rule -- the Meiji oligarchy. These autocrats' successes are mostly just about them mimicking Meiji era Japan in the first place.