By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This publication is committed to fearless and impartial reporting, a mission made possible by member support rather than external influence. This sustained independence allows for the clear dissemination of truth, even when encountering resistance from those in positions of authority. Readers are encouraged to become members to ensure the continuation of this vital journalistic endeavor.
Read the original article here
The notion that Donald Trump is engaged in actions that history consistently shows lead to disastrous outcomes is a perspective gaining traction among those who study authoritarianism. This isn’t a novel observation, but rather a recurring theme for experts in the field, who see patterns of behavior that have repeatedly led to the downfall of aspiring autocrats.
One of the most striking observations is the idea that Trump appears to be genuinely believing his own hype, surrounded as he is by sycophants and consuming partisan media that reinforces a particular narrative. This creates a dangerous echo chamber, where reality can become distorted, and the individual in question is insulated from genuine criticism or objective assessment of their actions.
This tendency to believe one’s own pronouncements, coupled with a perceived inability to strategize effectively, is seen as a critical flaw. Unlike more cunning dictators who might operate with subtlety and a degree of strategic depth, Trump’s approach is often described as being too loud and too public. He frequently vocalizes his intentions, a significant misstep when aiming for authoritarian control, as it alerts potential opposition and allows for countermeasures.
The historical parallels are stark and, for experts, almost predictable. When examining past would-be dictators and authoritarian figures, a clear pattern emerges. Figures like Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Benito Mussolini all met similarly grim fates, none of which ended well for them. These examples, often involving violent removal from power, serve as stark warnings that history has a way of repeating itself when similar actions are taken.
There’s a sense that Trump, by not learning from these historical failures, is essentially following a playbook of past wannabe dictators but failing to adapt it to the current era. This lack of adaptability, this inability to innovate or even effectively copy, suggests a fundamental weakness in his approach to authoritarian ambitions.
The concern is that while Trump himself may be too inept to succeed in establishing a lasting dictatorship, a truly capable strategist operating with similar authoritarian tendencies could pose a far greater threat to democratic institutions. The current situation, however, is seen as precarious, with the potential for something to change drastically.
The idea of him trying to cancel votes or imposing dictatorial rule is not dismissed lightly by these experts. There’s a fear that if he perceives himself as cornered, particularly with the looming threat of legal consequences if he is no longer in power, he might resort to desperate measures. This fear is amplified by the notion that he might believe he can simply declare himself not responsible for anything, a form of “mental bankruptcy” that wouldn’t absolve him of actions.
The historical examples of authoritarians meeting violent ends are not presented as comforting, but rather as definitive evidence of how such attempts tend to conclude. The downfall of figures like Gaddafi, who met a brutal end, or Saddam Hussein, who was captured hiding in dirt before being executed, are not just cautionary tales but strong indicators of the ultimate consequences.
Furthermore, the expert perspective suggests that authoritarians often lack artistic flair or nuanced approaches. Their methods are predictable, and the outcome, while potentially devastating in the interim, often follows a well-trodden path of failure. This cyclical nature is concerning, as it implies that if these patterns aren’t recognized and countered, the cycle of authoritarian attempts could indeed repeat itself.
The current political landscape is seen as a crucial juncture. The question of the Republican party’s endgame is posed, with speculation that they might be too deeply invested to extricate themselves from the situation, even as Trump’s approval potentially sinks. The idea that his downfall would also impact their own standing is a point of discussion, suggesting that ultimately, it will not end well for him, and potentially for those who align with him.
The perceived inability to strategize effectively, the reliance on repeating past mistakes without learning from them, and the loud, public pronouncements of intent are all cited as weaknesses that make his authoritarian aspirations unlikely to succeed in the long run, but not without causing significant damage along the way. The worry is that the damage inflicted could be profound, and that the cycle of authoritarian ambition, even if ultimately unsuccessful for the individual, can have lasting negative consequences for a nation.