We have seen this in prior Trump cabinet meetings. And commentators have made statements about Trump’s cabinet meetings being similar to something seen in other regimes such as that of Kim Jun Un or Vladimir Putin.
Googling a bit, it is easy to find examples where state media unabashedly grovels before a non-U.S. strongman. But I cannot find examples where the underlings of the non-U.S. strongman, one after another, at a meeting in front of the leader, engage in this kind of flattery.
My factual question: What are the closest examples of leaders, other than Trump, running such meetings? Or is Trump’s cabinet meeting style unique?
I know, Bondi was inconsistent on the number of deaths averted. I’m not asking about whether the flattery Trump receives is factual, but whether it being presented to the strongman this way, by top subordinate leaders, in person, is internationally unprecedented.
There is a risk of this devolving into an opinion thread. I tried to word the question to prevent that. I’m interested in comparative strongman flattery history.
Much has been made of supposed similarities between top cabinet officers trying to out-effuse each other in fawning over Trump, and leading North Korean officials praising Kim Jong Un.
The only example I could find in a brief search shows that top Party officials in North Korea like to fawn over themselves as much as they do the Supreme Leader.
I think it depends on the psychology of the leader. A leader who is a narcissist probably demands excess flattery. One who is more of a sociopath or a machiavellian (to even out the dark triad) probably doesn’t require excess flattery.
However you have to look at who benefits. What may be happening is Trump’s subordinates realize due to his narcissism, that giving him flattery is the easiest way to manipulate him. Its my understanding that the Saudis did this during his first presidency, they’d have massive flattery campaigns when he visited so they could manipulate Trump into doing their bidding.
I guess my point is, is Trump organizing the flattery to feed his own ego, or are his subordinates using his desperate need for flattery to manipulate him into doing their bidding? I assume it is the latter.
I see no need, for purposes of the thread, to define the word strongman except to say that a national leader, who has group meetings where top subordinates flatter him to his face as in the OP, qualifies..
A quick check on a few likely candidates indicates that Mao was the subject of enormous flattery in the form of public adulation but I haven’t found anything confirming his officials engaged in it personally (which is not to say they did not). Stalin at one point complained about the level of constant flattery. There is a suggestion that Putin gets a lot of it although this article makes no direct claims.
I suspect it has long been pretty common practice by officials in regimes with leaders at the centre of a personality cult.
There’s the story that Stalin received an extended standing ovation simply because his men were afraid of being the first to stop clapping.
Supposedly, it went on for 11 minutes until one man finally stopped and sat down, allowing the others to follow suit. That man was arrested and sentenced to prison later that night.
I read similar about both Stalin and Hitler, I think in Bullock’s comparative biography of both leaders. He made the point that this was a very complex theatre of assuring personal safety - the consequences were far worse than being demoted to US Ambassador to the United Nations in both cases if an individual fell out of favour, but also a chance to build a consensus position among the minions that the Great Leader could then adopt and sell as his own brilliant moment.
Neither Hitler or Stalin were averse to receiving criticism, but they needed it to happen behind closed doors to protect their public omniscience. They wanted to hear from people who had been on the frontline [wartime or otherwise] and had some new perspective to bring based on experience, and not simply be harangued by someone who has a different idea that they wanted to promote instead.
I saw an interview with Alan Bullock and he was asked which of Hitler or Stalin he’d like to have dinner with. His answer was that either dinner would be incredibly dull, because it would be all about them and their toadies fawning all night long, but at least with Hitler you had a chance of being alive the next day.
It’s a pity all newspeople present were dazed by the stupidity of this, and didn’t look up the seizures under Biden.
So quick and dirty calculations.
3400 kg = ca. 7000 lb. (saves 258 mio lives.)
Seizures in 2022, 23 and 24 = ca. 63000 lb = 9x7000 lb.
9x258 = 2322
So Biden has saved 2322 million lives. And that’s not counting those in 2021.
When I see clips or read stuff about displays like the cabinet meeting toadying, I’m often reminded of the abject toadying displayed in the black comedy movie ‘The Death of Stalin’ prior to the titular death of Stalin.
And trump doesn’t even have the power to imprison and execute the underlings who displease him (yet?).
Well, some of their gratitude is probably genuine. On the whole they are not people who were at the top of the list within their specific fields, or even necessarily on page 1 of a long list.
Their elevation to the centre of power saw them leapfrogging many, many people better qualified and experienced to provide expert national leadership. They owe Trump a lot just to be in that Cabinet room, and Trump is going to squeeze every drop of value from them.
In the Westminster system Cabinet is essentially off-limits. The idea is that without public scrutiny people can speak completely frankly, canvass ideas that they can’t say out loud and factor in everything and essentially to make brave decisions, minister. The decisions that come out are beholden to all the participants. All that is backed up Cabinet secrecy, with the cabinet minutes having among the longest times before they can become part of the public archive.
That said, there are always file footage set-pieces done for the media of the participants having a chat or putting on a bit of a show, before all the cameras get kicked out and the real work begins.
Yeah, your true Machiavelli types would certainly welcome a certain amount of deference, but would probably never go for such an ostentatious display of ass kissing because a) they’re well aware of how ridiculous it looks and b) it exposes just how insecure they really are.
They’re also willing to hear out criticism, albeit delivered discreetly, as it helps them improve upon their scheming and can offer up a clear view of where the chess pieces really stand.