The purpose of the last few blog postings is a discussion of how culture \u00a0influences the rise of U.S. political leaders.<\/p>\n
While this writer, in a previous blog posting stated, \u201cthe United States is not Europe,\u201d let\u2019s borrow two concepts or political constructs that, indeed, have European origin, namely,<\/p>\n
The Rise of the \u00a0\u201cEntrepreneurial Leader\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The term,\u00a0 \u201cpolitical entrepreneur,\u201d alive and well in Europe, may provide insight, however.<\/p>\n According to\u00a0 the World Economic Forum,<\/p>\n \u201cPolitical entrepreneurs are people who create ideas and innovations, and act as new leaders in the field of politics. They are individuals and groups who seek to improve the science and art of politics through disruption. . . (by coming)\u00a0 up with new ways to solve political problems in terms of political philosophy, political technology, political campaigns, and governance.\u201d<\/p>\n Admittedly, entrepreneurship is associated the Zuckerbergs, Musks, Wangs who develop and provide \u201cproducts and services that fix other people\u2019s problems\u201d\u00a0 through disruption.<\/p>\n The WEF states,<\/p>\n \u201cPolitical entrepreneurs are a combination of the two: people who build something from nothing to address societal problems. . . global society must figure out how it deals with: the automation of jobs; the shifting of power towards global tech companies \u2013 the new industrialists of our day; fake news distorting democratic debate; threats to net neutrality and cyber security; the ownership of citizens\u2019 data, and new forms of labor typified by the gig economy.\u201d\u00a0(https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/agenda\/2017\/11\/the-rise-of-the-political-entrepreneur-and-why-we-need-more-of-them\/)<\/p>\n In simpler terms, a United States \u00a0\u201centrepreneurial leader,\u201d addressing both historical and emergent concerns of a U.S. electorate struggling to make sense of \u00a0social and cultural \u201cchange-rapidity\u201d deemed as \u00a0\u201cup-ending\u201d \u00a0cherished norms and conventions \u2013 changes emergent after 9\/11, the circa 2008 economic downturn, the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter ending ignobly \u2013 all enwrapped \u00a0within the milieu of the COVID-19 pandemic, protests regarding the death of George Floyd and the October 2023 Hamas incursion into Israel, respectively.<\/p>\n Ascribed Meaning: is entrepreneurial \u2018New\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n Entrepreneurial politics provides the political leader the ability to ascribe meaning and to bring inferred order, in both broad-brush and granular detail, often as personified through accessible and \u201ccut to the chase\u201d messaging to address or even vanquish complex social issues or problems traditional politicians embrace\u00a0 through use of incremental, traditional, contradictory or nuanced approaches.<\/p>\n Aspects of entrepreneurial politics, especially the ubiquity of social media, permeates U.S. politics.<\/p>\n Yet is entrepreneurial politics new?<\/p>\n All The King\u2019s Men<\/em>, Robert Penn Warren\u2019s novel\u00a0 largely considered to be based on Depression Era Louisiana Governor Huey Long, depicts Long as \u201ca man of contradictions\u201d rather than demagogue, authoritarian,\u00a0 populist, socialist, fascist or other label used to describe his political approach. (https:\/\/greatbooksguy.com\/2021\/04\/03\/the-dangers-of-populism-in-all-the-kings-men\/<\/a> and https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Political_views_of_Huey_Long)<\/p>\n Ubiquitous \u2018Authoritarianism\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\n Given ubiquitous usage in U.S. news and social media, we must deal with the term \u201cauthoritarianism.\u201d<\/p>\n Of course, definitions vary.<\/p>\n The Oxford\u00a0 Review Encyclopedia of Terms:<\/p>\n \u201cAuthoritarian leadership refers to any situation where a leader keeps hold of as much power and authority as possible. Also known as coercive or dictatorial leadership, authoritarian leaders tend to keep all the decision-making authority to themselves and make the decisions about policies, procedures, tasks, structures, rewards and punishment themselves. The intention behind most authoritarian leaders is to retain control and they usually require unquestioning obedience and compliance. (https:\/\/oxford-review.com\/oxford-review-encyclopaedia-terms\/authoritarian-leadership\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n Indeed, the origins of \u201cauthoritarian\u201d developed in 1939 when a group of researchers, led by psychologist\u00a0Kurt Lewin, identified different styles of leadership, positing leadership fell into three neat categories:<\/p>\n Research generations later gave rise to the behavioral leadership theory,\u2019 focusing on Leaders\u2019 actions rather than their inherent traits and newer twists, including situational leadership and coach or \u201cmanager-less\u201d leadership.<\/p>\n Back to the Europeans <\/strong><\/p>\n An additional European study, \u201cThe New State That We Are Building\u201d: Authoritarianism and System-Justification in an Illiberal Democracy,\u201d concludes much of what is blamed on social media of which this writer is fond of citing, political base disregard for fact-checking political rhetoric \u2013an oxymoron \u2013 and the very fact that politicians need supporters, especially funders, and supporters and funders need politicians who may be as much a product of the culture at the time or as the electorate projects upon the political leader.<\/p>\n The research concludes, as especially apropos for the U.S. non-parliamentarian system of multi-party governance what Americans, especially political leaders, already count on:<\/p>\n Is the news media or social media in particular\u00a0 responsible for shaping\u00a0 public opinion?<\/p>\n The researchers conclude:<\/p>\n Moreover, politicians often combine rhetoric, speechcraft, social media with the additive of \u00a0what poet T.S. Eliot\u2019s \u00a0\u201call truths are private truths,\u201d\u00a0 to tell it \u201clike it is.,\u201d posturing themselves as the \u201cone<\/em> individual who can or\u00a0 will navigate, minimize or displace bureaucratic,\u00a0 regulatory or process governance \u2013 that is, encapsulated as upholding offensive political, social and\u00a0 cultural norms antithetic to both leader and, increasingly, adherents.<\/p>\n Finally, successful politicians claim they can and will be judged by results, which requires message simplification. (There are exceptions, politicians rarely campaign for the need for additional bureaucracy to reach their goals. Those accusations are left to political opponents.)<\/p>\n Trait theory <\/strong><\/p>\n What we know is that politicians are, well, politicians, speaking primarily to bases that this reader contends the politician creates hoards to himself or herself \u2013 that is, loose shifting coalitions of supporters who come to \u00a0believe in the politician\u2019s \u201cread\u201d of things. Variances occur in messaging and communications.<\/p>\n Is there a difference between those politicians who may be\u00a0 entrepreneurial politicians and those politicians who are labelled autocratic or traditionalist politicians?<\/p>\n What of rhetoric that, in the least, is strident, demeaning, negative, scurrilous or considered ad hominem?<\/p>\n Self-investment<\/strong><\/p>\n What about these dimensional considerations:<\/p>\n That the electorate struggles with these questions, making broad, jagged and delimiting conclusions as voters, may ensure the health of the U.S. Republic in a time of unprecedented change.<\/p>\n Moreover, pollsters conclude undecided voters in toss-up states largely will determine the outcome of federal elections,\u00a0 given the U.S. Electoral College process.<\/p>\n The voter as a political consumer, however, can invest her or his vote to ensure the entirety of \u00a0the elected executive and legislative branches of government at all levels are beholden to voters rather than politicians who invest in voters.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n