Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Uncle Joe

(65,516 posts)
5. You bring up an interesting point,
Thu Apr 4, 2024, 01:17 PM
Apr 2024
"I'm sure that his MAGA's will interpret that statement as being strong and decisive."

I'm thinking our language had/has some influence on that dynamic.

In general we view strength as a positive attribute from the 19th century Strongman weightlifters when the word was first coined.

Being strong is a good thing, so why do we use the word "strongman" to describe a political leader or dictator that is so afraid, insecure or thin skinned as to be unable to tolerate any dissension, criticism or opposition.

The only reason that I can think of is that the rest of the people of that given society must be exceptionally weak as a relative point to tolerate a "strongman" in politics.

That weakness of the people may not be by choice, sometimes it's made for them and they may not even be aware of the wool being pulled over their eyes on a subconscious level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_strongman

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»'No More Money' for Israe...»Reply #5