The Cult of Personailty

[jwoodie]

Prior to 1960 we had three Presidents (Washington, Lincoln and FDR) whose personalities were dominant factors in their performances of leading the nation in major wars. Since then, we have had three more (JFK, Clinton and Obama) whose popularity seems to have been based on their personalities irrespective of their policies. Reagan might be added to this list, but he is primarily remembered as a Conservative President.

I am wondering whether this will be the determining factor in selecting future Presidents. For example, Hillary Clinton enjoys wide support for a presidential candidacy even though her political philosophy is largely unknown to her followers. (Contrastingly, potential GOP candidates are busy staking out their positions on a myriad of issues.)

The Roman Emperors cultivated this approach, which added to their popularity but ultimately doomed the Empire. Are we headed down the same path?

 

[oldfart]

The Roman Emperors cultivated this approach, which added to their popularity but ultimately doomed the Empire. Are we headed down the same path?

I disagree. The Roman Empire fell apart precisely when it began determining the Emperor through free market mechanisms. First ambitious families bribed the Praetorian Guard to assassinate incumbent Emperors, and soon the Guard was killing the Emperor first and then holding a public auction of the office. Julius Caesar and other tribunes financing their own armies didn't help either. Rome died of a surfeit of free enterprise!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Prior to 1960 we had three Presidents (Washington, Lincoln and FDR) whose personalities were dominant factors in their performances of leading the nation in major wars. Since then, we have had three more (JFK, Clinton and Obama) whose popularity seems to have been based on their personalities irrespective of their policies. Reagan might be added to this list, but he is primarily remembered as a Conservative President.

I am wondering whether this will be the determining factor in selecting future Presidents. For example, Hillary Clinton enjoys wide support for a presidential candidacy even though her political philosophy is largely unknown to her followers. (Contrastingly, potential GOP candidates are busy staking out their positions on a myriad of issues.)

The Roman Emperors cultivated this approach, which added to their popularity but ultimately doomed the Empire. Are we headed down the same path?

Yes, there are some who are more concerned with, say, Reagan's hair do and (failed) acting career, turning us into a debtor nation and bedroom community to China or name (Bush, H. Clinton) recognition but surely most people are payi8ng attention to actual accomplishments.

For example, in spite of constant filibustering and obstruction from the R -

 

[jwoodie]

Whoosh...

 

[asaratis]

The Roman Emperors cultivated this approach, which added to their popularity but ultimately doomed the Empire. Are we headed down the same path?

I disagree. The Roman Empire fell apart precisely when it began determining the Emperor through free market mechanisms. First ambitious families bribed the Praetorian Guard to assassinate incumbent Emperors, and soon the Guard was killing the Emperor first and then holding a public auction of the office. Julius Caesar and other tribunes financing their own armies didn't help either. Rome died of a surfeit of free enterprise!

...and all this time I thought Rome and the Roman Empire died out from drinking out of lead cups!

 

[Asclepias]

Prior to 1960 we had three Presidents (Washington, Lincoln and FDR) whose personalities were dominant factors in their performances of leading the nation in major wars. Since then, we have had three more (JFK, Clinton and Obama) whose popularity seems to have been based on their personalities irrespective of their policies. Reagan might be added to this list, but he is primarily remembered as a Conservative President.

I am wondering whether this will be the determining factor in selecting future Presidents. For example, Hillary Clinton enjoys wide support for a presidential candidacy even though her political philosophy is largely unknown to her followers. (Contrastingly, potential GOP candidates are busy staking out their positions on a myriad of issues.)

The Roman Emperors cultivated this approach, which added to their popularity but ultimately doomed the Empire. Are we headed down the same path?

Its not a cult or a secret. People are drawn naturally to charismatic people. The people that direct campaigns know this stuff inside and out. The people that can fit the mold are usually the ones that get picked to be POTUS. My guess is we have probably skipped over some brilliant people that would have made the best POTUS simply because they had a dull personality or had trouble voicing their vision with passion.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

deleted

 

[oldfart]

The Roman Emperors cultivated this approach, which added to their popularity but ultimately doomed the Empire. Are we headed down the same path?

I disagree. The Roman Empire fell apart precisely when it began determining the Emperor through free market mechanisms. First ambitious families bribed the Praetorian Guard to assassinate incumbent Emperors, and soon the Guard was killing the Emperor first and then holding a public auction of the office. Julius Caesar and other tribunes financing their own armies didn't help either. Rome died of a surfeit of free enterprise!

...and all this time I thought Rome and the Roman Empire died out from drinking out of lead cups!

Personally I think the biggest factor was the magnificent road system that allowed plagues to be spread faster than word of them. All hail the Plague of Justinian!

About the lead, I think it wasn't just the cups, the Roman water supply system used lead pipes.

 

[Vox]

the cult of personalty is stalinism.