Berserk!: Anger and the Charismatic Populism of Donald Trump

2022 ◽  
pp. 089692052110631
Author(s):  
Paul Joosse ◽  
Dominik Zelinsky
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Cultural Sociology ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Emotional Energy ◽  
Leaders And Followers

This paper explores the role anger plays in charismatic movements. Although scholars have long recognized the importance of emotions to the etiology of charisma, they tend to focus on mutual affection among leaders and followers, paying less attention to how anger—and particularly its subspecies, ressentiment—patterns charismatic power. Drawing on literature from political science, populism research, and the cultural sociology of charisma, we argue that ressentiment, which is associated with self-disvalue and an invidious need to blame outsiders, is key to theorizing the emotional energy that charisma delivers to revolutionary upheaval. The Weberian source for the intervention is his lesser known concept of ‘berserk-charisma’. Reorienting the focus of charisma research to account for its aggressive, ‘outward’ dimension has the benefit of drawing us closer to the vision Weber had for its social-historical relevance. We demonstrate our insights using the case of charismatic/populist support for Trump.

scholarly journals Democracy in the prison of political science

2020 ◽  
pp. 019251212093243
Author(s):  
Felipe Antunes de Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Core ◽  
Individual Traits ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Societal Dynamics

After the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump, a widespread perception emerged that the world was witnessing a crisis of liberal democracy. Not surprisingly, said crisis is at the core of a new batch of political science literature. This review article takes stock of some key contributions to the literature, namely Albright (2018), Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018), Norris and Inglehart (2018), Runciman (2018a) and Eatwell and Goodwin (2018). My key argument is that the reviewed books are fundamentally limited by problematic ontological assumptions stemming from artificial disciplinary boundaries. Privileging either individual traits of authoritarian leaders or the very specific experience of the USA or the UK, they fail to capture varied, yet deeply interconnected international expressions of contemporary authoritarianism. Following Justin Rosenberg’s open invitation to place the concept of multiplicity at the centre of a renewed research agenda, I suggest that a more holistic take on the crisis of democracy requires a renewed attention to inter-societal dynamics.

scholarly journals How did that happen? Making sense of the 2016 US presidential election result through the lens of the ‘leadership moment’

Leadership ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Ladkin
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Relational Leadership ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Election Result ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Leaders And Followers ◽  
Identity Based ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
The Creation

This article analyses the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 US election through the lens of the ‘leadership moment’. A phenomenologically based framework, the ‘leadership moment’ theorizes leadership as an event which occurs when context, purpose, followers and leaders align. Perception links these four parts of leadership, in particular the perceptions followers have of their context and the relative strengths competing leaders have to respond to that context. By considering how key voters perceived Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump in relation to their circumstances, the ‘leadership moment’ offers a way of making sense of the election result, as well as emphasising the importance of perceptions of context in the achievement of leadership more generally. Importantly, it highlights the economic and identity-based dynamics which attracted voters to Trump, and which remain in play no matter who holds the Presidential office. Theoretically, the argument contributes to the emerging field of relational leadership in two ways: by looking beyond the ‘between space’ of leaders and followers, to include the ‘around space’ in which those relations are embedded, and by emphasizing the role of affective perceptions (rather than discourse) in the creation of those perceptions.

The 2020 election and its aftermath: Love, lies, and ensorceling leadership

Leadership ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 174271502199435
Author(s):  
George R Goethals
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
American Politics ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Leaders And Followers ◽  
Us Presidential Election

Though Donald Trump decisively lost the 2020 US presidential election, his mob-inciting charisma created a large and devoted base unusual in American politics. Insights from Sigmund Freud’s account of the emotional connections between leaders and followers, and later reframing of those views, suggest some of the dynamics that create the intense attachment expressed by Trump supporters, and his resulting ability to get his most loyal followers and allies to believe and do almost anything, no matter the evidence revealing his lies and the extremity of his demands. Essential elements include qualities of a leader and the leader’s message that make followers unable to countenance any criticism of their loved, overvalued messenger; followers’ uncritical willingness to believe whatever the leader says; and followers’ capacity to rationalize whatever actions they take as a result of those claims. The troubling implications for democracy of both the Electoral College and the Republican Party’s embrace of Trump and his message are discussed.

The problem of Donald Trump and the Static Spectrum Fallacy

2019 ◽  
pp. 135406881987167
Author(s):  
Verlan Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Republican Party ◽  
Spatial Spectrum ◽  
The Political ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Party Ideology ◽  
The Right ◽  
Over Time

Donald Trump’s transformation of Republican Party ideology has helped reveal major problems in the political science discipline’s conceptualization and measurement of ideology. Most scholarship is dominated by the mistaken view that party ideology changes can best be described by parties moving “left” or “right” on a static, ideological, spatial spectrum. In reality, the meaning and content of “left” and “right” (“liberal” and “conservative”) constantly evolve along with the issue positions of the two major parties. Thus, it makes no sense to describe parties as moving to the “left” or “right” over time when the very meanings of “liberalism” and “conservatism” change during the same time period. By understanding the dynamic character of ideology, we can reconcile the paradox of how Trump’s Republican Party can change its ideology even while continuing to be identified with “conservatism” and the “Right.”

scholarly journals Notes from the Editors

2009 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. iii-viii
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Leaders And Followers ◽  
Mutual Accountability ◽  
Political Actions

This issue's articles address two large and related themes in political science: (a) mutual accountability between leaders and followers and (b) constraints on political actions and decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document