An American'Putin'

Is a truly dominant US politician imaginable. Suppose say Reagan had been fitter and had got elected first to the House and the as Speaker.

I have to say he is the only figure I can see doing this.

Unless, i guess, somehow the current incumbent has an incredibly popular second term
 
Putin's rule at this point is built around extra-constitutional measures. He has managed to set himself up as an arbiter among various people who owe their power and success to him personally. It's built around personal influence in the Russian intelligence community, and business interests (particularly among natural resource rents) controlled by ex-intelligence operatives - see siloviki.

Putin's power is based on effective control of the government - but that power is not needed to be wielded by actual political office (as witnessed by Putin's continuing to exercise power as paramount leader when not in the office of the Presidency.)

It is impossible for any American to wield power as Putin does because the US political system does not work that way. Can anyone really imagine an ex-President getting an old protege elected after his term expires, and then controlling the Presidency through him? No - whoever is now President would do whatever he wants. In the US, real power is exercised by the office itself, not the person himself. The "mastermind" behind this would quickly learn the government bureaucracy reports to the new President, not him.

Not to mention that all the methods Putin used to consolidate personal power would be impossible in the US as well. The President couldn't shake down the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Apple, Ford, Dupont, etc. and arrest them on spurious charges like Putin did to Mikhail Khordokovsky. Nor could the US President decree that state governors were now appointed by him instead of being directly elected by each state's citizens. Nor are independent and investigate journalists mysteriously murdered like Anna Politkovskaya in the US.

You would need to completely change US political culture and institutions to do so, and this isn't easy. The US has over 200 years of stable democratic institutions that enjoy widespread legitimacy. They could not be as easily subverted as Putin did Russia's immature, instable democracy of the economically depressed Yeltsin years.

If you are looking for a dominant US politician, see FDR especially in his first two terms. He attempted to pack the Supreme Court and it failed abysmally. That era was the best chance for a Putineque leader to emerge, and none did.

It is certainly possible for corrupt, thuggish leaders to emerge at a more local level, but even here such leaders are much more constrained than Putin ever could be because of the presence of multiple means to indict such people.
 

GarethC

Donor
Post-Hoover, was the FBI under too much oversight, and did it possess a culture that emphasised professional crimefighting at the expense of political influence too much to provide the same support that the KGB provided Putin?
 
Even during Hoover, the FBI was non-partisan. Hoover himself of course kept files on everyone, but he seemed to only use them or threaten to use them when politicians attempted to control the FBI or take it away from him. He seemedThere was never any culture at the FBI that agents were to be politically motivated on behalf of partisanship or individual politicians, just the national interest. Hoover served under Republicans and Democrats, and didn't seem bothered by either.

Certainly since Hoover, there is extensive oversight of the FBI as there are of all government agencies. Any attempt by a US President to make the FBI personally loyal to him rather than to the state would create a huge crisis that would politically damage the President beyond any hope of staying in office.

Again, the US President lacks the means to do so. Putin came out of the intelligence community, had old friends there, and could easily recruit other ex-KGB officials and hand out extensive patronage by seizing state control of oligarch indsutries through threat of extortion, jail, or death. No US President is coming to come out of the ranks of the FBI or CIA (even George Bush was merely a civilian director of the CIA, never an agent), and had no means to recruit or bribe such people.

The only way we'd ever see someone like Putin rule the US is if the US was under severe strain for its survival either due to internal or external enemies for an extended period of time that greatly weakened the ability of the state to protect the people, and then someone comes in and uses extralegal measures to stabilize the country. This would be a crisis equivalent to Weimar Germany or the extended civil wars of the Roman Republic.
 
Well hell, some conservatives tell me all the time Bill Clinton had his own personal kill army that disposed of all his enemies, so, I guess Bill Clinton!

:D
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
"Any attempt by a US President to make the FBI personally loyal to him rather than to the state would create a huge crisis that would politically damage the President beyond any hope of staying in office. "

Almost certainly true in all probable circumstances.

But could a President with a military background obtain the personal support of the armed forces? I'm thinking here of the immediately post-WWII period. Eisenhower with a different personality, or Patton or MacArthur going into politics.
 
But could a President with a military background obtain the personal support of the armed forces? I'm thinking here of the immediately post-WWII period. Eisenhower with a different personality, or Patton or MacArthur going into politics.
I find it hard to see a sizable amount of the army rallying around Patton or MacArthur and pledging loyalty to them above the interests of the country. It's important to note that military men who became Presidents moved into their civilian role quite quickly. I can't see Americans getting used to a President who prefers military regalia and whatnot over civilian clothing, in large part due to such a move conveying a pretty "authoritarian" personality and vibe to begin with.

As others have said, this scenario is pretty much impossible in a stable USA. Something pretty dramatic would have to happen first.
 
The entire way Putin gained power is by leading a nation with huge amounts of instability. An American Putin would have the same circumstances, possibly during the beginning of the Great Depression, a leader would need to rise who previously had something to do with the military, and had a great deal of personal skill and Charisma. He would have to implement his own brand of politics and take drastic measures to end the depression. He would have to have total mastery of the political system. He would have to control or at least have almost total dominance of both the Supreme Court and Congress. Perhaps he would break previous precedents and run for a third and fourth term. Or use his power to coerce companies into doing what's best for the country. He would need to be beloved by most of the country and in the end irrevocably change the course of American History.

Oh wait.....
 
The entire way Putin gained power is by leading a nation with huge amounts of instability. An American Putin would have the same circumstances, possibly during the beginning of the Great Depression, a leader would need to rise who previously had something to do with the military, and had a great deal of personal skill and Charisma. He would have to implement his own brand of politics and take drastic measures to end the depression. He would have to have total mastery of the political system. He would have to control or at least have almost total dominance of both the Supreme Court and Congress. Perhaps he would break previous precedents and run for a third and fourth term. Or use his power to coerce companies into doing what's best for the country. He would need to be beloved by most of the country and in the end irrevocably change the course of American History.

Oh wait.....
The difference is that FDR never went beyond making sure his stuff passed within the democratic process. Huey Long (who FDR was said to have actually been concerned about) would be someone far more likely to incite people to violence (and actually denounce his political opponents as enemies worthy of such treatment.) His hold on politics in his home state was also a fair bit more authoritarian than FDR.
 
I think Nixon is the closest we have ever had to a 'Putinesque' president. He had the paranoia, ambition, popularity, and willingness to use extralegal means to get and hold power. The problem is that Russia today is ruled by a very young political regime with considerable internal instability, its people are exceedingly used to living under authoritarian systems going back for centuries, and its government has a culture of chronic backstabbing and shady brinksmanship that lends itself to a dominant personality having such heavy handed control like Putin does.

By contrast, the government system of the US is over two centuries old, has vastly more stability, considerable well defined and accepted separations of power between the branches of government and government agencies, and well established constitutional rights that are treated as almost holy writ. On top of that, the military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies of this country are firmly subordinate to the civilian government. There is also a well established culture of free expression, and aversion to authoritarian kinds of government. Finally, almost every "existensial threat" that this country has ever faced has almost universially turned out to be either complete bullshit or heavily exaggerated, thus preventing any political figure using the fear of a threat for too much political gain.
 
George Bush was head of the CIA at one point in his career. It's similar to a KGB man.



Well hell, some conservatives tell me all the time Bill Clinton had his own personal kill army that disposed of all his enemies, so, I guess Bill Clinton!

:D

I would have suggested the Kennedys, but sure, Slick Willy, why not.
 
I think Nixon is the closest we have ever had to a 'Putinesque' president. He had the paranoia, ambition, popularity, and willingness to use extralegal means to get and hold power.


Popular? Not according to the media at the time. They despised him. So did the hippies, but I doubt they were ever sober enough to go vote, so they don't count.
 
George Bush was head of the CIA at one point in his career. It's similar to a KGB man.


I would have suggested the Kennedys, but sure, Slick Willy, why not.


You're thinking of the NKVD, the CIA handles foreign intelligence gathering, the KGB handles domestic counterintelligence. The FBI or NSA would be better analogies

Popular? Not according to the media at the time. They despised him. So did the hippies, but I doubt they were ever sober enough to go vote, so they don't count.

I"m talking pre-watergate.
 
Top