The rise of billionaire Donald Trump in the US presidential race has been met with a mixture of horror and fascination. As his campaign, once regarded with derision, continues to rack up successes — most recently, in the Michigan and Mississippi primaries and the Hawaii caucus — pundits are scrambling for some historical or foreign analogue that can shed light on the phenomenon. While no comparison is perfect, the most apt comparison is with Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian media mogul who has served three terms as his country’s prime minister. It is not a reassuring model.
Of course, Berlusconi and Trump share some superficial similarities, including multiple marriages and a generally vulgar style, but the most important — and the most worrying — qualities they share is an ability to substitute salesmanship for substance, a willingness to tell bald-faced lies in pursuit of publicity and advantage and an eagerness to intimidate critics into silence.
Berlusconi’s policy platforms, even his fundamental ideology, have always lacked consistency. During his successful campaigns, he said whatever it took to win votes; during his three terms in office, he used the same tactic to form coalitions. His only agenda was to protect or advance his own business interests.
So far, Trump has followed much the same strategy, saying anything to grab another vote. The question is what this would mean if he were to make it to the White House. The system of checks and balances established by the US Constitution has an unmatched capacity to prevent any single branch of government from going haywire, but the manipulation of public opinion is a powerful weapon in any democracy and it is a weapon that Trump, like Berlusconi, knows how to wield better than most.
Berlusconi’s greatest successes — especially during his 2001 to 2006 and 2008 to 2011 terms (he also served in 1994 to 1995) — lay in the manipulation of media and public opinion.
Although Italy is well known for its low trust in government, with citizens largely resigned to the idea that virtually every public figure is self-serving, Berlusconi managed to numb the popular consciousness even further. He somehow lulled Italians into believing that all was well in their economy and society, even in the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis, when plainly it was not. Under his leadership, Italy lost many years when its government should have been pursuing critical reforms.
How did Berlusconi achieve this? For the most part, he used the joke, the lie and the smile. When that did not work, he resorted to bullying, including through libel suits.
In fact, few media tycoons — Berlusconi owns Italy’s main commercial television channels and several daily newspapers (either directly or through his family) — have ever been as freewheeling in their use of libel litigation to silence journalists and other critics. The famous Italian anti-mafia writer Roberto Saviano referred to Berlusconi’s “mud machine,” with which he would smear anyone who dared stand in his way. (Full disclosure: As editor of The Economist, I was the target of two libel suits by the former prime minister.)
All of these tactics are in Trump’s inventory. Trump is aggressive with his opponents, especially in the media. Throughout his business career, he has frequently invoked libel laws. If he wins the presidency, he has said, he will seek to control media criticism. And yet his essential message is optimistic, delivered with a joke and a big smile. As Berlusconi has shown, when the population is feeling grumpy or disillusioned, as much of the US is today, this approach can be highly effective — and for a very long time.
Some pundits who have invoked the Berlusconi comparison have highlighted one distinction between the bombastic billionaires: Berlusconi, they say, at least has some charm and much more business acumen. This assessment is not only far too generous toward Berlusconi; it also risks making it seem that Trump is less dangerous than his Italian counterpart.
The reality is that, while Berlusconi certainly has his charm, Trump’s swelling base of support seems to see a certain charm in him, too, even if it is a less seductive version. Moreover, while Berlusconi undoubtedly possesses business acumen, he has, like Trump, cut plenty of corners along the way. The ties of Berlusconi’s close aides and friends to Italy’s various mafia clans are well documented.
However, none of this is particularly important, in terms of its implications for the US today. What is important is that both Trump and Berlusconi are ruthless and willing to resort to any means to achieve their (self-serving) ends.
Given this, underestimating Trump would be a huge mistake; he will always prove stronger, more slippery and more enduring than expected. The only way to avoid a Berlusconi-level disaster — or worse — is to continue criticizing him, exposing his lies and holding him to account for his words and actions, regardless of the insults or threats he throws at those who do.
Too many Italians shrugged their shoulders at Berlusconi’s lies and failings, figuring that he would soon go away, having done little harm, but he did not go away and he did plenty of harm. The US cannot afford to make the same mistake. The price of liberty, Americans are fond of saying, is eternal vigilance. In confronting Trump, there can be no discount.
Bill Emmott is a former editor-in-chief of The Economist.
Copyright Project Syndicate.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new