President Trump won the election in 2016 despite all the media hypes. All the polls said he possibly can not win. Yet he recorded a huge win. At that time, his big win is praised as winning against the establishment.
As he went on with his policies, notably of getting out of international organizations such as UNESCO and Human Rights Committee, if not Paris accord and nuclear treaty, garnered international criticisms.
In the online lecture "GLOBAL STUDIES: RISKS AND THREATS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS GRENOBLE ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT", Prof. Yves Schemeil claims as follows:
"In many countries, the power of “strong, provocative men”, who break alliances, disrespect international commitments that they themselves had made, and show contempt for democracy, has been consolidated."
In the article, President Trump's name is in the list that includes all leaders that are regarded as "strong, provocative men", including Rouhani, Putin, Erdogan, Xi Jinping, Modi, Kazinski, Orban, Salvini, and Duterte.
"All these leaders striving to give themselves a tough and virile image share the same traits: brutal language, free from euphemism, without any sign of civilizing hypocrisy, which constantly denounces the Western norms deemed to convey weakness, resignation, and Western cultural domination."
The plain language that President Trump employs addressing ordinary people on issues that mainly has only benefited the established vested interests, should not be bundled with the rhetoric that used by dictators around the globe, elected or otherwise. Is it 'civilized hypocrisy' that the US is playing the world policemen fighting in the civil wars around the globe? Is it "the Western norms" that demanded the military involvement? Did he not need the "brutal language, free from euphemism" freeing us from the eternal war cycles?
Should we accuse the media talking about the 'human side' of those leaders?
"Yet all these attitudes and rhetoric cannot hide deep disagreement on crucial issues like human rights, social justice and the autonomy of peoples and communities."
Starting a war against a dictator accusing of human rights abuse, is not about the character of this nation. More than a million Iraqis died of the war initiated by the US and the allies, unilaterally. The decision is not about the US sovereignty, it is of Iraqis'.
"Cult of personality, presidency for life, and zero tolerance of opponents, dissenters, and suspicious neighbors, have all made a comeback. They make manifest a widening gap with democratic, humanitarian, and free competition standards."
As the media inundated with 'fake news', zero tolerance may not describe the situation. The gap indeed is there with democratic, humanitarian, and free competition standards. Is it not, however, because of his charisma?
Or is it in the accusation of his character that diverts us from looking at the real problems such as high crime rates and the wars that never end?