This is something I’ve been thinking about lately. If you look at the first half of the 20th century, Western politics produced a massivenumber of enormous political personalities Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. I mean historically significant, charismatic, larger than life figures who seemed capable of embodying an entire political movement or era.Compare that with modern Western politics. A lot of contemporary politicians seem much more managerial or technocratic . lawyers, economists, administrators, party professionals, etc. They rarely seem to have the same kind of personal presence or sense that they’re leading some enormous historical project.What caused this change and why? Is there an actual historical term for this transition or am I just looking at it through hindsight?
>>18723163These 20th century figures were all shaped by the first world war and the crises that emerged afterwards.Social media and 24/7 news, results in us getting a different style of politician today. More style rather than substance. Celebrity rather than statesman. Post ww2 most of Western European politics has been mundane centrism, therefore attracting mediocre careerists rather than visionary individuals
>>18723177So what you are saying is... We will never get a "Great Man" as a leader ever again? Because the influencers with the most political power to rule over us in the next generation like nick Fuentes and assmongoloid and even in the left Hasan piker and Vaush. None of them are great men, they are the most worthless people ever. But according to your theory, that's just how culture changed. That's the kind of leader we will have for the next 60 years once boomers die and zoomers control politics
We don't need "great men". We need good men. Instead we get careerist bad men, who prosper themselves and their paymasters. Probably since the post war period.
>>18723163>Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard timescurrently the weak men are creating hard times.
>>18723311hard times don't create strong menthey create scared, desperate men who just want to survive or believe in somethingpeople don't toughten nor become more upstanding during wars or famines, they just die or flee
>>18723331Then what creates strong men?
>>18723198Nick and hasan could live up to that role as they fashion themselves as hitler/franco or Stalin/mao, they aren’t you average managerial careerists and have some of that aura but are commoners currently I mean stalin was a bank robber and hitler a vagarant at that age, they can definitely lead their respective far right and far left movements but asmon and vaush would be worse than even those currently in power when it comes to that larger than life aspect
>>18723410situations and enviroments where people can grow and have something to fight for other than daily bread/survival
>>18723311You're quoting an post-apocalypse novel from 2017 anon
>>18723578Doesn’t mean it’s not true does it?
OP is a fag. During the Gilded Age people were complaining that there were no great political minds in America anymore and Jefferson, Madison, Clay, Webster etc were dead.
>>18723668Thanks for calling me a fag. Do you have any examples of post-WW2 Western leaders who you think actually fit what I’m describing.Thanks
>>18723163It's been less than a century since hitler calm down
>>18723163Have you heard of Donald J Trump?
>>18723668And they were right. Late 19th century politicians were also all very forgettable.
>>18723668>>18723854Gilded Age was more known for Industrialists like John. D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie who LARPed as great men
>>18723163As far as leaders go I feel like Pitt was probably the best british prime minister but I can’t remember what century Pitt reigned during or what Pitt did during that reign, possibly fight the French and Indian and Seven years war unless that was a different prime minister
>>1872384218 Brumaire of Louis Napoleon much?
