You encapsulate some nice contradictions of the 'pseudo-Caesarist progressive' leaders in your First Things article, which has grown on me on second and subsequent readings. My initial repugnance derives only from the odious, vacuous nature and fundamental falsity of the subjects - these psychologically flawed but much promoted 'young leaders' - and not from your writing, which is succinct and thought-provoking for this ever-rebellious (not centrist) boomer.
There is a lot to be said about the psychological background of these well groomed (pun intended) leaders. Both Obama and Trudeau have troubled origins in terms of the (promiscuous) behaviour of their mothers, and absent or very busy fathers, situations which required certain forms of remediation.
In Obama's case the ground for his reign was prepared by his Chicago career, then a position as senator and finally by a lot of publicity e.g. interviews, and those two books, in particular the autobiographical 'Dreams from my Father', which actually revealed the importance for his development of his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who even if not his biological father (as some claim) was certainly his political father who helped prepare him for his Chicago future.
In Trudeau's case, I believe he was bathed in a feminist maelstrom, with a borderline mother asserting her right to fly high and do her own thing and carrying her dynastic offspring along for the ride. This background could not help but disparage and disrespect more traditional masculine authority and maturity, because she had so successfully 'conquered' so many of them (ruled more by their dicks than their heads), and had divorced his much older father, thus sundering the family. Personally I don't think they could ever have survived the age difference. Cynically, one could say that PT served to implant the dynasty, but here too, for what it's worth, there are doubts about the biological paternity.
Please note I am not blaming anyone here, just recounting and analysing the circumstances which produced particular personalities (in Trudeau's case an instinctively authoritarian and inflexible one, because every opposition is taken as a personal and emotional affront). Personalities which the people have had to tolerate for far longer than they should have.
You encapsulate some nice contradictions of the 'pseudo-Caesarist progressive' leaders in your First Things article, which has grown on me on second and subsequent readings. My initial repugnance derives only from the odious, vacuous nature and fundamental falsity of the subjects - these psychologically flawed but much promoted 'young leaders' - and not from your writing, which is succinct and thought-provoking for this ever-rebellious (not centrist) boomer.
There is a lot to be said about the psychological background of these well groomed (pun intended) leaders. Both Obama and Trudeau have troubled origins in terms of the (promiscuous) behaviour of their mothers, and absent or very busy fathers, situations which required certain forms of remediation.
In Obama's case the ground for his reign was prepared by his Chicago career, then a position as senator and finally by a lot of publicity e.g. interviews, and those two books, in particular the autobiographical 'Dreams from my Father', which actually revealed the importance for his development of his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who even if not his biological father (as some claim) was certainly his political father who helped prepare him for his Chicago future.
In Trudeau's case, I believe he was bathed in a feminist maelstrom, with a borderline mother asserting her right to fly high and do her own thing and carrying her dynastic offspring along for the ride. This background could not help but disparage and disrespect more traditional masculine authority and maturity, because she had so successfully 'conquered' so many of them (ruled more by their dicks than their heads), and had divorced his much older father, thus sundering the family. Personally I don't think they could ever have survived the age difference. Cynically, one could say that PT served to implant the dynasty, but here too, for what it's worth, there are doubts about the biological paternity.
Please note I am not blaming anyone here, just recounting and analysing the circumstances which produced particular personalities (in Trudeau's case an instinctively authoritarian and inflexible one, because every opposition is taken as a personal and emotional affront). Personalities which the people have had to tolerate for far longer than they should have.