Strongmen speak alike 9 min read
Despite navigating very different governmental systems and population sizes, Donald Trump and Aleksandar Vučić share very distinctive political and personal parallels. Chris Sclafani explores just how similar their narrative approaches are, and what we can try and interpret from them.
Different continents. Different contexts. Same verbal machinery. Personal grievances, tests of loyalty, lashing out at critics, and the ideology they are lone warriors that fight against a system made to thwart them are all part of the linguistic toolbox of the authoritarian leader. Donald Trump and Aleksandar Vucic use these themes with a remarkable level of similarity and consistency.
Any public disagreement can quickly become a conflict between outsiders who are said to be dangerous traitors and the principled leader who must be relied upon for national survival. Armed with populist ideologies and strongman branding, the two lead their respective countries with little regard for the established system and norms. Each man pushes the limits of the law with specific authoritarian tendencies.
Their supporters are brought into a nearly cultlike experience where they view themselves as part of something that pushes against the mainstream, and act as if their loyalty is somehow connected to the preservation of a manufactured national identity. Negative media is shunned, corruption allegations are “fake news”, and those who oppose them are in some way “deranged” or “terrorists”. The effect is so consistent that you could mix and match their statements and struggle to tell them apart.
You agreed! Let’s start the study
The year is 2026. You agreed to participate in a study, and they led you to a barren room with a small desk in the corner. A silent woman opens the door and extends her arm. You’re handed two lists of statements and buzzwords used in modern politics. A stern-looking man makes his way to the desk and stands over you, his finger pointing across the sheets.
He glances downward, “Did you notice anything about these?”
“These pages look like they say the same things. In some ways, the language is nearly identical, and others are a bit less close. Either way, it’s probably some collection of terms or something from a demagogue politician.”
The man nods and confidently walks out of the room.
The woman unceremoniously takes back the papers and swaps them out for two more. It’s different this time. Each one has a name at the top and specific lines broken down into two categories, “Opposition” and “Bad Press”.
The study comes into focus when you see “Trump” heading one page, and “Vučić” atop the other. You do some creative folding and only the “Opposition” portions for each man show. You exhale and pull your chair in closer.
Us and them
“I am telling the truth and they are lying.” – Vučić
“They’re really dishonest people.” – Trump
Vučić said his line back in 2014, a year before Trump formally entered the political scene. While talking about being the truth-teller was nothing new to the political sector, it is the careful use of pronouns that catches your eye. Vučić positions himself at the center of an “I/Us” pairing, or a group that he wants the people listening to feel as if they belong to. The careful wording of “they are lying” casts aside the people who have gone against him as “others” who don’t fit in and should be discounted.
Conversely, this is a go-to line for Trump, who leads with “[t]hey’re”, immediately signaling that this is an out-of-group person who does not deserve the same consideration as those who heap adulation upon him. Essentially, he places them into a larger group of “liars”, people who do not automatically believe everything he says.
In both cases, the men profit from creating a boundary between people like us and people like them. With the opposition placed at a distance, the focal point for followers turns towards being on the “right side” of the differences that they have with others.
Press pressure
You gather yourself to look at the other side of the paper, “Bad Press” is the subject now.
“That’s just fake news.” – Trump
“Numerous nonsense, fabrications, and lies.” – Vučić
For Trump, “fake news” was paired with his former counselor to the president, Kellyanne Conway, using the phrase “alternative facts” early in his presidency, offering a window into how the administration would handle uncomfortable truths. Now the entire concept of something that was irrefutable was being erased. A well-sourced news report was nothing more than “fake news” and “alternative facts”.
Vučić would use this line to dismiss the full spectrum of well-researched evidence behind claims made against him. It didn’t matter if you could prove it, he would just deny it with a stronger tongue. Vučić’s ministers also adopted Trump’s “fake news” and used it often in their radio and television appearances.
This highlights that these leaders found ways to deny something without using facts in an elaborate defense. Their wording became dismissive of the topic and intimated flaws in the source without requiring very much substance to prove why they were right.
“Fake news” popping up in Serbia is no coincidence either. They’ve both obviously found it to be an effective shield against potentially truthful and damaging accusations leveled at them.
Points of authority
One of the hallmarks of authoritarian behavior is placing oneself in the position of the “lone warrior”. This kind of branding reinforces the “us vs them” mentality.
Authoritarians also benefit from the naturally implied sense of urgency that can pair with statements of this kind. People generally want a broken situation fixed quickly, and no one would claim to work to the degree listed by Vučić if they weren’t trying to create the impression that urgent action was needed.
On the surface, Trump’s statement seems short and rather basic, but in just five words, he accomplishes two separate agenda items.
He becomes the almighty, the select person who can do what no one else can. Voting against him then represents a missed opportunity that can’t be found elsewhere. He also manages to describe the situation without ever truly mentioning it.
Vučić also does heavy lifting with his sentence. He puts himself in rarified air with “I alone went. He often claims that his political adversaries are too scared to go into certain areas that are not politically favorable to them. Vučić then puts himself in a position of superiority over these opponents by saying that although people are telling him to do the same, he ignores this and goes “into every single one”. It is a way for him to frame leadership as fortitude as opposed to displaying genuine acumen in forming and enacting policy.
Willing victims
“They want my head on a platter.” – Vučić
These leaders used the underdog or “hunted” act to draw in those who felt as if this was their lot in life. This kind of branding also yields the useful side effect of reinforcing the us vs them theme.
Vučić’s metaphor is extremely powerful. The extreme nature of the sentence is engineered to draw an emotional response among those who follow him. It is also somewhat aligned with a kernel of discernible truth. Yes, it is understood that others want him gone, but the image of a severed head hearkens back to the guillotine. Is this a nod to supporters, that if he goes down, you might end up going with him?
Trump frames himself in the context of history as well, though not as vividly. The move is a calculated risk, as there have been multiple presidents and even candidates who were killed in the history of his nation. However, the facts don’t matter to him as much as the impact. This is a sound bite feeding his base, allowing them to deflect arguments by passing them off as “words of the persecutors”.
Both men ask for help fighting their way out of fictional walls they claim their backs are up against, using this exact claim of victimhood as justification to cross into legally questionable territory. This has also been used as cover to say unprofessional and insulting things to those who oppose them.
Loyalty over competence
You’re handed an index card this time and hear the words, “Last one!” on the other side of the door. In a way, part of you is glad this is the end. This was far from the kind of thing you pictured when you lined up to be a part of a study today. With finality, you peer down at the last two quotes.
Trump is pretty direct here, and loyalty to him is listed as his top character trait in others.
There is a danger in this, and the reasons are many. One, if you hire people who never oppose you, it becomes hard to see the other side of a given issue. It also limits the span of ideas that you’ll be exposed to, because your ideas will usually take the lead and everyone else’s job is to buy into them and then “sell them” to the people.
Further, you will skip over those who have spent their lives perfecting their crafts because someone else is more apt to tell you what you want to hear. How do you hire the best person for the job if this is what is on your mind when you hire someone?
The language that Vučić employs is worth a deep dive. If heard in passing, it might not register as problematic, but when explored with any level of discernment, the red flags start to fly.
He says “fight for our goals”, and not “fight for the nation’s goals”. This is because his brand of loyalty is more systemic and based on following the party line. His ending bolsters this idea, as those who do not align with those goals “have no business sitting in government”. It’s a final shot across the bow at his adversaries, as applied logic would point to the fact they are not worthy of their roles in leadership.
The lights flicker and the man returns, “Can you tell me the differences between these two?”
You shake your head. “No.”
Strongman politics, regardless of the nation, speaks the same language.
