President Donald Trump's recent social media post – One sentence in the historic film has sparked a predictable wave of anger from critics eager to cast him as a budding dictator.
“People who save their country are not violating the law,” Trump posted on his social media account.
This phrase is very similar to the line of Waterloo, a 1970 film about Napoleon Bonaparte. In the film, Napoleon, played by Rod Steiger, speaks words during his exile in Elba, reflects on his reign and defends his control. This policy is not a declaration that the ruler is beyond the law or is permitted to commit a crime, but rather a response to accusations that the rise in power itself is illegal. Napoleon argues that his leadership is not an illegal takeover, but rather an action necessary to maintain France in times of crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymobshxugqq
There is no evidence that Napoleon spoke these words, but various versions of the quote have been attributed to French leaders many times over the last century and a half. It's like the distillation of folklore in Napoleon's claims of legitimacy.
The idea that a leader acting to save his country should not be considered a criminal is a deep root in political philosophy and returns to Xcello, a Roman politician and orator. At his job De Legibus (About the law), Cicero insisted that. Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto– “People welfare is the highest law.” Trump's call Waterloo The quote will play on this same theme. It is far from being a taker, and he represents the will of the people towards corrupt elites.
For Trump critics, the post is evidence of their worst fears, confirming that he sees himself as a leader who transcends legal constraints.
Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, responded to the distinctive alarm by writing that he was “speaked like a true dictator.” Other Democrats and media people quickly followed, framing the post to get another glimpse into Trump's supposed authoritarian ambitions. The pattern was familiar: an inexplicable Trump statement followed by a gust of panicked analysis, leading to a dramatic warning that democracy itself was at risk.
But for those who have observed Trump's political style and the reaction of his rivals over the years, the response was completely predictable. Trump has long understood how to provoke his critics to reveal their own insecurities and obsessions. By quoting this film version of Napoleon, Trump baits his enemies and gives him a lawless ruler while exposing their own belief that he is a non-giatite and budding tyrant. It has been branded. The rage was not about a single line of the film. It was about the widespread struggle over whether Trump's presidency was representing the will of the people, or breaking the rule of law, despite repeated efforts to block or overturn it.
The response across the political spectrum was visible to more keen political analysts as an example of the Trump Rorschach test. Left and self-style conservatives who are deeply committed to opposing Trump, a classic symptom of what Trump supporters call “Trump crazy syndrome,” have said. I saw it in the worst light. Conservatives who support Trump saw it as a fun callback to a historical figure who returned from exile and was promoted by a swell of popular support to guide his country again.
If Trump thinks himself in some way, as Napoleon does, it is probably because both are leaders who have gained power in the face of resistance from the facility, sent to exiles and later returned . Trump may also see himself as resembling Napoleon's legacy as a popular leader who restored order after a chaotic period in his country's history.
What is Bonapartism?
Napoleon was a French general and took power during the chaos of the French Revolution, eventually proclaiming the French emperor in 1804. Defeat the Union after the European Union of Great Nations.
Under his control, France saw drastic reforms of legal and administrative reforms, including the Napoleon Code, which is the basis of many modern legal systems. His governance combined authoritarian domination with meritocratic governance, focusing on power while promoting social mobility. However, his ruthless expansionism led to his downfall – in 1812 his tragic invasion of Russia crippled his army, and he was eventually defeated by Elba in 1814, He was exiled. The Battle of Waterloo ended his rule and he spent the rest of his life in exile on the remote island of St. Helena.
Napoleon's legacy has been debated for over two centuries, but the modern concept of Bonapartism is primarily Karl Marx of Napoleon III, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, in the 18th Blumair of Louis Bonaparte. was primarily shaped by research on Marx sees Bonapartism as a phenomenon that appears when the political class is too weak or fragmented to be effectively governed, often by casting himself as the savior of the people over party politics. , created an opening for leaders that appeals directly to people.
This characteristic of Bonapartism has also been scrutinized by skeptical thinkers. In 19th century Prussia, Frederic William IV and his advisor Leopold von Gerlach saw Bonapartism as a destabilizing force that combined popular politics and enforced absolutism, and monarchy, nobility, and churches. This undermined the role of traditional institutions such as: Gerlach famously describes Bonapartism as “a dangerous and great power… a sleazy marriage child of absolutism and liberalism,” emphasizing how it fused state control with popular mobilization.
French historian René Lemond expanded this by identifying Bonapartism, along with legitimacy and oleanism, as one of three major traditions of French rights. If a legitimate person supports the restoration of the bourbon monarchy and an orleanists defend a constitutional business-friendly monarchy, then a Bonapartist is a powerful, centralized enforcement that operates outside the traditional party structure. It represents power. Lemond saw a figure similar to General Georges Boulanger, who nearly defeated the Third Republic in the 1880s. Some elements of Bonapartism were even brought to Charles de Gaulle's leadership style, but he maintained democratic legitimacy.
However, when Bonapartism is defined by centralizing enforcement beyond traditional constraints, the comparison with Trump quickly falls apart. Unlike Napoleon, who set up an imperial government, expands national control, and restructures French governing bodies to concentrate his strength on himself, Trump does the opposite. His presidency was about firing of career officials, not employment. Federal agencies have not been cutting back, growing. And they will not expand or withdraw military commitments overseas. Ironically, his critics accuse him of storing power, and at the same time demand that power remain in the very institutions that resist democratic surveillance.
Perhaps a better paradigm for comparing Trump to Napoleon is the perspective of German philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel highly praised Napoleon Bonaparte and saw him as a pivotal figure in world history. Hegel saw Napoleon as an embodiment of the “world spirit,” that is, anthropomorphism of historical power, towards greater freedom and self-awareness. This praise is evident in a letter he wrote to his friend Friedrich Immanuel Nietamar during the Battle of Jena, which Hegel described on October 13, 1806, that he witnessed Napoleon.
“I saw the emperor reside from the city on reconnaissance, and in fact, it's a really great feeling to see an individual who is focusing on one point here, reaching out to the world on horses and mastering it, it's a really great feeling. is.”
Hegel argued that certain individuals, such as Napoleon, played an important role in realizing the progression of history. These “world historical figures” emerge when existing social structures become obsolete and act as agents of change that advance human freedom and awareness through their actions. In Napoleon's case, Hegel showed a major change in the historical landscape, where revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality integrated integration into the new political order.
Friedrich Nietzsche showed the tension within Noble's ideal, the man who shaped history through the pure power of will, but whose career revealed the limits of power and greatness. I considered him a person. in About the genealogy of moralityNietzsche describes Napoleon as “the integration of this inhuman and the superhuman,” and praises his ability to transcend traditional morality and impose his vision on the world. For Nietzsche, Napoleon was not merely a conqueror, but a living challenge to the ordinaryness and self-complaint of his time, and those who grasped their destiny rather than submission to it.
However, as Leo Strauss, a German-American scholar of political philosophy, observed, Nietzsche saw Napoleon as a matter of noble idealization, not an idealistic ideal. Napoleon showed how difficult it is for a great man to be powerful and truly noble. “You might admire Napoleon, but as Nietzsche himself says, he is not impressive as a very noble man.” Strauss spoke to students at a 1967 seminar. In Nietzsche.
Bonapartism is not fascism. Trump is not Napoleon
As expected, some commentators are rushing to fuse Bonapartism and fascism. However, Napoleon's rule was not defined by racial ideology, totalitarian rule, or militarized police states. He was a pragmatist who worked to integrate power and stabilize France in the wake of revolutionary chaos. Unlike the fascist dictator, Napoleon refused to abolish the old order completely, but instead tried to restore it under his authority.
Trump's presidency doesn't fit the style of a Bonapartist administration, let alone a fascist administration. His administration has not expanded the size of the government, but he worked to reduce it. His second term is characterized by aggressive efforts to fire established bureaucrats, weaken regulators, and reduce America's global military commitment. If his critics truly believed he was the dictator who was created, they wouldn't be fighting to prevent him from shrinking the federal government. If they were afraid of authoritarianism, they would not be competing in court to request that unelected agencies be allowed to operate outside of the president's surveillance. And if they were afraid that Trump would cut American freedom, they would not have condemned Vice President J.D. Vance's defense of freedom of speech in Europe.
The contradiction at the heart of opposition to Trump seems most eager to be in the hands of institutions that have escaped the immunity of democracy in recent decades. That's what it means. The fear isn't that Trump will become too powerful, but that he will weaken the retention of the administrative state within the country.
The battle for those who govern
The broader response to Trump's post reflects the deeper conflict at the heart of American politics today. His critics see his presidency as an existential threat. Not for what he did, but for what he represents. Their claim that he is a dictator has little to do with his actual use of power and the fear that they control the system.
Trump's Napoleon quote was not a statement of legal philosophy, nor was it a blueprint for authoritarian domination. It was a provocation and a carefully selected historical reference designed to trigger the exact response it received.
