Don't Let Me Stop You

What the heck, you'll do what you want anyway.

Strongmen and Strong Language

Posted by Dan Draney on February 26, 2005

A post by Roger L. Simon referred to Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak as a “strongman.” Not to pick on Roger, as this term has been in wide use for years, but the “strongman” label always makes us chuckle.

We can imagine Hosni there in the gym, dripping with sweat, working on his benchpress or clean and jerk. Or perhaps he prefers the Bowflex or one of those other, latenight abs-of-steel panaceas. What is the secret of his muscle mass development? Could he be training with Jose and Barry’s pharmacists? No doubt we’ll soon be seeing references to “California Strongman, Arnold Schwartznegger,” or “Jesse Ventura, Minneapolis Strongman,” in a publication near you.

Of course, the whole point of describing someone like Mubarak (or Khadafi, who was practically the original model for the term) in this way is to find a non-judgmental, neutral label. While accurate, “dictator” is so Cold War Era, and it might offend Hosni or Robert Mugabe to apply it to them. Clearly, “strongman” arose as an attempt to indicate in a “nice” way that the body builder rules by force.

There’s something to be said for neutral language, particularly in news reports that are nominally objective. One way is to simply use the official title the dictator has chosen for himself: president; chairman; king; premier; or whatever.

The problem with this is that it allows the dictator to define himself, and these kinds of people rarely choose a title that really describes them. Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il, is the exception that proves the rule, obviously due to a defective Irony Detector in the Dear Leader.

Frequently, the search for a neutral descriptor ends with the term “leader.” In our view the generic “leader” should be strictly reserved for small-d-democrats. It is not a neutral term at all, as it connotes legitimacy. Even “strongman” is better than “leader” for these president-for-life types.

The word “autocrat” is certainly accurate, and it doesn’t carry quite the same baggage as “dictator.” “Pakistani autocrat, Pervez Musharraf,” seems fair and balanced to us.

If a strictly neutral term must be used, we suggest that “ruler” measures up nicely. It is accurate and descriptive without being judgmental. Of course there’s nothing wrong with being judmental in an opinion piece, so we can put aside politcal correctness and call a spade a spade.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: