THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ALWAYS DONE PRESIDENTIAL CULTS BETTER.

Common Dreams contributor Peter Bloom asks, "Is this the twilight of the cultish mythology of so-called 'Great Men'?"  He wrote that after Dementia Joe face-planted in the debate but before Donald Trump was shot at and the Democrats ran a 25th Amendment swap without invoking the 25th Amendment.

I had my reservations about Dementia Joe long before his party recognized it.  "Joe Biden is the poster boy for ending the cult of the presidency.  He's surely not making any case for confidence in governance."  Mr Bloom objects to the cult for different reasons.

As the United States barrels towards another presidential election pitting Joe Biden against Donald Trump, a somber reality is setting in for many observers: despite the stark differences between the two men and their visions for America, their rematch represents a broader shift in how democracy functions in the 21st century. Increasingly, elections have become competitions between the ambitions and personalities of individual "great men" rather than contests of ideas or visions for society.

This phenomenon reflects a contemporary belief in the outsized power of elite individuals—whether CEOs, celebrities, or political leaders—to drive change and shape the world around them. It's a worldview that has its roots in neoliberal ideology but has morphed into something more extreme: a "cult of personality" that justifies massive inequality and the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of a small oligarchic class.

The recent Trump-Biden debate served as a grotesque apotheosis of "great man" politics, laying bare the dangerous fallacy of entrusting democracy to the outsized personalities of flawed individuals. What viewers witnessed was not a substantive exchange of ideas, but a sad spectacle of two men desperately clinging to the illusion of their own indispensability.

Trump, the self-styled political outsider, once again displayed his mastery of demagoguery. His performance was a masterclass in manipulative rhetoric, weaving lies and exaggerations to inflame passions and sow doubt. This wasn't leadership, but a naked display of ego—a man willing to risk democratic norms and institutions to maintain his grip on power and protect his wealth.

I repeat, because repeat I must, that vanguardism, whether it's of the Great Leader of the Party, or of the Man of System, or, as contemporary information technologies make possible, the Influencer, is not going to turn out well.  But you won't find a full-throated bet on emergence from Mr Bloom.

This debate didn't showcase great men rising to meet history's challenges. Instead, it revealed the bankruptcy of personality-driven politics. Here were two deeply flawed individuals, propped up by cults of personality, vying for the right to single-handedly shape America's future.

In its most degenerate form, as we're witnessing now, this results in the sad spectacle of a democratic election devolving into little more than the narcissistic desire of two powerful old men to cling to power and relevance, even as they and the system they represent show clear signs of terminal decline.

I sometimes suspect that Donald Trump's greatest sin was to establish a cult following within the Republican party the way the Democrats have done since at least Franklin Roosevelt.  If anything, the substitution of the vice president into the presidency by the Democrats is only going to lead to more personality-driven politics, with the Common Dreams skeptics keeping their counsel on whether that's not a good thing.