askchapo

Yeltsin wasn't born rich, nor was he a particularly convincing social force.

I see a specific combination of factors that propelled Trump into power: immense inherited wealth, being spoiled and myopic as a result of said wealth, the profound influence of mass media and spectacle, and a populace that is facing downward mobility or some sort of societal decline.

A lot of possible comparisons are career military figures, but Trump never got his boots muddy in anything like the military.

One comparison that I often like to make (which pisses off the libs) is George Washington. Fabulous wealth that he did not "build up" himself, profound racism and classism, reactionary politics, marshaling a contingency of landowners and petit bourgeois to become the dominant political force. The biggest difference was that Washington was more literate and tacit and proper, while Trump is a showman who dives into every intrigue and controversy.

george bush

I know it's low hanging fruit, but

Charismatic idiot that is really good at rousing the spirits of every fascist inside the boiling pot that is the USA, makes good deals for the top capitalists which are the tech bros in the current time, and spreads anticommunism as much as if the USSR still existed.

Alcibiades is an interesting Greek pull. Article's from before the 2016 election. I'll add some more, since there's a lot of overlap:

• Wealthy sex pests who spent their whole lives being famous, and being famous for being famous
• Pretended that losing was winning (Alcibiades's whole resume consisted of "Well, I almost succeeded at . . .")
• Profaning the mysteries : Epstein connections. Secret societies of aristocratic ghouls breaking major taboos.
• Charming enough to wriggle his way out of jams that would have ended with hemlock for other leaders. Survived multiple cancellations (banished and sentenced to death in absentia, defected to Sparta, fled to Persia after supposedly having an affair with a Spartan queen, came back to Athens to lead the military again, only to fuck up and flee again for good)
• Convinced his country to engage in an imperial boondoggle supposedly on behalf of an overseas ally, only for that war to ultimately lead to the collapse of the entire empire (it took another ten years, and involved Alcibiades being exiled and returning from exile and being exiled again, but they were never going to recover from the loss of the Sicilian Expedition).
• Per Aristophanes, the Athenians "love him, they hate him, they can't get enough of him."
• Masters of public relations - Trump would not only do real interviews but fake interviews (John Barron). Alcibiades's talents are overrated to this day because he was likely a major source for Thucydides, who gives him the benefit of the doubt in all sorts of places where he really didn't deserve it.

I think certain traits are unprecedented. He may be the most anti-social leader in history. His administration is doing things that don't make sense on a societal level, like defunding research for extreme weather and disease prevention.

There are other examples of this, like Hitler's war on "Jewish physics" and Pol Pot's war on a lot of things.

I couldn't remember his name so I typed "that corrupt Italian leader" into a search engine and came up with ...

Reagan is the most obvious

Napoleon III comes to mind.

Nero?

I am reminded of Karensky who also possessed an extraordinary stamina for flinging magnificent lies and betrayals as he held the reins of a dying state.

Wilhelm II

(this is a joke answer that i have not thought about for more than 5 seconds)

Nero

As IByteABit said, it’s obvious but Hitler is the clearest comparison.

I’d throw in Tsar Nicholas 2 for second place. Or maybe King George 3, didn’t he Brandonize pretty hard later in life?

I've not done much to read up on this specifically, but I have some friends who really like comparing Trump to Napoleon for some reason.