Absolute Power Corrupts, as Trump’s War with Iran Demonstrates

Lord Acton gave us a memorable sentence that you’ve heard many times. He said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Lord Acton’s statement resonates now, because it pretty much describes Donald Trump’s modus operandi. President Trump cannot get everything he wants in America’s constitutional political system, but he’s certainly trying hard to dominate America’s domestic and foreign affairs. 

One of his most serious abuses of authority occurred when he launched the Iran War. President Trump ordered unilateral military strikes on Iran without seeking prior authorization from Congress. The consequences of his action are already severe. Trump’s war of choice created economic and humanitarian crises throughout the world.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:06

Lord Acton gave us a memorable sentence that you've heard many times. He said, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Acton warned that unchecked authority tempts leaders to prioritize their personal interests over the common good, eventually causing them to lose their ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Having power over others removes the social constraints and negative feedback that most of us face. Powerful figures begin to believe their own offices exempt them from rules that apply to everybody else. When authority becomes complete and there's no check on power, a leader often becomes corrupt, oppressive, even tyrannical. Lord Acton's statement resonates now because it pretty much describes Donald Trump's modus operandi. President Trump cannot get everything he wants in America's constitutional political system, but he's certainly trying to dominate America's domestic and foreign affairs. One of Trump's most serious abuses of authority occurred when he launched a war against Iran. President Trump ordered unilateral military strikes on the country without seeking prior authorization from Congress. And the consequences of his action are already severe. Trump's war of choice created economic and humanitarian crises throughout the entire world. Welcome to History Is Relevant. I'm Robert Brent Toplin, and here's the plan. First, we'll look briefly at the record of autocratic rule in modern times. In a few cases, dominant political figures promoted enormous economic progress. But these success stories are not typical. In many more cases of strongman rule, powerful leaders overreached, damaging their own political standing and harming the citizens of the nations as well. Secondly, we'll note connections between those failed autocracies and problems developing now in the United States and the world because of Donald Trump's leadership. First up, some cases of economic progress under autocrats. Now, I don't want to sound like a fan of authoritarianism, I'm not. But we should recognize that some observers of history point to examples of impressive autocratic rule. They often mention the example of China's accomplishments under Xi Jinping. Xi operates as a strong man, a ruler that can make key decisions without significant dissent or pushback. We may not like Xi's dictatorial rule, but admirers say he gets things done. There has been considerable progress since 2012 with Xi at the helm. China's economic achievements include the eradication of absolute poverty for nearly a hundred million people, massive expansion in high-speed rail, global infrastructure via the Belt and Road Initiative, and rapid technological progress in developing green energy and electric vehicles. Now China is competing ambitiously with the United States in building AI, artificial intelligence. This is not to say that China under Xi is a perfect society. The government responded to first signs of COVID-19 with secrecy. The country's real estate bonanza has crashed, and China is threatening the independence of Taiwan. List of criticism could go on and on. There are many problems, but there has also been significant progress. Here's another example of fast-changing societal development. From Asia, again, the extraordinary achievements of Singapore from 1959 to 1990 under the strong-minded authoritarian leader Li Kwan Yu. He's often referred to as Li. Under that prime minister's visionary leadership, Singapore transformed from a poor, resource-strapped nation in 1965 into a highly prosperous first world society. China under Xi and Singapore under Li, sounds like a poem, were repressive societies, of course. Those leaders put strong limits on individual liberties. But those leaders did transform their societies. Defenders of their autocratic rule maintained that both China and Singapore would not be anywhere near their present high level of modernization if they had been governed in a thoroughly democratic system. But here's an important point. These leaders are outliers. There are not many other examples of impressive autocratic rule, at least in terms of uplifting the masses in a short period of time. In most cases of autocratic rule in modern times, hubris leads to trouble. That term hubris refers to leaders that show extreme or excessive pride, arrogance, and dangerous overconfidence. They have an inflated sense of their own abilities or importance. Hubris causes them to ignore warnings and make reckless decisions. Excessive egotism eventually triggers their failure or downfall. This description makes us think of Donald Trump, of course. We're heading in that direction, but first let's note how familiar the pattern of autocratic overreach is in modern history. We'll look to some examples, especially Russia, Venezuela, and Hungary, and we'll refer to a few other nations where rulers with individual influence over the nation's affairs led to significant trouble. In Russia, Vladimir Putin's early years as president, 2000 to 2008, coincided with a period of remarkable economic recovery after the post-Soviet 1990s, a decade of economic and political chaos and hardship for the Russian people. Putin's regime was generally popular at first. Then oil and gas prices declined and Russia's economy stagnated. Problems in the country intensified when the West imposed sanctions in response to Putin's aggression against Ukraine in 2014. Then in 2022, Putin greenlighted a much larger invasion and war against Ukraine, and that conflict has cost the Kremlin about a trillion dollars. Russian casualties have surpassed a million, including 352,000 deaths, according to independent researchers. Nevertheless, Putin continues to pursue imperialist goals. Many Russians wish the war he started would end, especially now that Ukraine's drones and missiles are smashing into buildings in Moscow. The Russian people are discontented, but they can't express it. They understand the danger of public dissent in an autocracy. Putin's enforcers will beat, arrest, imprison, or kill protesters. A related pattern of economic failure and political oppression was evident in Venezuela. It's a tragic story because until recent decades, Venezuela had one of the most impressive democracies in all of Latin America. Then autocratic rule turned the country into a basket case. Two dictators, Hugo Chavez and later Nicolas Maduro, wrecked Venezuela's oil-rich economy. Petroleum production cratered due to underinvestment, lack of maintenance, and the replacement of technologically trained managers with political hacks. In recent years, Venezuelans suffered from hyperinflation and high unemployment. Democracy in Venezuela took a beating. Chavez and Maduro's government took over the Supreme Court and electoral agencies, and it asserted control over media outlets. It's not surprising that thousands of disillusioned Venezuelans fled to the United States, Colombia, and other countries. Two and a half decades of one-man rule in their country had disastrous consequences. The pattern of rise and decline was evident in Hungary too. Victor Orban was generally popular at first, but economic stagnancy and political repression cut away at his support. Orban weakened governmental checks and balances, cracked down on independent journalism, and he manipulated election rules to benefit his party. And he also interfered in university affairs. In the 2026 election, Orban got his comeuppance. By then, Hungary's economy was severely strained. Orban's 16-year rule ended when voters, exhausted by cost of living crises and a severe drop in living standards, soundly rejected his leadership. There are numerous other cases of strong men that were briefly popular but lost favor because of their abuse of power. Among the many flawed autocratic leaders in modern times were Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and of course Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Nikolai Chescu in Romania, and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. They all became inebriated with power and overreached. Actions that produce economic wreckage and provoke violent clashes. Hubris led to their downfall. Now, at last, let's consider Donald Trump's relevance. His leadership too fits the pattern of autocratic governance. In May 2026, the New York Times Board of Editors published an autocracy index tracing America's slide toward democratic erosion under President Trump. The twelve markers the board used to identify autocratic rule are familiar to many Americans that follow the news. Here's the list markers of an autocrat, stifling of dissent and speech, persecution of political opponents, bypassing the legislature, use of the military for domestic control, defiance of the courts, declaring emergencies on false pretenses, vilification of marginalized groups, control of information and the news media, takeover of universities, creating a cult of personality, use of power for personal profit, and manipulation of the law to stay in power. Regarding Trump, it's check, check, check all the way down the list. The Times Board concluded the United States is not presently a full-fledged autocracy, but it has been moving fast in that direction. The most significant example of the slide toward autocracy is Trump's handling of the Iran War. Decision making about that hugely consequential military engagement has primarily been a one-man show. Trump didn't receive informed feedback or pushback from foreign policy professionals. He packed his cabinet with sycophants that eagerly backed his controversial policies, including the war. Experts in diplomacy and international affairs that had worked in the State Department and with the National Security Council had been pushed aside. Loyalists replaced them, officials that would not ask tough questions. Trump produces greater problems than other autocratic leaders because he commands the world's most powerful military. Other autocrats were disruptive in specific regions. Putin damaged Ukraine. Chavez and Maduro wrecked Venezuela. Victor Orban damaged Hungary. Trump's war of choice disrupted conditions throughout the globe. If Trump had sought expert opinion from professionals that were well versed in foreign policy and national security, those advisors would have warned him about the consequences of war making against Iran. They would point out that Iran could close the Strait of Hormouth, paralyzing 20% of the world's energy supply. They would stress that warfare has changed significantly in recent years, exemplified by Ukraine's successes in holding off Russia. Drones and missiles can stymie military actions by stronger nations. The expert advisors would have warned too about the vulnerability of nearby energy-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain. There could be worldwide shortages of oil and gas. Inflation would spiral around the globe. Astute advisors would also tell the president that vast military operations by the United States, acting alone, could quickly escalate in costs and deplete United States arms needed in other parts of the world, including Asia. All of this was obvious to professionals in diplomacy and national security, but Trump never seriously inquired with them about potential consequences. Coverage in the Wall Street Journal detailed how President Trump and White House officials grappled with an unexpectedly resilient and effective Iranian response during the conflict. The journal's articles revealed that Trump and several aides were surprised that Iran was able to muster vigorous and effective responses to bombing attacks by U.S. forces. Surprise? Only a team led by an autocrat who squelched dissent and demanded policy loyalty would be surprised. At the time of this podcast, reports indicate that negotiations are underway and some kind of ceasefire and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz might be workable. Perhaps. But whether a settlement is reached sooner or later, already the costs of warfare are huge. About 1,500 ships have been stranded in the Persian Gulf for months. Many of those vessels accumulated barnacles and sea algae below that can impede navigation. They need cleaning. The Gulf has been mined substantially by the Iranians. It will take months to clear the waters and ensure safe transport. Marine insurance rates have soared and are likely to remain elevated. Inflation has become a serious problem in nations around the world. It boggles the mind to imagine that one man can upend global affairs so greatly. But it happened, beginning on February 28, 2026. Using his executive authority, Trump greenlighted a vast bombing campaign, and by doing so he placed his country and nations throughout the world in a terrible mess. When Trump dealt with Iran, his sense of possessing absolute authority corrupted absolutely.