I am not a student of history. I am not a student of social science, either. But I try to understand them based on my limited reading.
I think that my limited reading connects with my intuition fairly well. They suggest that the history of humanity can be loosely put in three broad categories: traditional society, literati society, and scientific society.
The traditional society I am thinking of for the purpose of this analysis is one that was historically characterized primarily by oral communications. The literati society is one that added written communication on top of oral communication. The scientific society is one that started to add communication of verifiable facts on top of written and oral communications.
Before science became the trailblazer of progress for humanity, progresses were being made through tradition and later through literature. Wisdom and philosophy have led the way despite countless setbacks thereof.
Kings and kingdoms were popular in traditional communities. There were wise kings and not so wise kings that ruled different communities.
If I am not mistaken, King Solomon was one of those who was in the class of wise kings even by today's standards.
However, I do not think that we could understand him and others in his class as natural leaders unless we take a time travel back in history to their times. In my very limited understanding about the time of King Solomon and his wisdom, I do not know if he didn't or wouldn't claim total authority as a king.
When Trump claimed "total authority" recently, many people, including the journalist who asked him the question, appeared to be taken back by that claim. I wasn't. In fact, it was a bit surprising that many didn't see this kind of claim coming from a future King after listening to his announcement speech for candidacy to become a President close to five years ago now.
I have thought and continue to think that if we take a time travel back in history to when Kings and Kingdoms were more popular than constitutionally mandated democratic societies, King Trump would make sense. I have thought and continue to think that his natural inclination is that he thinks as the King who has a Kingdom.
I also think that in his natural inclination, contemporary leaders of other countries, including Chancellors, Presidents, and Prime Ministers, are also Kings of their own Kingdoms and that he is supposed to be the most respected of them all. I don't think that anyone would argue that this wasn't what was in a public display a while back in Europe when he instinctively pushed other leaders to the side in order to emerge at the forefront of them all. Other constitutionally mandated leaders are Kings and Queens to be respected. In this frame of mind, centuries of progress at establishing constitutional societies is to be relegated. By the same token, the French Revolution of liberté, égalité, fraternité, among other democratic experiments, are not bound to be eternally consequential.
His appeal to his own aptitude instead of the collective aptitudes of those who wrote and amended the constitution of the U.S. appears to be abundantly clear by now. His continuous effort to validate that aptitude through a flurry of tweets appear to me an effort at delivering his own providence to his followers instead of a reference to constitutional provisions of the Republic.
I think that makes him an authentic man but for a different time in history. Taking a time travel back in history instead of navigating between a Kingdom and a constitutional Republic as if they can co-exist makes an attempt to explain the bafflement at the claim of total authority much easier.
As suggested earlier, the claim of total authority is not new when we take a time travel back in history. Scriptures teach us that they are claimed even for or by the Prophets when it comes to spirituality.
When it comes to history, the medieval period anarchy in Europe occurred just a few centuries ago. As much as the countless human actions during that period appears to be unbelievable, one would be tempted to ask if it was anything more than the consequence of multiple people claiming total authority simultaneously.
When we juxtapose the words medieval and enlightenment, the contrast is profound. When we think about this profound contrast and analyze the paradigm shift that was necessary to come out of the medieval period anarchy and into the enlightenment movement, it comes to a realization of such simple ideas of shifting from engaging in duels to submitting to due process.
Engaging in a duel takes a party of two. Submitting to due process generally takes a party of three. I would argue that an enlightenment moment and hence movement may be nothing more than such simple realizations and readily subscribing to the better course for progress.
To those who subscribe to due process, a claim of total authority stops the moment any other party rejects it. For those who subscribe to due process, the disagreement can only be settled though a third party, which is the court in a constitutional society.
The idea of using the number three for a functional stability is as old as the invention of a functional clay pot. Oral tradition has it that those who invented and started to use it couldn't get it to be functional on two stands and using four of them was known to be redundant.
Traditional communities have often resorted to a party of three in order to resolve social issues. Counsel of elders is part of traditions that solve social problems. A good example may be the Council of Elders that brought together powerful political forces in Ethiopia in 2005 following disputed elections.
The literati society that wrote the Constitution of the U.S. over two centuries ago formally instituted three branches of government in order to establish a functional government. The mere idea of having three branches of government preempts any claim of total authority by any party. It preempts providence and establishes constitutional provisions.
Some people probably forget that writing the constitution didn't come out of the blue. The war that was led by George Washington was between those who wished to subscribe to a Republic and those who wanted to remain submitted to a King.
Arguably, those who wanted to remain submitted to a King must have thought it served them better. They might have thought that all that was expected of them was faith in the aptitude of the King and, in return, providence from his aptitude. Perhaps, that is all a King can ask for. In return, he makes the effort of a continuous validation of that providence whether it is well thought out or dogmatic.
I don't think it is hard to imagine that in that kind of relationship between a King and his faithful followers, claiming total authority comes naturally. For the King, the faithful followers are to fall in line by his whim and the alternative views of the rest are inconsequential. By the standards of the new King, Rome is a vanquished Empire and the descendants of its heritage and its Britainized clowns are to be swayed by the whim of the new King.
Some people may ask how after centuries of progress after a paradigm shift, ingrained natural inclinations reemerge. I think that it is arguable that such ingrained natural inclinations can reemerge because of a limited exposure to the raison d'être of historical paradigm shifts.
It suffices to note here that the fall back from due process incorporated in the U.S. constitution to the duel between Hamilton and Burr is testament to how easily people can fall back to naturally ingrained inclinations however irrational they might be in the eyes of history.