Trump, Putin, Berlusconi, (& also Johnson, Corbyn, etc)
Horkheimer & Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, (Stanford University Press 2002), p196–197 [p236–237 in the Verso edition]
Emphasis in bold my own.
The view that the leveling and standardization of people in general, on the one hand, is matched, on the other, by a heightening of individuality in the so-called leader figures, in keeping with their power, is erroneous and itself a piece of ideology. The fascist masters of today are not so much supermen as functions of their own publicity apparatus, intersections of the identical reactions of countless people. If, in the psychology of the present-day masses, the leader no longer represents the father so much as the collective, monstrously enlarged projection of the impotent ego of each individual, then the leader figures do indeed correspond to what they represent. Not by accident do they resemble hairdressers, provincial actors, and gutter journalists. A part of their moral influence lies precisely in the fact that, while in themselves as powerless as all the rest, they embody on the latter’s behalf the whole abundance of power without being anything more than the blank spaces which power has happened to occupy. It is not so much that they are exempt from the decay of individuality as that decayed individuals triumph in them and are in some way rewarded for their decay. The leaders have become fully what they always were slightly throughout the bourgeois era, actors playing leaders. The distance between the individuality of Bismarck and of Hitler is hardly less than that between the prose of Gedanken und Erinnerungen and the gibberish of Mein Kampf. In the struggle against fascism, not the least concern is to reduce the bloated leader images to the true scale of their insignificance. At least in the similarity between the ghetto barber and the dictator, Chaplin’s film hit on something essential.