The article makes some interesting points, but it doesn't go nearly far enough in explaining why similarly "authoritative" candidates for president with a significant chance of winning did not appear in the 30s and 50s and 60s, when the external physical threats from Nazism and Communism were incomparably greater than anything we have today.
It only hints at the real reason:
"...for years now, Republican politicians and Republican-leaning media such as Fox News have been telling viewers nonstop that the world is a terrifying place and that President Obama isn't doing enough to keep Americans safe."
Presidents in the past, Republicans and Democrats alike, took a strong line against such foreign threats, and so there was no need for an "authoritarian" figure to arise. The President we have today is weak in foreign policy, despite efforts by the Democratic-leaning MSM to paper over his failings. That, coupled with the Democrats' left-authoritarian governance in domestic affairs during the past eight years is what has led to Trumpism.