This is Part 1. It’s generally best to follow the advice given to Alice and the White Rabbit in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland: “Begin at the beginning, go on to the end, and then stop.” But if you must read out of order, here are all the links:
- Part 1: There are no Yankees here.
- Part 2: Creating the Conditions for Mainstream Conspiracy Theories.
- Part 3: The Perils of Legal Punditry.
- Part 4: Social Media Makes it Worse
- Part 5: Get the Fighters Fighting and Keep Them Fighting
- Part 6: Invented Narratives and the Outrage Industry
- Part 7: The Outrage Machine Strikes Again: The 14th Amendment Section 3 Debacle
- Conclusion: What To Expect Going Forward
Overview:
- Democracy requires adherence to facts.
- Because of the current information disruption, facts get lost in a firehose of lies, misunderstandings, speculations, and opinions.
- This creates misinformation-outrage cycles, which then activate authoritarian impulses in ordinarily pro-democracy people, thereby endangering democracy.
The Misinformation-Outrage Cycle
Part I: There Are No Yankees Here
Plato argued that democracy was inferior to other forms of government, including monarchy, aristocracy, and oligarchy because democracy—by its very nature—undermines the expertise necessary for good governance. This summary of Plato’s thoughts is from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:
Democracy requires an educated population able to analyze the implications of government policies. It requires voters to look beyond their own interests and consider the interests of society as a whole. It requires people who are aware of the appeal of a demagogue and can withstand that appeal.
This cannot happen if people do not have accurate information.
The British philosopher A.N. Whitehead famously commented that the history of Western thought “consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”
This brings us to the question: Will America prove Plato wrong? Or will America’s experiment in self-governance prove to be another footnote to Plato?
Democracy v. Authoritarianism
First, a few definitions. By democracy, I mean this:
Democracy is a form of representative goverment with free and fair form of elections procedure and competitive political process. All citizens are given the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. A democracy may take various constitutional forms such as constitutional republic, or federal republic, or constitutional monarchy, or presidential system, or parliamentary system, or a hybrid semi-presidential system.
Democracy draws its authority from rule of law. Rule of law requires an adherence to facts, or what sociologists call a shared factuality. A court of law cannot function if jurors say, “I don’t believe any evidence you are showing me. I only believe whatever the Leader tells me is true.”
Authoritarianism, in contrast, is based on lies. The underlying lies are these: “I am the great and powerful leader who can solve all of our problems. I alone have the answers. I am strong and bold enough to protect you from our enemies and the dangers that threaten us.”
Because authoritarianism is based on lies and democracy is based on truth, the way to destroy democracy is to obliterate truth. Here’s the problem: Authoritarianism has a lot of appeal. Democracy has a lot that people find either distasteful or unacceptable.
- Democracy is messy. All of those checks and balances and divisions of power slow things down. Autocracy is streamlined and swift.
- Democracy is complex, particularly in a country as large as the United States in an age of globalism. Autocracy is easy to understand: It offers easy answers.
- Democracy requires working with people who share different views. Some people cannot tolerate compromise.
- Democracy requires work. “Demos” comes from the ancient Greek word for people, and “cracy” comes from the word for power. This means that the people govern and governing is hard.
About a third of the population is, by nature, authoritarian and anti-democracy
In the 1940s—when the world was reeling with shock over the rise of fascism that led to World War II and the devastating brutality of those regimes—German sociologist Theodor Adorno began studying what came to be called the authoritarian personality. The authoritarian personality describes the people who fall in line behind an authoritarian leader (the rows of people dressed alike raising their hand in salute).
The authoritarian personality is also called an anti-democratic personality.
A criticism of Adorno’s work was that he focused on right-wing authoritarianism. In fact, authoritarian traits have been identified in people across the political spectrum. Political psychologist Karen Stenner cites this chart:
The authoritarian personality includes these dimensions:
- support for conventional values (for example, the concept of the traditional family of man + women + children with each performing traditional roles.)
- authoritarian submission (submitting to perceived authorities)
- authoritarian aggression (aggressive about enforcing hierarchies and norms)
- stereotypy (a tendency to repeat certain words and phrases; think of group chants)
- rigidity
- glorifying toughness and power (and despising bookish weakness)
- cynicism
- projectivity (the view that the world is a dark and dangerous place)
Political psychologists define the authoritarian personality as one that rejects nuance and complexity (including diversity) and tends to engage in all-or-nothing thinking. Those with an authoritarian personality prefer sameness and uniformity and have “cognitive limitations.” Karen Stenner calls them “simple-minded avoiders of complexity.” For more, see this article.
Conspiracy theories appeal to those with an authoritarian disposition.
Stenner and other political psychologists have concluded that about 33% of the population across cultures has this personality. We often see this number repeated. The Nazis came to power with 33% of the vote. Le Pen won 35% of the vote.
If those who are anti-democratic are only 1/3 of the population, there shouldn’t be a problem, right? The 2/3 can simply outvote the 1/3.
So why doesn’t it work that way?
We saw part of the reason in the recent debacle when the House Republicans tried to elect a speaker: Those who are anti-democracy don’t follow the rules. Duh, right? Democracy is based on rules and they are anti-democracy. They listen to what their leader (in this case, Trump) tells them to do.
Because they don’t play by the rules, they punch above their weight. This gives rise to these kinds of pronouncements:
- Democrats are bringing a knife to a gunfight
- Democrats need to fight like Republicans
The problem with that should be obvious. If both sides abandon the rules, there is nobody upholding the rules and they lose all meaning. At least one side has to hold on to democratic ideals and democratic rules or they will be lost. You can’t save democratic ideals by abandoning them. Put another way, the moment pro-democracy people accept the terms of authoritarians, the authoritarians win.
To put it yet another way: People who are pro-democracy should not try to out-fascist the fascists. The fascists will always do fascism better.
The only way to save democracy is with more democracy. This requires a population that can adhere to facts.
Let’s define our terms
Traditionally, the political spectrum has been pictured as a straight line with radical leftists on one end and the reactionary right wing on the other:
Because the far left and the far right exhibit similar tendencies, some draw the spectrum as a horseshoe:
The problem is that there is a lot of dispute over terms. What does it mean to be “left” or “right” or “centrist?”
I am going to start with a different approach: There are people who are pro-democracy and people who are disposed toward authoritarianism—and there are degrees. Some people are extreme, but there is lots of gray. Many (if not all) people can exhibit authoritarian traits, particularly in times of high anxiety.
I think this graph works better:
“There are no Yankees here.”
Now, I’m going to tell you a story about my experience with Yankees.
One day, while I was visiting friends in a Northern Virginian suburb of Washington D.C., I announced that I would be attending the University of Pennsylvania. A friend said, “So you’re going up North where the Yankees are.” I had no feelings about Yankees one way or another. (Obviously, there are no Yankees in Missouri and California, where I had lived until then.) My only reference was the song, Yankee Doodle Dandy and the New York Yankees. It seemed perfectly reasonable that there were Yankees in Philadelphia.
At one point, while living in Philadelphia, I mentioned the fact that there are Yankees in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvanians immediately objected and told me, “No. There are no Yankees here. The Yankees are in New England!”
That seemed reasonable.
After college, I lived for a while in Cambridge, Massachusetts. While in Cambridge (you guessed it) I mentioned the fact that there are Yankees in Boston. “Nope!” I was told. “The Yankees are up north!”
One day, a group of friends and I drove to a friend’s home on Lake Champlain, not far from Burlington, Vermont, about 90 miles from the Canadian border. It seemed to me that I had finally arrived in Yankee country. I mean, how much farther north could I go? When I mentioned it, I was told, “There are no Yankees here. The Yankees are out in the hills.”
I often thought about my Yankee story while discussing authoritarianism on social media. I noticed that people are comfortable talking about authoritarianism because everyone assumes this refers to someone else.
“There are no authoritarians here. The authoritarians are on the other side.”
Nope.
The “Yankees” are right here.
In the next few posts, I will demonstrate this:
- We are currently in an information disruption that has resulted in a proliferation of misinformation and conspiracy theories.
- The way people get their information today is bringing out authoritarian tendencies in otherwise pro-democratic people, thereby causing them to move up this scale:
Put another way: The current information disruption and proliferation of conspiracy theories is making it less likely that enough citizens will be able to make the kinds of informed decisions that a working democracy requires.
Click here for Part 2: Creating the Conditions for Mainstream Conspiracy Theories.
Another most excellent blog post, thank you Teri!
Near the beginning of this entry there is a minor typo that you may wish to correct:
“This *is summary of Plato’s thoughts is from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:”
I would remove the first *is.
I deeply appreciate the thoughtful perspective you consistently deliver on these important topics.
The Yankee discussion reminds me of a time about 6 years ago when I found myself in Mississippi for work.
I sat down for a quick lunch with some locals and a truck driver sat there listening to us chat and chimed in with “you sound like a Yankee”. I didn’t want to make waves and so settled with “even worse; I’m from Canada”.
When I was five, the family travelled from Long Island to the Cumberland Gap area of TN to visit relatives. One morning we were eating breakfast in a restaurant. As was usually the case, I was antsy and left the table to wander the restaurant. According to my eldest sister, who was 12 at the time, I had an encounter with a local that went like this.
He was an elderly man in a seersucker suit and sported a big bow tie. As I wandered by, he asked where I was going. I told him I was going to visit my cousins. He asked my name. I replied. Then he said, “Son, I think you’re a Yankee!” I replied, “Hell no mister! I am a Dodger!”
I was going to visit my relatives who voted against and lived in a county that voted against secession. Reading this piece, I suppose they were Yankees. Also, I can see that being a Yankee, or a Dodger, is not a state of physical location as much as it is a state of association.
For better or worse, after living in 15 states, four countries, and having 63 addresses, I am still a Yankee.
I saw your recent posts on Mastodon. I am one of the silent ones. Please, please, you have been of immense help talking me, and I suppose countless others “off the ledge”. Your analysis summarizes the complicated legal news, and in plain English.
Please ignore the hurtful comments!
The comments were not hurtful. What is happening is that I can’t keep people off the ledge. It is exhausting. The problem is that the way people get their information is pushing them continually on the ledge.
If the forces that create our information systems are pushing millions of people onto the ledge, the task of helping people off the ledge is impossible. The task is endless.
The better course is for me to help people see what is happening so they can figure out how to stay off the ledges.
“Give a man a fish an he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat every day.”
I appreciate you and approve of your new method teaching us how to avoid the ledge. I’ll be sharing these essays wherever I see need.
Thank you for the resource. I hope it lessens your load and frees you to do more pleasant and productive things.
Can people who subscribe to a “conspiracy theory” really be labeled authoritarian for that reason? Especially those darn rightwing historians, if they exist, who have written over the last two centuries Lincoln wasn’t shot by a frustrated actor/lone nut? A false dichotomy can lead to erroneous conclusions, like ‘if you like to like rainbows, you must like gay people, because everybody knows, rainbows have been declared the symbol of the LGBTGQ community’. (I like both, and but am not gay). Just because there are outrageous, harmful fake conspiracy theories extant in our world, doesn’t equate to all such theories (or facts) being false. After all, didn’t a past President conspire to over throw his electoral defeat? (A great legal theory being tested in court as we write). Yes, certainly conspiracies are alleged where there are none, but just as outrageous is the denial of a conspiracy by the ‘powers that be’ (oh, oh), media or others, to placate an otherwise concerned public. We should take care not to throw the truth out with the dirty, obscuring bath water. Viva the truth!
I am not “labeling” people as authoritarian. I am suggesting that there are degrees and that people can move up the scale depending on circumstances (for example, times of high anxiety.)
There are shades of gray and degrees. I am not suggesting binary labeling.
Your entire response, in fact, exhibits an “all or nothing” way of thinking.
If you don’t see it in this post, keep reading the series and you should be able to see it.
I hate the phrase, “conspiracy theorist.” It is used as a pejorative to label anyone trying to understand a conspiracy, whether or not they have facts to support their theory. Another adjective is needed for the pejorative:
baseless conspiracy theorist
Conspiracy speculator? Conspiracy fabulist?
Can you clarify this sentence, please?
“The authoritarian personality describes the followers (the rows of people dressed alike raising their hand in salute) not the demagogic leader, who may or may not have an authoritarian personality. (Some authoritarian leaders cunningly manipulate those with authoritarian personalities.)”
What this means is that the authoritarian personality describes the followers and supporters of the authoritarian leader, not necessarily the leader.
To paraphrase E.B. WHite:
In Europe, a Yankee is someone from America.
In the Americas a Yankee is someone from the United States.
In the United States, a Yankee is someone form the North.
In the North a Yankee is someone from Vermont.
In Vermont, a Yankee is someone who has pie for breakfast!
The Puritan/Congregational/Baptist roots of the term are mild-mannered compared to the fiercely partisan political influence of white ‘christian’ fundamentalism on current authoritarians – some of whom are Yankees.
And for us Red Sox fans, it has a whole other dimension…!
I have met the Yankees and they are us!
The Yankees are Amish?!
The often-quoted statistic that “about 33% of the population across cultures has this personality” is a MISREADING of Stenner. On pp. 188-89 of Stenner & Haidt, “Authoritarianism is Not a Momentary Madness,” in Can It Happen Here, ed. Sunstein, they explain they were using the EuroPulse survey of 2016, excluding all nonwhite people. So Stenner’s data comes from the European countries + USA only, and only white people. So yes, a third of WHITE PEOPLE IN EUROPEAN & US DEMOCRACIES have the authoritarian mindset. But this is very different from saying it’s across all cultures and all peoples. It actually strengthens your argument, Teri, to show that the data is limited to white people.
Karen Stenner reads all my work, including this post (which she retweeted on Twitter) and has given her stamp of approval. She is actually a friend and I ask her questions before I post.
If you read her website, you’ll see that she also quotes that 33% there. It is, in fact, her statistic.
That’s twittable exchange…. Yes I’m aware the irony that such thing would be exactly the kind of thing that just fuel angry shouting Match… But seriously, any look at Latinoamérica and post colonial Africa and Eastern countries would supposed easily the 1/3 claim.
Thank you for the link to Karen Stenner’s article from 2020. I’ve read what’s on her site but somehow I overlooked this. On her site, she says she is working on “designing and embedding messages that de-activate authoritarianism and diminish expressions of intolerance and racism in a society.” I’ve been waiting for her to publish that, and this article is it.
“Yankees” is a slippery term. My friends in the deep south seemed to think that all northerners were Yankees. My friends in Boston who favor the Red Sox know that the Yankees are in New York. My nephew in Burlington, VT knows that the Yankees are the team he roots for in his birth state, New York. Here in the middle of Pennsylvania the word rarely comes up although some people use it to mean rebellious types which breaks my original knowledge of the Rebels and Yankees during the Civil War.
I grew up in the Deep South. We use the term Yankee often. It generally means people in the “North.” But when it comes down to it, it means anyone not from the South. Southerners see themselves in an embattled enclave, with everyone else being outside of it as a “Yankee.” I’m sure that’s probably changed with the migration of Northerners to the Sunbelt once we got air conditioning and with more immigration to the South, but that’s how it was when I was growing up.
I love your assessment!
I was born in NY, but didn’t live there full time till age 10. My adult years spent living all over the eastern US on military bases. We chose TN to retire too. Having lived all over, whenever I felt my deep seated beliefs clashed with the locals I always referred to my Yankee roots as the cause. It interests me the difference in our schooling as the basis for different beliefs.
I can’t speak for everyone, but when I say that Democrats need to fight like Republicans, I’m not talking about their tactics, I’m talking about how they control the narrative.
Republicans have become masters at doing whatever they want to retain power while making it look like it’s the Democrats who are doing it instead.
They’ve somewhat successfully blamed Democrats for their inability to elect a Speaker of the House. How crazy is that?
Democrats need to be able to shine a light on what the Republicans are doing and how they’re trying to up-end Democracy.
And yes, there are authoritarian tendencies on the far left, but right now we have an imbalance in congress where most Republicans are far right while most Democrats are moderates.
Isn’t it part and parcel of the problem? “Controlling” the narrative means there is no dialog. No dialog means no exchange of ideas, no true investigation, no challenge and response, no getting closer to truth. The tactics are part of the problem.
The problem is how u dialogue with what are basically living YT comments? Is impossible to engage with crazies
Thank you for all your efforts. Anxiously awaiting the next installments.
Fascinating topic that is so complex that it may defy description. I recollect taking a class entitled Intro to Modern European History that touched on the concept of “the Man on the White Horse” who was deemed to be the savior of a nation/country/state. In the context of the rise of Fascism in Europe, this was of course Mussolini. Hitler, Franco, de Gaulle, and Lenin all could have been riding a similarly coloured horses. In this country, we have the obvious “Man on the White Horse’ in Trump. Being able to inspire loyalty of their followers is a common thread. We are alarmed by the MAGA followers and the possibility of insurrection and mob violence. Perhaps the notion of “Death rides a Pale Horse” should be invoked. Democracy is a fragile thing. The lessons of election turnouts in this country show that we have a kind of tyranny of a minority. See the latest insanity in the US House of Representatives as one example.
I am looking forward to the next installment of the blog. I’m sure that it will provide a lot of reasons to think and ponder where the country is spiraling toward. I hope it’s not around the proverbial drain.
At least one wag referred to Obama as “a Dark Knight on a dark night.” An awful lot of people expected him to be some kind of savior too. So of course they were disappointed, because their expectations were unrealistic.
The same wag said that illusionment is the cause of disillusionment. I hope we can have fewer illusions, but it’s not looking good for that.
Can’t wait for part two. Friends and I were discussing last night how similar the far left and right can be in terms of rigidity and silo’d opinions. Conspiracy mongering. The circle comes close to closing. It becomes more obvious during times of crisis, (like now), when the spouting of opinions in the name of purity is rampant.
Here is the problem: I am not talking about the far left. I am talking about people like us.
Aha! Got it. I now have read 2 and 3 and see it’s the experts and pundits you’re taking to task in your example. But yes, I hear this loud and clear. Thanks for your work.
I, for one, saw myself in your arguments. I see now that I have been losing my intellectual humility, and I am grateful for the nudge back to it.
Here is the problem: I am not talking about the far left. I am talking about people like us.
Thank you for a thought provoking essay. Having read Altemeyer’s research papers and books on Authoritarians, I agree with much of what you say here. I do not, however, see us as a spread from liberal to authoritarian. There is an increasing group seen in libertarianism who appear to be more anarchic in their thoughts. Drawing from multiple sources, including Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, they oppose most forms of governance and public investment in structures of society. Currently, they appear to lean their support toward the authoritarian populace. I wonder if that is because the Right is actively pursuing chaos and failed government? In any event, if the discussion group I am involved with is any indication, this group is assuming a greater voice in our public discussions and that voice is not one seeking a stable society. My own opinion is that unstable government will resolve to authoritarian rule and can do so in an abrupt manner, especially if the liberal democracy is weak or struggling.
I agree with your last sentence, Edward. We are certainly seeing some signs of unstable government, specifically Jan 6th and the three weeks we went without a House Speaker, both unprecedented in our history. And these two events were done intentionally, to produce chaos because it creates fear which strengthens the appeal of the demogogue.
Yet, the 2022 midterms signaled stable government. Republican election deniers were defeated and Michigan became a Democratic trifecta for the first time in nearly 40 years.
I’m not sure how to do it, but all pro-democracy Americans, if we want to preserve our liberal democracy, must strengthen it. Since “Democracy requires an educated population” as Terri said, and we need accurate information, I suspect that has something to do with it.
Misinformation and conspiracy theories work because we don’t teach critical thinking. It’s apparent that a large number of the population doesn’t take the time to even remotely consider whether something is true or not. This gives a distinct advantage to the disrupters. Compound the issue with the media who need to get as many eyes and ears as possible to gain advertising dollars to the point where they’ll broadcast the most salacious “information” to garner attention. This, for me, boils everything down to money: who has it, who doesn’t, and who knows how to manipulate the system to get it. Thank you for all the work you do.
Along with the lack of critical thinking skills is a tendency for far too many Americans to believe the stories they see in movies and on TV – they have lost the ability to discern reality from fantasy. Many people were drawn to the “successful business man” they saw on “The Apprentice”, and Trump capitalized on that while using tools to further erase their ability (and eventually their desire) to critically analyze his claims. One of his (apparently) most successful tools is his constant repetition of key phrases mixed in with his word salad – I was at a loss to figure out how enraptured these people were, hanging on every word (whether it made sense or not), viewing him as their savior. I always found him (and his enormous narcissistic ego) ranging from boring to nauseatingly disgusting to listen to. These are the authoritarian personalities that I believe Teri is speaking of in this blog entry.
Thank you, Teri, for a very educational and thought-provoking blog entry. Looking forward to reading the next installment of this series.
Thank you, Teri for another thought-provoking and insightful post. Like the others in this thread, I’m very much looking forward to the next installment.
A question for you…
When I saw Figure 1, I got to thinking about how the authoritarian personalities on right and left represent similar fractions of their “tribes”. Although they collectively account for around 35% of the population, it occurs to me that they are rarely if ever drawn to the other tribe’s authoritarian sub-group’s leader. I’ve never heard of an American Leninist for example, supporting Trump.
So my question is, do you think American leftist authoritarians will join their MAGA counterparts in supporting Trump and Trumpist candidates?
Interesting article in the weekend FT about oligarchs, which is including Trump and tech giants. The article assesses that keeping government in disarray is the Oligarch’s way of preventing legislation, which would disrupt their business model. So, for example, Thiel supporting Trump, and knowing full well he is the disruptive candidate, means no pesky legislation binding Thiel’s business, if Trump gets back into power. Very important, of course, with global discussions turning to how governments across the world should manage AI considering how it could affect elections and who gets power.
I can’t recall specific names at the moment, but it seems to me that there have been numerous instances over the last 20 – 30 years of very conservative writers, pundits, etc, who reportedly became disenchanted with the leftist politics of their youth and switched teams, typically becoming as reactionary right as they were radical left.
And great piece, Teri!
Oh dear, misinformation. A liberal friend of many, many years from the Northeast now living in FL, posted that Governor DeSantis was spending $500 Billion to evacuate American citizens from Israel. I explained why, how, this was impossible and researched accurate (?) figures for her. This is someone who knows better. If our own start to sway, what hope do we have? I’m fearful.
Terri, as always, thank you for your insight.
Thanks for setting your friend straight. Doing so is an important task we all need to take the time and expend the effort to do (in addition to voting, contributing to quality candidates, phone/text banking, canvassing, etc.).
One suggestion if you don’t mind, harping back to relatively early Math lessons, it’s important to test the reasonableness of your answers. If your answer isn’t reasonable, you probably made a mistake (misplaced a decimal point for instance).
I suspect you automatically did this when you heard $500B. Your friend clearly did not, something to point out to them to help them see not just this instance of mis/disinformation, but many. (Using Occam’s razor is another important method…)
Another cause here is wanting to (a) believe something is true or (b) be very angry that it is. Both of those tend to bypass any filters people may have.
Chaos & uncertainty attract authoritarianism as it promises to decisively solve problems like a sinking ship needs a strong captain to be in charge.
The purposeful disinformation deluge & proliferation of conspiracies, alternative facts serve to create the environment of uncertainty conducive to authoritarianism. This seems to be the plan by Bannon et al. to create chaos & uncertainty. Social media makes this propaganda program so much easier, that others beyond the 30% succumb to exhaustion, resignation.
We are in a troublesome bind for sure.
The legal view is appealing to those of us with an affinity for logic. Not all have it. A different continuum is the one where people either believe that reality is based on an external set of rules (laws) that are fixed and discoverable or they believe reality is based on appealing to an outside judge of some sort that can be persuaded to alter reality if we believe or wish for things to be different. This seems to be the same continuum to me as the authoritarian one you present. The balance shifts with people’s optimism/pessimism. The rule of law only is compelling if reality has some stability.
Thank you for this! No hate here, only appreciation.
Agreed! I appreciated what Teri has taken the time to delve into here, and am looking forward to more!
Same for me.
Is racism the most obvious manifestation of the authoritarian personality type?
Not all Republicans are racists, but the majority of racists who vote, vote for Republicans. Those for whom they vote are often racists, or are willing to manipulate racists for their own political advantage, or tolerate the fact that the GOP’s winning strategy includes, as a major tactic, gaining the support of racists via non-too-subtle and often all-too-audible dog-whistles.
Perhaps the most audible GOP racist dog whistle is the often repeated claim: “America is a republic, not a democracy.” This was especially evident when Utah’s Republican Sen. Mike Lee reinforced that right-wing meme with: “We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”* Just who among American voters are, in Lee’s opinion, causing our representative democracy to go so offensively “rank”?
* https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/10/08/mike-lee-tweets-that-rank/
Trump and his loyalists now control the House. This control is in no small measure a consequence of the tie that binds House Republicans together: Their opposition to multiracial, one-person-one-vote, representative democracy.
This opposition has been evident ever since anti desegregationists like Strom Thurmond flipped from Dixiecrat to Republican; since Goldwater’s vocal defense of state rights and opposition to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the mid-1960s (it was no accident that Thurmond served as an advisor to Goldwater’s presidential campaign); since Nixon’s Southern Strategy; since Reagan’s pursuit of the same; since Newt Gingrinch declared politics is partisan warfare, sheer power politics devoid of ideals; and since the anti-establishment Tea-Party became one of the most influential factions within the GOP Confederation.
Against that backdrop is it any wonder that Trump has trumped all hope of the GOP’s return to constitutional order?
I don’t dispute that many of today’s Republicans demonstrate openly racist behavior. That said, as a white person, I take to heart Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility, which she says she writes as a white progressive to other white progressives. This quote is particularly worth noting:
““I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less racist, or in the “choir,” or already “gets it.” White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see we have arrived. None of our energy will go into what we need to be doing for the rest of our lives: engaging in ongoing self-awareness, continuing education, relationship building , and actual anti-racist practice.”
The reference to racism and the GOP is their actual policies and rhetoric. Your comment sounds like whataboutism to give GOP a pass.
I did not read it that way at all. I see a pretty lot of comments from what little of Black Twitter has made it to Black Mastodon as they/we discuss why/how many Blacks who tried Mastodon didn’t stay.
By and large white progressives are not anything like Republicans when it comes to racist beliefs, but too often we don’t stop to listen to Black voices. Not generally holding racist beliefs is good. Listening to Black voices before spouting off is better.
That is a good distinction, thanks.
I wanted to add that what directly harms minorities are not so much individual racist attitudes but explicit government and private sector policies, whether deliberately intended to harm or otherwise indifferent to harm. You can hardly stop individuals from harboring or expressing racist opinions but you can oppose actions and practices which negatively impact people, especially people of color. The perniciousness of current GOP policies regarding voting rights and gerrymandering may be easy to recognize but less so the long-term consequences from older policies that prevailed largely due to majority indifference like “red-lining” and those government housing and educational policies that deliberately excluded people of color.
Good points.
Absolutely agree and I love your clear explanations. My opinion is in order to continue to live in a democracy we must do a better job of educating people, especially our children.
Yes, Pam, but we need to educate voters NOW, before the Nov ’24 election, especially in the swing states, where the election will be decided. Not sure how to do that – I am giving it lots of thought – but that is absolutely necessary.
Thanks so much for taking the time to give us your highly-informed discussion.
Thank you,Teri. Very helpful & look forward to next installment.
What is title of your upcoming book?
R
The one coming out in February is called Firehose of Falsehood. The Bill of Rights book is tentatively entitled “Getting the Bill of Rights Right.”
Thanks, Teri. Refreshing to read your informative and thought-provoking words again. At some point will you please weigh in on AI? Seems like the first broad scale use of AI – social media – has not faired well for democracy – or has it? Not only do we have to contend with falsehoods, but now hallucinations.
Already ordered!
Thank you Teri, for another in your always insightful and informed series of postings.
Many of us attempt to cope with friends and relatives of the authoritarian psychological type. Challenging the beliefs family and friends of the authoritarian personality type by appealing to facts and logic is generally counterproductive.
I believe more personal forms of persuasion can prove effective. We can model tolerance by respectfully listening to their concerns. We can ask questions that stimulate reflection. We can appeal to their patriotism and can attempt to establish common ground concerning the meaning and value of fundamental constitutional rights. We can appeal to their sense of fairness and point out that every basic right claimed for oneself is accompanied by the duty to respect that right as inherent within others. We can help them realize that the weakening of democratic institutions and norms is harmful to their own interests. We can inspire them to embrace democratic ideals — especially the ideal of equality of opportunity. We can invite them to join us in identifying and devising solutions to problems that confront us all.
Do you have any further suggestions?
How can we forge a more expansive national identity — a larger group identity that provides aggrieved citizens of an authoritarian disposition with a stronger sense of belonging?
Thank you.
I’ll have suggestions at the end.
At the end of Part 2 of your present series?
Good thoughts. I’ve also posted on various news website with logical, factual information, not trying to inflame but just to subtly educate, and have found some success with people engaging….even on Fox News, as tough as that is to even read, I’m seeing more moderate comments if you just talk facts and avoid the hysteria. Linking to factual articles is helpful, too. Try not to play into the political back and forth….”Yes, it’s interesting that people are debating the move toward electric vehicle. It’s interesting that the Biden administration’s efforts have helped bring 20-30 EV plants to cities across the country. Hundreds of good paying jobs. Nice to see things being made in America again.” Pick some good Biden facts and layer them out in different ways.
Excellent suggestion.
I grew up in New England. We knew who the Yankees were, and they were us. Anyone in New England who doesn’t know this must be a transplant. We were Yankees, and we were damned proud of it.
The idiocy of conspiracy theories is that they don’t reflect reality and how people interact. Conspiracies themselves certainly exist, just ask any prosecutor. But massive grand conspiracies don’t exist because humans don’t behave like that, Take the claims that the medical community was lying about COVID, falsely reporting cases at the direction of the government who paid doctors and other medical professionals to lie about this “phony” disease. The problem is that people talk no matter what. Spouses tell their mates what’s going on, customers tell salesmen, kids tell other kids what they heard at home, family members tell their uncles and cousins. To think this was happening without anyone blabbing is ludicrous.
I had a teacher who always said “common sense is called common because it’s so rare.” People who believe in grand conspiracies like the COVID “lies” or Qanon fail to stop and apply a little common sense to what they’re saying.
The same applies to the biggest conspiracy theory that continues to dominate minds of the majority of Republican voters—the conpiracy theory that is grounded in Trump’s Big Lie that the 2020 election involved a Big Steal.
Not even one person, in an unguarded moment, has bragged about playing a key role in accomplishing the alleged “steal.”
How can any sane person consider the following and continue to subscribe to and promulgate Trump’s Big Lie? (Obviously, some cowardly GOP politicians refuse to counter Trump’s Big Lie to save their own political hides—and others promulgate it in order to retain the loyalty of the GOP’s Trumpist base. But does any sane Republican politician believe the Big Lie is true?)
1. The former president’s lawyers filed 62 suits challenging the 2020 election results. One suit resulted in an inconsequential ruling favorable to Trump. The other 61 wholly failed.
2. Recounts in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin revealed no significant differences from the previously certified results.
3, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) set a bounty of $25,000 to $1,000,000, payable to anyone who could substantiate claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. In mid-October 2021, Patrick made his first and thus far only payout: an award of $25,000 to a Pennsylvania election official who reported a Trump supporter for voting twice.
4. No one has identified the individuals who masterminded the supposed multi-state fraud. No one has explained how those phantom “suspects” recruited the many agents required to reprogram voting machines, purge election rolls, discredit mail-in ballots and destroy ballots.
5. Rigged elections are alleged only in those states Trump lost — Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Many down-ballot Republican candidates in those states won. Why would conspirators rig elections against Trump, but not against other GOP candidates?
Thank you! It’s a mystery to me how millions of people could have worked together to cast or changed so many votes to make Trump the winner and Biden the loser.
Even if somehow voting machines were compromised it would seem the recounts would have caught that.
To me,Trump is all about the hate. There are long simmering prejudices people have held. Until Trump they could really only talk about them in closed circles.
Now it’s quite okay to denigrate minorities loudly and publicly. How these folk get put back into their closet I have no idea. We can only hope our legal system can hold up under the onslaught.
Trump turned over the rocks, but he did not place the creepy-crawlies under them.
Did you read Karen Stenner’s article that Terri linked to? She explains that those with the authoritarian disposition (about 30% of any population) have what she calls cognitive incapacity. That means that those authoritarian Republicans prefer simplicity and are ill-equipped for complexity. The election was stolen by bad people (Democrats) is simple. Your five facts will be too complex for them.
Stenner says, “Some people have a deep need for oneness and sameness” and they can’t change it.
Most of us are educated in something, but that something is not necessarily civics. Many of us have forgotten a lot of what we once learned. Others are getting twisted civics from the likes of PragerU etc.
So glad you’re back, Teri! Your perspective on current events has helped my perspective for years now! (I’ll look forward to your book, too. I select youth materials for a large public library system. Oh and BTW, the book banning trend lately is also anti-democracy.)
After I completed my coursework for my PhD (retired academic here) at the University of Houston I accepted a full-time, tenure-track teaching position at the University of TN at Chattanooga. People kept asking me why I was moving to the North with the Yankees. I had to pull up a map to show them where the Mason-Dixon line was. I like your graphic about authoritarian and non-authoritarian as it’s much easier to see the variances.
When I listened to the speech by Dean Philips, whose campaign is being run by Steve Schmidt, I felt fear. It seemed to me he might have just come down a golden escalator. The speech was negative and without nuance. It was dark and did not highlight anything Biden has done that has grown the liberal consensus. It felt like a white savior move. And when he said he needed to pass the torch to the next generation (veiled ageism) I thought you look like every leader I have seen my entire life of 66 years-Male, straight, cisgendered, privileged-what is exactly new? What torch? What about a lifetime of experience? After I read your blog post today I can’t help wondering if this is bad for America.
Thank you for sharing your insight. Hate you? No, I don’t think so. Useful information for self-reflection, helping us build our communities and taking effective actions. Clearly, writing is your therapy. We are happy to be your therapists. Look forward to our next session…
wait until I get to the part where I start naming names.
Counting….
Stop teasing! Looking forward to the next chapter!
Naming names??? I love it. I often hear pundits make general references criticizing what’s said (note their use of passive voice) without saying who they are talking about. It drives me nuts. So I look forward to learning about the actual persons at MSNBC (which I do not watch) and CNN (which I watch for breaking news only) who are spouting democracy-endangering conspiracy theories.
Thank you Teri 🙂
I can’t wait to read Part II 🙂
I wholeheartedly agree with the need to teach critical thinking skills! This has been critical to the development of media literacy, first in the era of modern advertising, and currently in the era of social media and online marketing. I once taught students of all ages K–post-graduate, to critique media messages by asking “What product or idea is this message trying to ‘sell’ me?” The key difference between ideas sold by authoritarians (“I alone can fix it.”) vs those sold by liberal democrats is whether adoption of the underlying belief benefits only those who hold power, as in the case of the former, or all citizens, as in the case of the latter. Even young students could clearly understand that ads depicting alcohol and tobacco products as “cool” were meant to dupe young people into acting on that belief, so that they would become addicted to the products, enriching the sellers at the cost of the users’ health. We need to teach the same skeptical consumption of political ideas, so that voters can best decide who can effectively represent them and the general propulation in delivering democratic governance.
Thanks for this post, Teri. I look forward to the next part (and both books) with equal parts anticipation and trepidation.
Thankyou. During these chaotic times, I miss your weekly letters. But of course I understand, and appreciate all you have done, and continue to do for us. I was so excited to see this one, and I look forward to your next installment.
Same for me.
If it’s more about educated voters to descern facts, how is it that so many supposedly “educated” degreed folks can become extremist to begin with? I’m still baffled by the number of professionals & PhDs that follow Trumplican ideology.
This was easy to understand and I learned from it. Question: Do you think voter apathy is a result of a poorly educated civil society?
I think we will get to that in the next segment, which I should have ready tomorrow.
Thanks for the question.
A well educated polity is necessary for democracy to succeed. Americans are so poorly educated compared with their peers in other countries that sometimes it seems that underfunding public schools and undervaluing teachers seems deliberate. That’s my own personal conspiracy theory.
America does not have a monopoly on the gullible, or the deluded, or the criminal.
Or the ignorant.
That doesn’t belie the point.
Thank you, Teri, I look forward to digging into this, and your further posts on this theme. Yours is always one of the voices I want most to hear from, even if it costs me some illusions.
After reading this, I feel that we need an “Evening with Teri Kanefield and Tom Nichols.” The two of you seem to share some theories & conclusions.
Sign me up!
Thank you, Teri.
I’m blown away how much we are in agreement i.e., on the same page here. Thank you for using your powers for good ha ha. You have an audience & many will listen. This is a discussion that Americans absolutely need to hear. I personally have been subjected to extremist actions by both sides of the political spectrum & know well of what you are discussing. Again, thank you. Hope this is a best seller!!
PS Maybe there is hope after all – yeah!!
Seriously, I haven’t felt this positive in a long, long time.
Insightful. I agree that your definition is a better approach to understanding that authorianism is a continuum.
Would like to share the link to your post with my friends on Facebook, but apparently you limit sharing. Too bad.
I am not actually limiting that. I have no idea what you even mean. In fact, I put a link on Facebook earlier.
Thank you for writing this. For the longest time I’ve felt that what’s needed is a pro democratic, benevolent computer program. Once democratic rights have been established, they cannot be weakened, ignored or taken away and anyone who tries is kicked out by the system. Enlightened politicians need only apply-all others rejected.
In our present form, there will always be authoritarian players to run amok with their “the laws are for thee but not for me” who push that MO until their goals are achieved. They are already more than half way there. I never really studied Plato but it’s reassuring that I’m not alone in seeing the logical fallacies for our ready for exploitation form of government, like it was designed to fail. Call me naive but I’ve gotten so pessimistic as of late and feel that the only way to beat them is to head ’em off at the pass (the point of no return).
Please feel free to talk me off the ledge.
“anyone who tries is kicked out by the system. Enlightened politicians need only apply-all others rejected.”
isn’t that a bit…authoritarian?
Thank you for your well reasoned and understandable explication, Teri.
You state that in order for democracy to work, you need an engaged, educated electorate that is willing to do the hard work necessary to elect representation that can govern effectively. That’s a responsibility that requires the average voter to understand the issues and to do the background work to vet the candidates.
It takes education to develop the skills to be able to evaluate the information we consume and separate fact from fiction along with the will to put in the time to actually do it. It’s especially difficult when previously trustworthy sources resort to fictional narratives and conspiracies to gain engagement. Without a common baseline of factual data, too many well-meaning people get ensnared in the disinformation. It’s no small wonder that part of the authoritarian playbook is to attack education to make it harder for people to gain the skills to uncover their deception. An ignorant public is much easier to mislead.
Well said
The point of all this, from the authoritarians in our midst, is to throw so much white noise and balserdash into the national discussion that people give up trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. When people give up trying to figure out facts from fiction in the political sphere, they simply drop out and become “de-politicized.” A de-politicized population is much easier to herd around, and probably more likely to favor a strongman (i.e. see Putin’s Russia.)
One of the ways authoritarians attack education is by seeking to weaken the system of public education that brought Americans together, at least in their immediate locales.
The rightwing pressure for government to subsidize & support religious & other private schools of any sort sabotages the policy goals of public education. Schools all must teach a full civil syllabus of certain subjects to prepare people to live, work & fulfill their civic duty to participate in self government by knowing the issues & knowing how to vote their priorities & values.
This educational goal includes the socialization of all Americans to eliminate old strains of bigotry & social hierarchical ordering of Americans by color, origin, religion and economic class – insofar as opportunity access can be fostered & discrimination disincentivized.
The Anti-Establishment Clause of the Constitution must be enforced to stop sabotage of public education & the law of the USA.
Because I’m oldish, civics was required when I went through school. It no longer is in most places. That’s also a concern. If people aren’t taught how our government is structured and is supposed to work in school, they are at distinct disadvantage and ripe for being deceived when they are later eligible to vote.
And with the instant availability of information we have through our technology today, a greater onus is on the information consumer to vet the veracity of the information they consume. Schools need to teach students how to do that analysis as far too many people lack the skills or the will to do so.
African Americans tend to vote for Democracy, where Whites don’t.
Education helps. It’s the most effective way to make good citizens out of White people. What helps more is not being White (and thus vulnerable to appeals to White fears over losing their societal status) in the first place.
Thank you for your clearly stated relationship between the ability to perform critical thinking which IMHO is the purpose of a good education and the ability to act as a full citizen. Ive always thought that education provides a methodology to cut through misinformation due to its flawed logic or basic premises. I’m not sure it’s possible today because the basic foundational ideas of authoritarianism and pro democracy are so different. I look forward to learning how this dichotomy happened and how to restore agreement on American goals and meanings.
There’s a big movement afoot to do more school vouchers. Mostly they go to religious schools. That concerns me as an aged, gay, Antitheist! Especially when it takes away money from public schools!
I agree. That’s a huge concern.
The school voucher system was created to chip away at the public school system. It shouldn’t exist at all, and public funds should never support religious schools. I don’t understand how the SCOTUS decision in Carson v. Makin, which really seems unconstitutional, came to pass based on the law either.
It’s one thing to use one’s faith as a guide for living a good life. It’s another entirely to use it as a club to impose on others or to force others to fund.
Like you, I do not believe in any god(s) despite being raised in a Jewish home. My parents didn’t care if I believed or not as that wasn’t the point. They wanted me to understand the history, and because of that upbringing, I’m concerned when any group is persecuted. Forcing public funds to go to religious training while diminishing the public school system is a giant red flag.
Beyond that, I wonder if so many people’s ultra-religiosity predisposes them to accept disinformation. When their core worldview is one based on unprovable myth, it’s a pretty small jump to accept fiction as fact.
Excellent. Look forward to the next installment. Will you define conspiracy theory as well, so we on the left know whether the Leonard Leo network and its billionaire backers qualify?
I included this definition:
A Conspiracy Theory is an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories increase in prevalence in periods of widespread anxiety (emphasis added)
This was really well done, really helpful and perfect timing (for my personal experience of feeling overwhelmed by the division in our country). Thanks Teri. Once again.
Great start! I’m looking forward to reading more.
Perhaps you will address this in the coming posts but if actually conspiracies aren’t addressed, the conspiracy theories of lies are going to get more traction. Not necessarily by your readers but in general. The Tuskegee Experiment, The Gulf of Tonkin, The Illegal War In Iraq and that’s just three out of multiple conspiracies that the US government perpetrated. Citizens United is a living, breathing conspiracy against the average person in the US.
Re Yankees. My grandmother, who came to the US in 1910 at the age of 19, worked in Boston’s Back Bay. She wrote home to her sisters, “it’s a terrible thing to be a slave to the Yanks.”
Your summary is on target.
And:
*Americans all secretly love NOT playing by the rules…
Rules are for suckers!
Thank you. I’ve given your last two questions a great deal of thought.