A Twitter Peep asks: How could an entire political party forsake oath, conscience, and country over a flawed guy?
The answer: They prefer Cult of Leadership to Rule of Law. GOP leadership ran for office—not to further the aims of liberal democracy—but to subvert it.
Don’t be surprised. This is precisely how fascism takes over.
Fascism isn’t an ideology. It’s a mass uprising led by a mesmerizing leader. Fascists come to power through legal means (they are elected or appointed) and then they immediately begin battering the democratic institutions.
Fascism is a cult of leadership. The followers believe the leader’s instincts are superior to rational logic.
Sociologist Max Weber (considered one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century) offers an interesting explanation for the divide currently in America. Weber lists 3 sources of authority:
- Traditional (monarchy)
- Rational rule of law (democracy)
- Charismatic leader (cult of leadership / fascism)
America is currently divided between those who want Rule of Law / Democracy and those who reject Rule of Law and prefer Charismatic Leader.
Rule of Law and Charismatic Leader cannot exist together: Democracy relies on Rule of Law. Cult of leadership rejects Rule of Law.
If you find that logic doesn’t work with a cultist, it is because those who embrace a leadership cults reject logic and rationality.
Cult of Leadership has a lot of appeal. Democracy requires compromise. It’s messy. It’s slow grinding work.
(The term charismatic leader is from Max Weber, who died in 1920. I used his concepts, so I used his word. Weber used the term in a highly specialized sense. “Demagogue” might work better, but I’m using Weber’s definitions so I’ll use his terms. Weber nails the concept.)
A “strongman” can get things done quickly and easily. He doesn’t worry about those cumbersome checks and balances. Procedures won’t slow him down. Some people would rather kowtow to a Strongman and curry his favor than deal with the complexity of Rule of Law.
Some GOP leaders want to destroy the federal government because of what scholars Hahl, Kim and Sivan call a “crisis of legitimacy.” This happens when people don’t think the government governs on their behalf.
They think the “political establishment is favoring new groups over established groups.” They think these “new” groups (immigrants, minorities, etc.) are displacing them—the “real” Americans. Exactly what Laura Ingraham explained here:
Another way of viewing the lawbreaking is through the prism of reactionary politics. “Again” in “MAGA” signals reactionism.
Political psychologists Capelos and Katsanidou define reactionism as “a forceful desire to return to the past.”
They want to go back to the 1920s (or earlier) when [white] men had almost unlimited personal liberty.
- When the the frontier was open, they could grab land!
- Before modern rape and sexual harassment laws, they could grab women!
- Before the New Deal and regulatory agencies, they could cheat, manipulate markets, and fix prices.
To get back to the 1920s, they have to dismantle the federal government and all those agencies put in place since the New Deal.
Or you can take the libertarian positions that all those laws and regulatory agents violate the Constitution. Many think they are morally obligated to destroy what is not legal. Some libertarians (who believe the federal government is illegal and unconstitutional) argue that these laws and regulations immorally infringe on their liberty rights, which they feel gives them additional moral justification in dismantling the federal government.
When you seek office for the purpose of dismantling the federal government, it makes sense that you don’t uphold your vow to protect and defend the Constitution.
Some members of the GOP leadership genuinely believe the Democrats are enemies of America.
When frontier was open, those who didn’t want to follow the rules had a place to go. Now that there’s no more frontier, those who reject laws are stuck here and we have to deal with them.
Some GOP leaders are just greedy: You can get richer faster if you ignore the laws.
In some ways, democracy (and compromise) go against human nature. When my son was in preschool and learned about taking turns, he told me, “I don’t like taking turns. I want all the turns.” Some people want all the turns. (My son grew into a nice young man, don’t worry.)
Mussolini rejected compromise because, in his view, the “strong” don’t compromise. Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell and pals reject compromise because they see compromise as impure.
A “purist” doesn’t compromise. A “purist” therefore cannot exist happily in a democracy.
This is “whataboutism,” a propaganda technique. The person doesn’t deny wrongdoing on the part of their leader, but they claim all leaders engage in similar tactics. It’s confusing for casual listeners, effective, and cynical. It creates an “us v. them” tribal politics. “He’s a lying crook, but he’s our lying crook and his lies help destroy the enemies (Democrats, etc.)” It increases the polarization. It’s an extreme cynicism that leads to nihilism. Nihilism destroys democracy because if all politicians are corrupt, it doesn’t matter who we vote for, or whether we vote.
You can see that right now, liberal democracy is being hit from all sides.
When you look at hard numbers, those who want democracy to survive outnumber those who don’t.
The 2020 election will not be left v. right. It will not be over issues or policies.
The 2020 election will be about the kind of government we want: Rule of Law or Cult of Leadership.
In 2020, Democracy will be on the ballot.
