What makes saving American democracy difficult is that a segment of the population is (according to political psychologists) naturally disposed toward authoritarianism.
I plan to argue that the problem is exacerbated by social media and the way we get information, which is causing people not disposed to authoritarianism to embrace authoritarianism.
The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Historian Richard Hofstadter, in his classic 1964 work offered an eerily accurate description of today’s politics.
Hofstadter conducted a thorough review of American politics from before the founding of the nation through McCarthyism. He noticed a pattern among a small impassioned minority on the fringes of the political spectrum.
He called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics.
Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger in which they belong.
According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as “the American way of life.”
They “feel dispossessed” and that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.”
They are “determined to repossess it and prevent the final act of subversion.”
They therefore adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity.
These apocalyptic warnings arouse passion and militancy: The evil enemy must be destroyed—and the fight must go beyond the ordinary “give and take” of politics.
After Goldwater’s defeat, Hofstadter noted that some of the worst distempers of American democracy and become “a formidable force in our politics” and quite possibly, a permanent one. In 1992, Newt Gingrich captured this frustration—and call to militancy—when he said Republican must resort to any means necessary. The culmination of “any means necessary” was, of course, the January 6 insurrection.
This is important: Hofstadter says that the paranoid style exists on the left end of the spectrum as well as the right. Some authoritarians move from “the paranoid left to the paranoid right.” In his book, Hofstadter focuses on right-wing paranoia presumably because right-wing paranoia has been far more destructive.
This doesn’t surprise me. We get authoritarianism with our mothers’ milk. Until we’re mature enough to understand that our parents are only human, we mistake them for gods. Our parents often hamper our journey toward individuation and independence by trying to keep control over us. Is it then any wonder that so many yearn for the bitter embrace of a ruler’s boot on their necks?
Just look at what’s happening in the UK. Elizabeth II might have been beloved by many of her subjects, but in the wake of her passing there’s been a surge in pro-republican/anti-monarchy sentiment that both the authorities and the wider society seem determined to suppress. Why? I suspect it’s for the same reasons so many of Stanley Milgram’s subjects willingly cooperated, even when it appeared that they were torturing somebody to death.
People want to be told what to do. They want the comfort of knowing, when everything goes to hell, that they can always point to somebody else and say, “I was just following orders.”
Interesting read. I came away with more questions than answers, which is good. I had the thought that the “I don’t like complex” thought goes “I want instant gratification” as well.
Teri, I just found this blog post and am so appreciative of it. Authoritarian personalities can show up at the local level, too. Of late I am pondering how voters can suss out an authoritarian personality in their local candidates for mayor, school board, city council, etc. In my view, at the local level, with fewer institutional guardrails in place, authoritarians can do a lot of damage.