Richardson on the rise of authoritarianism

[billvon 2,400]

Heather Cox Richardson is an American historian who has studied American history for decades.  She has taught at BC and MIT and has written several books on topics from the Civil War to Wounded Knee.  She describes herself as a Lincoln Republican, although she does not affiliate with either party today.

She recently wrote a book - "Democracy Awakening" - on both the state of the US and historical parallels to what we are experiencing now.  In the introduction she has a chilling description of how authoritarianism rose in Germany in the 1930's:
========================================================================================
Social scientists noted that the economic and political instability in Germany after World War I was crucial for Hitler's rise. But it took writers, philosophers, and historians to explain how authoritarians like Hitler harnessed societal instability into their own service.

The key to the rise of authoritarians, they explained, is their use of language and false history.

Authoritarians rise when economic, social, political, or religious change makes members of a formerly powerful group feel as if they have been left behind. Their frustration makes them vulnerable to leaders who promise to make them dominant again. A strongman downplays the real conditions that have created their problems and tells them that the only reason they have been dispossessed is that enemies have cheated them of power.

Such leaders undermine existing power structures, and as they collapse, people previously apathetic about politics turn into activists, not necessarily expecting a better life, but seeing themselves as heroes reclaiming the country. Leaders don't try to persuade people to support real solutions, but instead reinforce their followers' fantasy self-image and organize them into a mass movement. Once people internalize their leader's propaganda, it doesn't matter when pieces of it are proven to be lies, because it has become central to their identity. 

As a strongman becomes more and more destructive, followers' loyalty only increases. Having begun to treat their perceived enemies badly, they need to believe their victims deserve it. Turning against the leader who inspired such behavior would mean admitting they had been wrong and that they, not their enemies, are evil. This, they cannot do.

Having forged a dedicated following, a strongman warps history to galvanize his base into an authoritarian movement. He insists that his policies—which opponents loathe—simply follow established natural or religious rules his enemies have abandoned. Those rules portray society as based in hierarchies, rather than equality, and make the strongman's followers better than their opponents. Following those "traditional" rules creates a clear path for a nation and can only lead to a good outcome. Failing to follow them will lead to terrible consequences. 
==========================================================================================
 

[kallend 1,623]

OK, but how much of that is a recent revelation?  

[billvon 2,400]

27 minutes ago, kallend said:

OK, but how much of that is a recent revelation?  

Well, given that it happened in the 1940's - not very recent.  But the debate as to the cause of the rise of authoritarianism in Germany has been going on for quite some time.

[gowlerk 1,912]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, given that it happened in the 1940's - not very recent.  But the debate as to the cause of the rise of authoritarianism in Germany has been going on for quite some time.

It's hard to see how authoritarianism would not be the default in any large and well organized human society. We all live under some degree of it. The only thing that keeps it in some check in the western world is the thing we call democracy in all its various forms. It is the power to force a change of rulers on a regular basis every 4 years or so. No one or no group who holds power ever gives it up willingly. And we can all see that democracy is incredibly fragile. 

[base698 1]

True Believer is pretty great and it was written in 1951 with a reflection on the social causes of WW2.

> In Germany and Italy the new poor coming from a ruined middle class formed the chief support of the Nazi and Fascist revolutions. The potential revolutionaries in present-day England are not the workers but the disinherited civil servants and businessmen. This class has a vivid memory of affluence and dominion and is not likely to reconcile itself to straitened conditions and political impotence.

 

[billvon 2,400]

13 minutes ago, base698 said:

This class has a vivid memory of affluence and dominion and is not likely to reconcile itself to straitened conditions and political impotence.

Different origins - but both those classes sound like they have very similar grievances.  Loss of status.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

On 3/12/2024 at 11:14 AM, gowlerk said:

No one or no group who holds power ever gives it up willingly. And we can all see that democracy is incredibly fragile. 

Western Democracy has hinged on those in power voluntarily giving up that power after an election. What Trump has shown is how fragile that voluntary part is.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Western Democracy has hinged on those in power voluntarily giving up that power after an election. What Trump has shown is how fragile that voluntary part is.

All you really need to do is start a good old fashioned war. Then get the military on your side and declare martial law "for the good of the nation in the current emergency". 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

All you really need to do is start a good old fashioned war. Then get the military on your side and declare martial law "for the good of the nation in the current emergency". 

If I understand correctly, declaring a 'military emergency' and using the troops to help hold power was part of the plan to keep Trump in office.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

All you really need to do is start a good old fashioned war. Then get the military on your side and declare martial law "for the good of the nation in the current emergency". 

Sounds good to me. So, to save the western world and democracy what part of Grenada should we bomb first?

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Sounds good to me. So, to save the western world and democracy what part of Grenada should we bomb first?

Do a Putin. Invade Canada to save it from going to the nazis.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Do a Putin. Invade Canada to save it from going to the nazis.

Thanks, but all ya'll are already in solitary and there just ain't no reason to let you out. If we're gonna attack it'll be against someplace with fish worth eating when it's warm out.

[ryoder 1,384]

"I think we should annex Mexico; We've got the people; Now we should get the real estate that goes with them!"

-- Gallagher: (of Sledge-O-Matic fame)