Symbol of anti-communist, anti-authoritarian, anti-totalitarian resistance. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: Nguyen1310
by Kathie MM
Authoritarian governments dislike facts and the promoters of facts—particularly independent journalists and scientists, because independent journalists and scientists are often the promoters of facts and scientific findings that do not feed into the self-serving agendas of the autocrats.
Among the scientists whose psychological insights on authoritarianism we have shared on engaging peace are Roy Eidelson , Anthony Marsella , and George Lakoff , all of whom have grave warnings about threats to democracy and human rights.
Today, for the lovers of peace and justice who are appalled by the authoritarian forces ruling our country today, here is some advice adapted from George Lakoff’s formula for flipping negative attacks by authoritarian power mongers into positive progress for Americans:
Don’t help spread negative messages by re-tweeting them or forwarding them with their own abominable negative language and disinformation intact.
Do focus on the correct information, the alternative messages designed to promote peace and justice.
Do talk to people about what’s happening in the country right now.
Frame your arguments, your recommendations about healing our government, in your own words, focusing on the good things you want to see happen rather than the bad things being promoted by the authoritarians. In addition,
Pro-Donald Trump rally in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2017. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: Ted Eytan from Washington, DC.
by Roy Eidelson
Note from Kathie MM: The theme of engaging peace, since its inception, has been “From study to action . . . Choosing peace for good.” Dr. Eidelson’s two-part essay, like his earlier ones (e.g., see here , and here ) illustrates effectively how psychological research studies can help us understand how ordinary people can become supporters of dangerous people and policies that threaten not only democracy and human rights but also classic ethical principles such as the Golden Rule. As for action, engaging peace’s goal has always been to support nonviolent resistance to the violence so often embodied in the isms–racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, fascism, etc. (and, consort to all of them, militarism). The insights in this article should help you do your part.
Authoritarians, Plutocrats, and the Fight for Racial Justice, Part 1
by Roy Eidelson
On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump routinely lashed out at protesters brazen enough to disrupt his choreographed rallies. In Birmingham, Alabama, he shouted, “Get him out of here. Throw him out!” The next day he added, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” In Burlington, Vermont, Trump ordered his security personnel to “Throw them out into the cold…Don’t give them their coats. No coats! Confiscate their coats.” In Las Vegas, Nevada, he told the crowd, “I’d like to punch him in the face” and reminisced about earlier days when demonstrators would be “carried out on stretchers.”
Trump’s belligerent stance toward dissent provides context for the National Football League’s decision last week: players on the field will now be required to stand during the national anthem. In adopting this restrictive policy, billionaire owners of professional sports franchises have chosen to serve as Trump’s newest security guards, responsible for keeping all reminders of today’s racial injustice and police brutality as far from the fifty-yard-line as possible. Not surprisingly, Trump was quick to publicly endorse the change: “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there, maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.”
Such pronouncements from the most powerful person in the world are jaw-dropping. Yet Trump’s strongman antics haven’t actually changed very much from his days inflaming the crowds—“Lock her up! Lock her up!”—in Birmingham, Burlington, Las Vegas, and beyond. What is different now, however, is that President Trump sees the entire country—over three-hundred million strong—as his own gigantic arena. Those who share his intolerant, racist, and plutocratic agenda are always welcome to participate in his round-the-clock “Make America Great Again” soapbox performances. For anyone else, the gates are closed. The alternatives he offers range from disregard to demonization to deportation.
Regrettably, Trump’s divisive language and outlandish policy prescriptions resonate well with the many Americans who give undue and uncritical support to those in positions of power. Excessive deference makes us surprisingly easy targets for manipulative appeals designed to stoke our fear, distrust, and contempt of others who are “different.” Indeed, a psychological mindset called right-wing authoritarianism, characterized by a strong tendency to condemn anyone who questions established authority, is more common than we might wish.
Psychologist Bob Altemeyer has identified three specific markers of this mindset. The first is authoritarian submission, which involves strict obedience toward the designated leaders of a group. The second is authoritarian aggression, which takes the form of deep hostility toward those who appear to fall short of the group’s rigid standards. The third marker is conventionalism, which revolves around dutifully honoring and observing the group’s traditions and norms.
Right-wing authoritarians—members of the neo-Nazi, white supremacist “alt-right” are perhaps today’s most extreme examples—consider group boundaries to be sacrosanct. They value conformity and find diversity alarming. For them, clear and firm borders protect those inside the circle from those who are outside and are deemed undeserving of inclusion. Research has linked this psychological profile to ugly prejudices—including toward people of color, immigrants, those who are unemployed, and people with disabilities. But the specific prejudices aren’t entirely fixed. Since these individuals submissively look to their leaders to tell them which groups to reject, they’re primed to change course or focus when directed to do so.
Donald Trump Image by Gage Skidmore and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
“When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don’t know if they’re ISIS, we don’t know if it’s a Trojan horse….it could be the great Trojan horse of all times
Question 1: what can a politician gain when he makes a comment like this?
Your answer (Select all that apply.)
a sense of power from successfully manipulating people’s emotions.
actual power through gaining votes by portraying themselves as tough on crime and terrorism.
delight in the media attention and the endless money and fame it can generate.
a quiet sense of satisfaction from recognizing that they are doing everything possible to promote peace and human rights.
recognition that they may be nominated for the next Nobel Peace Prize.
Question 2: What would a politician’s followers gain from accepting such messages and using them to guide their behavior?
Your answer(Select all that apply.)
the comfort that comes from finding a strong leader who will take on troublemakers and knock them out of action.
pleasure in finding a leader who confirms your beliefs concerning what is right and what is wrong.
confirmation that there are real and present threats to the American way of life that have been too long neglected by weak Presidents.
reassurance that good people from all walks of life can work together to achieve solutions that make the world better for everyone.
the ability to see themselves as good people who live by the Golden Rule.
Question 3: What could a politician’s followers lose or escape from by accepting such messages and using them to guide their behavior?
anxiety related to not knowing whom they can blame for any current dissatisfactions or fears in their lives.
unease related to the feeling that there isn’t anyone around who is tough enough to put a stop to the threats to the American way of life.
the sense that they are increasingly powerless in a country where the government cannot be trusted to represent their interests.
a sense of pride in knowing that they have reached out to people with different backgrounds and different experiences before making a decision regarding their future and the future of their country.
recognition from leaders of the human rights and environmental movements concerning their sense of morality and concern for others and the planet.
Final Questions:
Who gains the most when politicians make statements like the one above? The politicians? Their followers? The American people? People around the world? Terrorists? Victims of terrorism?
Who has the most to lose when the message above is adopted by advocates of the message? The politician? The politician’s advocates? The American people? People around the world? Terrorists? Victims of terrorism?
