JUST OVER A MONTH AGO, the American website, Politico, ran a fascinating article about the supporters of Donald Trump.
Matthew MacWilliams, a political communications specialist working his way toward a PhD in Political Science, noted a curious fact about Trump supporters. His research indicated that “a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.”
The “Authoritarian Personality” has been the subject of scholarly interest since the 1930s. The German sociologist, Wilhelm Reich, led the way with his ground-breaking book The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933). Reich’s study examined the role of sexual repression in the development of authoritarianism – linking the rigid moral system of the German family with the German people’s dangerous affinity for the Nazi Party worldview.
In the United States, academic refugees from Nazi Germany contributed to a highly influential book, The Authoritarian Personality (1950). At the heart of the book was a psychological profiling tool which its creator, Theodore Adorno, called the “F-Scale” (the “F” stood for “Fascist”).
The F-Scale reflected the experiences that contributed most to the development of an authoritarian personality. The authors took a Freudian view of character formation, arguing that: “Excessively harsh and punitive parenting was posited to cause children to feel immense anger towards their parents; yet fear of parental disapproval or punishment caused people to not directly confront their parents, but rather to identify with and idolize authority figures” (Source: Wikipedia entry on The Authoritarian Personality)
MacWilliams’ article reveals that the voters most likely to support Donald Trump for President are the people who pick the first option in the following four propositions pertaining to child-rearing: “whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.”
The rather alarming conclusion of MacWilliam’s article is that Trump’s support among American voters has yet to peak, and may be much larger than the political pundits have so far been willing to admit:
“So, those who say a Trump presidency ‘can’t happen here’ should check their conventional wisdom at the door. The candidate has confounded conventional expectations this primary season because those expectations are based on an oversimplified caricature of the electorate in general and his supporters in particular. Conditions are ripe for an authoritarian leader to emerge. Trump is seizing the opportunity. And the institutions – from the Republican Party to the press – that are supposed to guard against what James Madison called “the infection of violent passions” among the people have either been cowed by Trump’s bluster or are asleep on the job.”
The Politico article raises some interesting questions about the psychological drivers of voter behaviour in New Zealand. How pervasive is the authoritarian personality in New Zealand society? Might its prevalence in any way be inferred from the extraordinary reaction of so many New Zealanders to the so-called “anti-smacking” legislation? Was the extent and vehemence of that reaction an indication – both of the incidence of authoritarian attitudes within the New Zealand population, and their ultimate cause? Are parental violence and repression the defining characteristics of a majority of Kiwi childhoods? And, if they are, does that suggest that a worryingly large number of New Zealanders are likely to score highly on the F-Scale?
We might also ask ourselves whether the following three “attitudinal and behavioural clusters” are readily recognisable in right-wing New Zealand voters?
Authoritarian submission – a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
Authoritarian aggression – a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
Conventionalism – a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one’s society should also be required to adhere to these norms.
(Source: Wikipedia entry on Right-Wing Authoritarianism.)
The important point to note about authoritarian character traits is that they occur on both sides of the traditional political divide. American sociologists found that, in the United States, authoritarians were among the most vociferous supporters of the prevailing capitalist system. In the Soviet Union, by way of contrast, the authoritarian personality manifested itself in unwavering support for the communist regime. For authoritarians, what the people in charge believe matters much less than the enduring reality of their control.
Donald Trump’s (or, for that matter, John Key’s) bluster and bullying is thus a critical factor in his political success. By signalling that he is in control: that he is bigger and stronger and smarter and more powerful than his political rivals; he convinces his authoritarian followers that he is the only legitimate leader on offer. He will never compromise with, or apologise to, his opponents; nor will be kowtow to the news media; because he knows that the slightest sign of equivocation will immediately call into question his claim to the allegiance of his authoritarian followers.
And if the trajectory of the Trump campaign (and the enduring popularity of John Key’s National-led Government) is anything to go by – it’s those authoritarian followers who win elections.
President Donald Trump kicking butt for the USA. That is a truly frightening concept, but a real possibility.
I agree Robert but I feel the real possibility is more like President Clinton instead. She is the boot licking ; criminal Wall St. and corporate darling.
For more on the – very likely – corporate/lobbyist led rigged U.S. elections :
http://mediaroots.org/ralph-nader-abby-martin-on-the-corporate-elections/
Yes a lot of New Zealanders vote for a ‘strong leader’.
Look at Muldoon ……………… and then Clarke was the closest thing to Muldoon in the way she ran Labour……… and the voters liked it.
Key has his dirty politics crew to do the real nasty stuff but ‘smiling assassin ‘ sums him up quite well …….
Spot on Reason, I remember well the hard nosed bullying of both Muldoon and Clark. Key does the same by belittling opponents. Lange in his own way was the ultimate counter bully, the bullied child who once they learnt how to handle the artillery launched a ferocious barrage in return (and with malice).
I think the whole thing is reinforced by an adversarial parliamentary system, an adversarial court system, and more recently by a “client – case manager” social system (as opposed to citizen – civil servant). We no longer go to the bank manager, we have “individual” employment contracts. Ever more adversarial and thus open to insidious creeping authoritarianism.
Ring of Truth, chilling as it is.
A brilliant refutation would be good news, but will we get one?
Back to aggressive USA again eh!
Obama was becoming like this also as he was found stating that we (USA) has to twist the arm of countries that don’t do what we want them to do!
So hawks are rising in the political scene over stateside we can all see if Bernie is not running against him.
Hillary Clinton is another warlord too.
By now most of you will be aware of this gem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg
imo Trump is far preferable to Cruz as winner of the primary.
Trump is surely to much of a buffoon to be electable in the presidential, Cruz is a very dangerous, religious nutcase.
Boris Johnson is a buffoon as mayor of London, so buffoonery per se does not exclude a man from grabbing and maintaining power …..
The only discussion of ‘Authoritarianism’ in NZ culture I am aware of is in Chapter 9 of Dave Bedggood’s 1980 book “Rich and Poor in NZ.”
https://situationsvacant.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/rich-and-poor-in-new-zealand-1980/
The difference between Trump and Key is stark.
Trump is self funded, can say and do what he likes and the media, especially Fox News despise him, and he them.
However what he does offer them is plenty of ‘ clickbait’ opportunities to sell their advertising off.
Key is largely funded by wealthy Chinese ‘investors’ via their big donations to the National Party.
He doesn’t need to ‘ get tough’ with the media because the media don’t get tough with him. They simply do not do their job properly. Pathetically unprofessional actually!!
Let’s face it, ‘Mr Fix Nothing,’ Stephen Joyce was not helicoptered into a senior ministerial role for his competence. There is no doubt his octopus like connections with radio and TV have acted like an air bag to cushion Keys underlying fragility.
There are many searching questions that could be asked but never see the light of day.
You can count on one hand the amount of times Key has exposed himself to a competent professional journalist, think ‘Hard Talk’ for example , and every time he has been found wanting.
That’s why he avoids it!
You can call it uncompromising and authoritarian.
I call it protected and weak!!
It’s not a bout reality it’s about perception. Hence Key’s very weird speeches in parliament when he lets loose in high anger – they’re just there to reinforce the “authoritarian” narrative.
All piss and wind, a scone-doer because Crosby and Textor counselled him that’s what the electorate wanted, plus this show of froth, spittle and bluster is diametrically opposed to Little’s cool, calm demeanour.
Can a whole nation be certifiably crazy? Sure looks that way.
It wouldn’t be the first time, Rae. We all know what took place in Germany in the 1920s and 30s. Chilling times.
A demagogue doesn’t have to dress up in militaristic nazi-uniforms to be a demagogue. Sometimes a three piece suit will do just as nicely.
And here was me all this time, thinking it was the comb-over, 3 piece suit it is, then.
I don’t think that authoritarianism/not authoritarianism is the issue right now, especially given the way prison populations have ballooned in Western countries under so-called social liberalism. The neoliberal consensus is not a conception of the public good – in fact one of its early defenders claimed there was “no such thing as society”. What we are now getting, in the absence of a shared conception of the public good, (though with differing views on how it is attained and maintained), is society splitting into competing tribes whose public champions are not exercised by the interests of outsiders – look at Key’s contempt for the social tribes whose votes and donations he doesn’t need, and whose interests are in competition with those of his supporters. Trump leads a rising, angry tribe who feel they have been shortchanged. That looks like authoritarianism to those who are threatened by its rise, and like a strong defender to those who are it members.
Olwyn,
I don’t think that the rise of either Sanders nor Trump are down to any individual factor. Would that the same study was done on the supporters of Sanders as well, what might that indicate?
Greer puts the support of Trump to a large chunk of the formerly salaried class now being part of the wage paid underclass, and to anger about the failure of the American dream to help this class. The same might be said of the Sanders supporters, who knows? Others mention that Sanders has inherited and embodied the call of “Occupy” (which had no political conduit). One thing is for sure, the Zeitgeist is going against Wall St and Washington. Would that it could happen here.
Yes I have read that Greer article. Obviously, you cannot condense multiple causes into a paragraph, and I agree that the zeitgeist seems to be going against Wall St and Washington. One thing that I fear is that Wall St and Washington will turn to a stronger form of authoritarianism themselves, to ward off the barbarians at the gates without having to concede anything to them. That would be disastrous, because while Wall St-Washington’s opponents on both sides lack the levers for real power, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle now.
Maybe the way democracy has been purchased by the likes of the Koch brothers and sold cheap by the corrupt Clinton said has killed it. Perhaps the people want retribution the price of which is authoritarian rule. Let’s hope for a less severe demise, perhaps even a revival.
You don’t have to say authoritarianism/not authoritarianism. You are allowed to say authoritarianism/libertarianism. The sad thing about libertarianism, is the right has tried to hijack it for itself, till now, no-one understands that there is a libertarian left.
It is easily described as you can do whatever you like, so long as you don’t interfere with anyone else’s life. In other words “do unto others etc” Funny that, since that one came to me, it has proved a source of endless amusement, because guess who you could perhaps describe as a libertarian/leftie, you got it, because in the exact opposite quarter of the spectrum the authoritarian right is where the biggest bulk of the worshipers come from. Ya gotsto love it.
If you apply “we” instead of “I” to liberty you have perhaps the ideal state we could find ourselves in
Charles McKay had it worked out by 1841.
‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a history of popular folly by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841.[1] The book chronicles its subjects in three parts: “National Delusions”, “Peculiar Follies”, and “Philosophical Delusions”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
Since then people have become stupider, thanks to mass media and particularly the ‘idiot box’ that dominates many people’s lives and provides them with all the disinformation they need.
In the case of Trump I think there are two factors at play:
Firstly both he and Sanders are seen as ‘DC outsiders’ and people are voting for them because they’re sick and tired of ‘business as usual’, regardless of which party they vote for.
Secondly, they’ve had 8 years of Obama – eloquent but shallow and weak. He was elected on the basis of ‘Change You Can Believe In’ but who then:
Appointed Goldman Sachs people into his administration.
Delivered ‘Obamacare’ which did not address any of the fundamental problems with their healthcare.
Allowed Putin to make a mockery of the USA in Syria.
So naturally they’re looking for a stronger leader now.
Andrew, it all sounds strikingly familiar. Like a certain Austrian with a gift for oratory, demonising minorities, and who eventually become an all-powerful leader of his nation and took his people down a bloody path of death and destruction.
Now who might that figure be, I wonder?
More than ever, history is our guiding principle. Or should be.
Sadly, the average American likely wouldn’t even know who you are talking about.
That’s the inevitable result of a diluted, liberal education.
The reason for the rise of Trump and Sanders have even more in common, in a way. Traditional Republican supporters blame the Republican elite for not improving outcomes for the poorer whites feeling they have no future, even after gaining power in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Coincidentally,traditional Democrats also blame the Republican elite for blocking all and anything Obama might propose. In their case they still support Obama, on some level, while acknowledging that he has not managed to achieve the Hope and Change agenda.
They support Sanders because there is a groundswell on the Left in the US to learn something from the rest of the world. The GFC for many permanently destroyed the myth of some sort of American Dream for the Middle Class. (There isn’t a Lower Class in the US. They start with the “Regular Size” and go up from there).
The “Mockery” thing. Well that’s just silly. All the US threatened to do was fire a few token shots to “punish” Assad for gassing his own people. Obama couldn’t even get buy in from the Right for that kind of token intervention. (Obviously Trump (the Great Deal-maker), would have come to a win-win agreement with Putin and at the same time sent him off with his tail between his legs. Yup. that’s the kind of guy he is.) In the end the Russians managed to get Assad to put a big part of his arsenal out of commission. That was way more than the US could have done because they had zero leverage with Assad. Consequentially the outcome was better at that time than anyone had any reason to hope for. There have still been one or two chemical outbreaks since, but fortunately they have been rare. A minor success.
In the meanwhile, wiser heads know that Putin inevitably has had to come cap in hand to the West to help with a cease fire in Syria because there is no victory available for any side, whatever Russia does. The more Assad has regional victories over the “Moderate” rebels fighters (if there are any), the more resentment is caused within Sunni groups and the more jihadis are attracted to the fight, this time against the ungodly Russians. This is way worse for Putin than for many Western countries because he has real reason to fear uprisings within his own indigenous Muslim populations.
On another, related, subject it may now be time for all sides to start to talk seriously about Kurdistan.
“By signalling that he is in control: that he is bigger and stronger and smarter and more powerful than his political rivals”
Also known as “who’s got the biggest dick theory” – In other words, it is an ultra masculine construct even when participated in by women.
I think a better question to ask is Ted Cruz or Bush (who recently pulled out) preferable? How about Hillary Clinton when you consider her role and comments regarding Libya. Her general role in expansionist foreign policy (especially Russia). hoe about her role in the TPP deals and her luke warm rejection of the deal when voters expressed disapproval?
Personally I’d prefer Bernie but I’d take Trump as a second choice if I was a US voter. He’s against the expansionist tactics against Russia that could just trigger WW III. He’s opposed to the TPP deals and he called out Jeb Bush on his families role in the Iraq war. He also want health care for all Americans. Trump’s by no means perfect but I’d say most alternative candidates are a darn sight worse.
Really the only thing Trump and Key have in common is the desire to appear the top dog. The passive-open nature of television-watching allows the imprinting of concepts for Trump. The “Your Fired” thing defines the impression of a strong (even infallible) leader. (Simon Cowell would make a great PM for the UK, don’t you think?) In Key’s case he has two main roles. First, he is the poster child for the neo-liberal corporate take-over. (A former investment bank apparatcik, now smoothing the way for trans-national buy-ups.) This keeps the business classes happy. Second he is the minister for sneering at the opposition. For most purposes that is enough until some deus ex machina comes along to upset the apple cart. Or that top dog thing is challenged. Do you think David Lange won because of his great policies (whatever they were), or because he made Muldoon look small,stupid and inadequate by comparison? Andrew little doesn’t need so much to enunciate policy. He will need to achieve domination at both a philosophical and a personal level. He will have to transcend his careful, reasonable, employment-lawyer comfort-zone for a higher pulpit and a broader brush if he is to even engage in a battle for dominance. Without that he will be totally at the mercy of the central percentiles and certainly no longer the master of his own fate.
I actually don’t believe that it is the Fascist streak among New Zealanders that maintains the voter base of National, although they do love a sneering dominant. Rather it is, in my opinion, that the only unforgivable sin for Kiwi voters is to disturb their torpor for any other reason than force major.
If Mayor Bilbo Baggins had required the inhabitants of Hobbiton to change their shower-head, do you really think they wouldn’t have risen up and fed him to Smaug?
That said, it might also be asked: what are you most proud of as a New Zealander? Is it our history of egalitarianism, or is it almost balancing the books once before slipping back into the red? Is it making our troops available to the UN for peace-keeping purposes, or is it giving a minimalist assist to the USA in the hope of getting a Free Trade Agreement? Is it a country where the natural environment is still a delight despite its regular predation, or is it because we let cattle wander into our waterways in an effort to cram more cows onto the land that it might be expected to bear?
I remember when we were voted onto the Security Council at the UN, some mouthpiece for the Nats opining, when asked what the effect of our elevation might be, that he though we might get a bit more trade out of it. I have rarely been more ashamed as a New Zealander.
Maybe we just need to be reminded of what is important, because I suspect that at heart we all know what is.
The sort of people who are fanatically attracted to the likes of Trump remind me of the woman in the following article ( quoted from The Guardian ) where journalist and writer Dave Schilling attended the Republican caucus in Nevada where Trump was speaking.
“I speak to Tario Mills, a 19-year-old woman covered in tattoos. She came to the victory speech with her father. This is her first election and she is a firmly committed Trump voter. She wants to go into politics as a profession, but is concerned that her tattoos may make that difficult.
“When Donald wants something, he’s going to fight for it. I need someone who’s going to fight for what I want too,” she says.
When I ask which issue she cares about the most, she says LGBT rights. I mention that Trump’s not the most committed ally of the cause.
“Hillary shifted in support of it. Maybe he will, too.”
But what if he doesn’t?
“Then he doesn’t do it, you know.”
At this moment, I realise that there is a segment of the Trump base that doesn’t care what he says. They just trust him to be tough, like a surly father figure from whom you crave approval in between swats from a leather belt.
“If I don’t agree with what he does, I’ll still love and support him.”
If it doesn’t matter what Trump believes, and if it doesn’t matter that he lives in a gold and marble palace while his employees earn less than a living wage, then he might just be unstoppable.”
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/24/a-cauldron-of-the-baser-instincts-of-humanity-inside-donald-trumps-nevada-triumph
Poor little lambs, when push comes to shove Trump will be a craven coward
I think it is more simple than that.
Trump is a bully and more significantly he flaunts his bullying tactics.
Some people, although publicly they disparage bullies, privately they are fascinated by them and wish they could be like them.
That is what is happening here, maybe.
The more he opens his mouth the better Americans like him and the more Americans like him the more he tries to play the clown for them.
If he wins (God help the world) he will find that he doesn’t know as much about the American people as he thinks he does.
Trump knows only about how to bribe and buy business interests, how to cheat on taxes and the world of the wealthy elite. He knows nothing about real America or how it operates.
He will find large portions of Congress much less amenable to him than he would ever imagine.
I am sad to say that I believe Hillary will be the next president because that is what the upper elite 1% bankster ; corporate crims want.
Clearly Bernie is the best choice but he is not the lobbyists and corporate
choice. He will cost them and they want to be in control. Hillary is a good puppet and will toe their line just as she and her hubby have done forever.
I trust very little that comes out of her mouth. Her intentions are corporate; war mongering and self-serving.
Believe it or not, the U.S. presidential election is rigged to have the outcome be what they want and to think that the people elect their president is and has been a fallacy for quite awhile. (Bush/Florida etc.) Its a charade, a game and we know very well who is in charge and who owns and dictates to most governments. Donkey is a puppet just as Obama is. The U.S. people are fed lies; brainwashed and believe the MSM and all the BS that comes with it.
Check out the recent interview with Abby Martin and Ralph Nader about this issue of U.S. rigged elections.
BLAKE:
I think you’re right. Although Sanders has done OK-ish, what most folk don’t realise is that Clinton has already tied up the majority ‘super delegates’ votes within the Democrat Party and short of a political earthquake she will become the Democrat candidate. (One potential earthquake is the emails scandal which might yet take her out of the running)
As to whether she’ll beat Trump, now that’s another story
Comments are closed.