The Quiet Coup | Critical Analysis |Axisoflogic.com

Does William Barr appear to be easily manipulated? Do you really think he lacks inner strength? James Comey thinks so (James Comey: How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Bill Barr). How about Mike Pompeo and Stephen Miller? Does Donald Trump have them acting out of character? Do you think Lindsey Graham does his bidding out of fear? Is Mike Pence really cowed into submission, or does Steve Bannon stroke Trump’s ego because he lacks intestinal fortitude?

All of the above have forceful personalities. They didn’t arrive at their stations through lack of will or low self esteem. To suggest they’re being idealistically manipulated is nearsighted and dangerous. William Barr, the others, and much of the Republican Congress appear sycophantic not out of fear or lack of self-control; they behave that way because they and Trump are kindred spirits. They’re not just groveling; they like what Trump likes, they want what Trump wants, and they’re strong and willful enough to go after it, even if it requires a curtsy.

Have you heard about the coup? There actually was one, but not the coup ballyhooed by Donald Trump. The real “coup” started long ago in a barely noticed manner; it triggered the quiet rise of authoritarianism which now animates Trump’s presidency. Amanda Taub laid it out in The Rise of American Authoritarianism. The 2016 article (prior to Trump’s election) is both prescient and sobering. It deserves a more thorough reading than what’s summed up in the following quick takeaways:

The authoritarian profile is characterized by the desire for order and a fear of outsiders. It looks for a strong leader who promises necessary action to protect from outsiders and prevent feared changes.
Authoritarian personalities are drawn to the clearest and loudest authoritarian voice.
Covert authoritarian personalities (latent authoritarians) can be moved to overt authoritarian behavior.
The authoritarian personality increasingly sorts into the Republican Party (law and order and traditional values).
Authoritarians and latent authoritarians compose a large enough bloc to be politically powerful.
The authoritarian personality is not a new or Trump phenomenon; it will endure.

Religious institutions have authoritarian roots and thus provide low hanging fruit for aspiring autocrats (especially when spiritual morality has the depth of a bumper sticker). Taub’s article provides inference of a religious component, but falls short of citing its paternalistic tradition and devotion to dogma and prophecy as instrumental in forging an authoritarian profile (ex. Why Trump Reigns as King Cyrus). It does go far, though, in explaining and describing what’s seen in American politics today. It also sheds light elsewhere. There’s instability and much to fear around the globe: immigration, economic turmoil and disparity, religious/social upheaval, climate change, famine, and the ever present reality of violence and war. It’s an opportune time for the rise of authoritarian and despotic leadership that we see arising throughout the world.

“The Rise of American Authoritarianism” article shows that authoritarian personalities have slowly sorted into the Republican Party over the last fifty years. That bloc now seems to have reached a controlling influence: 55% of surveyed Republicans scored high or higher on the article’s authoritarian scale. In blunt terms, half a century ago the party began the process of culturing authoritarian minded voters that now dominate the Republican electorate (and consequently, its primary elections). More and more Republican representatives sent to Washington (or elsewhere) are apt to be sympathetic (or owing) to authoritarian values. The profound result of all this is the election of a president who cultivates authoritarian passion. Perhaps more ominous, though, is a contingent happening: court appointments. Court nominations at all levels are ideally chosen as vectors of impartiality. Everyone knows the opposite is true: candidates are chosen that appear most likely to express perceived bias in future judicial proceedings. Trump and the Republican Party are shaping the judicial system accordingly: two appointments to the Supreme Court (a third is likely) and record setting confirmations of judges to federal appeals courts. They won’t all, of course, perform as expected, but a general bias will take place beyond the expected conservative/liberal slant: with or without awareness, throughout the court systems, decisions will be made that reflect sympathy with authoritarian ideals. The judges will be in place for decades and their decisions much longer. Each one of those sympathetic decisions will pave the way for future authoritarian inroads.

It doesn’t take all that much representation to determine our country’s direction. Somewhere between 50% and 60% of eligible voters cast ballots in presidential elections (about 40% for midterms). Combining the two, perhaps roughly half of all eligible voters are shaping political destiny. In 1992 Ross Perot, a third party candidate, received nearly 20% of the popular vote. That was an anomaly; third party votes generally have significance only as spoilers in close races between the two major parties (Republican and Democrat). Usually the winning presidential candidate receives roughly half of all votes cast. Because nearly half the country takes a pass on Election Day, the winning candidate receives about half of a half (one quarter) of potential votes. Within each party are factions vying for political influence. To gain dominance, a faction need only appear to represent half (or even less) of perceived party supporters. If that party wins, it means roughly half of a quarter (one eighth) of the eligible voting population may dominate in determining national direction. That’s all it takes. A president (and more) can be politically empowered by as little as an eighth (or less) of the voting population. In the face of voter apathy, an energized eighth of the American electorate can democratically nudge the country down the slippery slope to authoritarianism.

If it’s contended that Trump has neither the time nor the tools to actually push the country into irrevocable authoritarianism, it’s sobering to view what’s transpired in a short amount of time. To his political base and much of the Republican Party, Trump has quite successfully delegitimized the news media, the Department of Justice, political opposition, and judiciary constraints. Through all the fiascos of his first two years, Trump still enjoys Republican popularity and support. It’s not just how much he’s managed to do (or undo) in a short amount of time, but how little he’s had to do it with. He’s not the most gifted politician, but what if he was? Trump has demonstrated that an authoritarian base is here and ready to use. A tainted judicial system is in place; it will progressively soften to autocratic appeals over the coming years. What if one really gifted comes along: someone cunningly intelligent, someone with a coherent plan and political savvy, someone with charisma and charm?

Donald Trump didn’t create the wave, but he adeptly rides it. Fifty some years ago the old Republican Party sought to seduce and control the authoritarian personality. The seduction succeeded, but not the control; the old guard lost it. The new Republican Party is now home and voice to American authoritarianism. It won’t be silenced through an impeachment or a single presidential election cycle. It’s here for the long haul. Figure heads like James Comey and Morning Joe pundits portray Donald Trump as a larger than life puppet master, a maestro manipulating those around him into groveling postures of obsequiousness. The conjecture provides nearsighted assurance that Trump has a unique presence and those around him are uniquely weak: all will be better when Trump is gone. It’s dangerously complacent; it’s not seeing the forest for a tree.

They’re not at the gate. The authoritarians are in the castle. There’s no time left for wishful thinking or complacency.

Source URL