Donald Trump’s latest return to power has brought the horrifying reality of authoritarianism into stark relief. All this has generated critical conversations about its impact on our political discourse and societal priorities. For over 80 years, political psychologists have studied authoritarianism. Instead, these scholars have found out that it is a toxic stew of beliefs and habits that leaves people susceptible to the machinations of would-be authoritarian strongmen. This is a phenomenon that’s specifically obvious among the MAGA movement, where authoritarian followers have aggressive power.
Authoritarianism flourishes in an atmosphere of the fear of loss of traditional values. This fear may cause people to seek out authoritarian leaders who promise to bring back order and control. Authoritarian followers often exhibit three distinct tendencies: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Here’s how each of these characteristics explain their support for authoritarian figures like Trump.
Authoritarian submission describes a deep inclination to obey authority figures from within your ingroup. This blind loyalty quickly takes precedence over independent thought. This submission creates a culture of fear where dissent is seen as disloyalty, breeding an atmosphere of blind adherence among subordinates. Conversely, authoritarian aggression takes the form of a general disposition to aggress against norm violators. This tendency serves to both further entrench ideological groupthink and cow any would-be heretics, thus protecting the ideology from inconvenient questions.
Conventionalism represents the willful regression into acceptance of outdated, sometimes dangerous practices. Authoritarian followers are often very invested in these values and see any disobedience to them as a danger to social stability. Even people with a better grasp of the political landscape are very attached to the status quo. This alignment nevertheless often becomes a kind of embrace that radicalizes them toward conservative ideologies representative of authoritarian principles.
Interestingly, while authoritarian followers may seem resistant to progressive changes, they can paradoxically support prohibiting hate speech against minority groups. This indicates a nuanced perspective on cultural diversity. For instance, in multicultural contexts like Singapore, where authorities endorse a harmonious coexistence among various ethnic groups, authoritarian followers often embrace diversity as long as it aligns with their traditional values.
Perhaps most interestingly, the relationship between genetic predispositions and authoritarian inclinations helps explain why. The research indicates that identical twins are much more strongly bonded when it comes to authoritarianism. The relationship is more than five times stronger in monozygotic twins compared to fraternal twins. This genetic predisposition suggests that some people are more predisposed than others—biologically wired, if you will—to develop authoritarian attitudes. This inclination makes the discussion about partisanship even more difficult.
As historian Timothy Snyder cautions, it’s people who voluntarily open the door to authoritarianism. They surrender uncritically to these biases, allowing authoritarian regimes to get away with it. This voluntary participation raises questions about personal agency and the responsibility of citizens in safeguarding democratic values against encroaching authoritarianism.
The return of authoritarianism in modern politics requires us to better understand where it comes from and where it’s headed. By examining the psychological underpinnings and societal factors that contribute to its rise, scholars and citizens can develop strategies to counteract its influence. By promoting free expression and cultivating anti-authoritarian thinking, we can better prepare ourselves to reject authoritarian appeals and defend democratic values.
Leave a Reply