Arguing with those you disagree with feels impossible these days. On this we all agree, although the diagnosis of the problem varies widely: hyperpolarisation of the polity, social media anonymity and silos, snowflakism raising the stakes, etc.
But what if the real problem is that some citizens — perhaps up to 25% — have no interest in arguing, well or otherwise? What if they don’t care about the preservation or success of the democratic forms of governance of which such civilised debate is a hallmark, and that it supports? Instead they have other ideas about how to solve disagreement. Like humiliating, standing over, repressing or — when all else fails — simply blowing those they consider foes away?
Welcome to the authoritarian voter, a person whose primal needs have been reshaping American democracy since way back when, whose commitment to violence has made home-grown terrorism a persistent and evolving threat in the United States and whose grievances and rage are now being cultivated in Australia.
The key characteristics of authoritarian-leaning citizens are psychological and emotional, not rational. They include being more fearful than other voters and have a more profound need for sameness in the face of change. That’s why they’ll follow any “strong leader” who promises to reinstate order and punish the dastardly foes who frightened these submissives by challenging their privilege and/or black-and-white worldview.
It’s important to realise that while in the US, the UK and Australia authoritarian voters are right-wing, that’s not always the case. Consider Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro or the 80% of Russians who support Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal war of aggression against civilians in Ukraine.
In fact, leftist authoritarians comprised half of the 25% of Americans who recently told pollsters that they “definitely” or “probably” felt it justifiable to engage in violent protest against the government. It’s just that in a Biden-led America they are not the ones under threat right now, which is why the one in 10 who supported violence now to achieve their political aims are ideological conservatives. This figure of those endorsing violence to settle political differences rises to nearly one in five for Republican men.
Make no mistake. These figures are terrifying and testify more eloquently than words the clear and present danger to the American experiment with democracy. As one former Donald Trump security expert put it: “These are big numbers. I … can attest from a national security and public security standpoint that we‘ve never seen numbers like that … It’s not just a political issue. It is now a public safety issue.”
How did this happen? And more critically as we approach the federal election, what can Australians do to ensure our democracy doesn’t go the same way?
I’ve discussed many options in this column before. We must rely on mainstream parties to expel and otherwise marginalise would-be authoritarian strongmen like Trump, rather than think they can control them as the Republicans did. When these dangerous types show up on our ballot papers as independents, UAP or One Nation candidates, we voters must put them last and insist they come last in party-controlled preference flows, too.
The terrible truth is that submissive and fearful voters have been and will always be with us. After the pandemic, the desperate need for certainty at any cost — no matter how undemocratic — could become more pressing. We cannot find common ground because it is the common ground we used to have, our shared commitment to democracy, that their anxiety has seen them forsake.
We need to keep our commitment to shared governance front and centre in all that we do, and keep those with authoritarian tendencies — both politicians and those who would vote for them — well off the main stage.
Intrigued by the statement, ‘It’s important to realise that while in the US, the UK and Australia authoritarian voters are right-wing, that’s not always the case. Consider Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro or the 80% of Russians who support Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal war of aggression against civilians in Ukraine.’ Since when were Bolsonaro and Putin left-wing?
Thanks for the question. My point – and not an original one but rather one made by social scientists who study authoritarian voters – is that they can identify or be classified as left-wing. Russia is a communist autocracy as is China. Half of those close to violence in the USA vote democrat. ANTIFA and the radicals who kidnapped Patty Hearst identified as radical left.
While there are authoritarian left wing leaders, I don’t think either Bolsonaro or Putin qualifies. I also think Russia hasn’t been communist for many years and its hard to classify China as communist, even though it is ruled by the CCP.
Communist? Russia?
Not keeping up with current affairs or getting your phraseology from the Readers’ Digest Big Book of the Red Threat, ca. 1953?
Leslie, I normally agree with you, but when was the last time a Lefty went berserk with an AK47 in the US? And the Symbionese Liberation Army, like the Weathermen, haven’t been heard of for seventy years. A better example might be the Baader-Meinhof gang, still current into the ‘Nineties.
The traditional definition of left/right wing related to ownership of the means of production. So socialists (some state ownership) and communists (total state ownership eg Cambodia for a while) are left wing and extreme left wing. In that continuum right wing means those such as the Tea Party conservatives in the US who see no role for government – not hospitals, not education, not even defence forces The meaning has blurred to mean something akin to authoritarian, or even anyone in politics I don’t like. The confusion about meaning is a major impediment to political discourse.
In what world is Bolsonaro a left wing authoritarian leader? I don’t believe I even read that. He’s backed by evangelical Christians who are being supported by the far right evangelical movements in the US. He is an admirer of Trump. He is admired by Trump. He is admired by other far right leaders in other countries ie Hungary. His opponents are all left wing ie the former president, Lula de Silva. I am just gobsmacked you have even tried to assert this.
As for Putin being left, I think we know he’s not. Just because he was in a secret police force that supported a communist government doesn’t make him left wing.
There are other authoritarian governments around the world which are left wing, although far fewer than far right governments. Cuba comes to mind. But your examples are so absurd as to render your argument, which wasn’t very good anyway, pretty much pointless.
I note the framing “Putin’s brutal war of aggression” against Ukraine. At odds with Mearsheimer’s view and that of Chomsky, Jacques Baud Swiss intelligence, Col Black former JAG officer and Senator and other independent thinkers who have shown step by step how the CIA pushed for this war. If it doesn’t happen, no problem , if it does jackpot! Russia’s new Afghanistan. Shame about the Afghans ( sorry Ukrainians) but that’s war for you. Leslie you missed another favoured framing “unprovoked aggression “. In fact Chomsky did a google search and found that every western news outlet now uses this trope. Millions of hits. But checking unprovoked in the Iraq situation only a few thousand. Funny that. I keep hoping for more from Crikey. Russia evil, Putin power mad narcissist, etc., I can get from any Murdoch/Costello rag. Smarten up. Someone at least try to tell both sides of this war.
You have little chance of reading anything that doesn’t show Ukraine in the best possible light. It doesn’t fit the Western narrative.
Excellent comment, but Crikey is sticking to ‘the script’. The obscene amount of US$ now being funnelled into Ukraine, with zero accountability, is beyond comprehension.
Provoked to some extent (as I believe) or not, it’s still “Putin’s brutal war of aggression”. Which of those words is incorrect? It was undoubtably Putin’s choice as he is the undisputed leader of Russia, it’s brutal at the very least in the way that all wars are (arguably more than some), and it’s agression by definition to invade a sovereign nation.
As Mearsheimer and others have pointed out, NATO refused to acknowledge Russia’s concerns about NATO being an existential threat to Russia and, in fact, dismissed Russia’s concerns out of hand. It doesn’t matter what NATO thinks, it matters what Russia thinks as they are the ones who feel threatened (and have done so since 2008). Hence we are where we are.
NATO equally is at fault but “the West” continues to ignore its significant role in causing the “invasion” and are now supporting a Ukrainian Government that has now removed all Opposition to themselves and now is, in effect, a Dictatorship.
Is Putin really left wing? Those distinctions are losing their meaning.
Is Dan Andrews really an authoritarian leader?
Come to think of it, I’ve heard he’s a dictator.
Why worry? The West cozies up to “Authoritarian” governments whenever it suits them anyway so we should be used to it by now if it ever happens here. Even the Wests current poster boy, Zelenskyy, has removed all Opposition and used the Ukrainian version of the KGB to remove any opposition to his Government yet the West continues to support him.
Why would you expect American rubbish like this to not come to Australia? Everything else they have produced seems to make its way here!