James Bohland

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares139 Views

    American Democracy: We Have Misread the Signs of the Coming Storm

    by

    The January 6 storming of the US Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election has left many of us pondering the future of democracy in the United States. The symbol of American democracy withstood the onslaught this time, but the question remains whether the rule of law, free elections and a free press will prevail, or whether the country will succumb to the whims of mob rule and authoritarianism? The outcome of the second impeachment trial of former President Trump on charges of insurrection will shape the answer to that question.

    We have watched the rise of authoritarianism in Poland, Hungary, Brazil and other former democratic regimes, assuming that our institutions and our Constitution were too strong to be compromised by right-wing populist movements. Looking back over the past five decades, it is clear we missed or misread the signs of the coming storm.

    Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

    READ MORE

    Beginning with Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy,” to Ronald Reagan’s “government is the problem,” to the acceleration of neoliberalism and globalization under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to the rise of the Tea Party during the Obama administration, the threads of extremism were being woven into the tapestry that Trump donned in 2016. This underlying malaise became the core of the movement that erupted in insurrection on Capitol Hill.

    Knowing the history of its evolution does not explain why the passions associated with each of these threads created a violent revolt. One author who was particularly prescient on this question is Eric Hoffer, sometimes called the working man’s philosopher. Writing not from the ivory tower of an elitist, but from his working-class background, in 1951, he articulated in “The True Believer” what has been described as the best analysis of the origins of fanatical or extremist movements. Two points are particularly salient in understanding Trumpism and today’s political environment.  

    .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
    .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
    .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
    -webkit-user-select: none;
    -moz-user-select: none;
    -ms-user-select: none;
    user-select: none;
    order: 1;
    color: #ffffff;
    font-weight: normal;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
    right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
    .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

    First, Hoffer writes, “though hatred is a convenient instrument for mobilizing a community for defense, it does not, in the long run, come cheap. We pay for it by losing all or many of the values we have set out.” The language of the extreme right has become more vitriolic as individuals become caught in the information vortex of social media. In the echo chambers on the internet, ideas become overwhelmed by angry rhetoric demonizing those who have legitimate differences on issues.

    The vocabulary of dissent becomes more hateful, a rigid us-versus-them construct is formed, and a collective narcissism fed by a narcissistic leader emerges based on a sense of aggrievement. Differences become reasons for a “war” or a “battle” to reclaim control of the future so that it will resemble the past. The language of war cheapens the values of democracy, which, while encouraging passionate stances on issues, requires resolution through thoughtful and respectful dialogue and the rule of law.

    The language for fomenting an insurrection has been there for all to read prior to the emergence of Trump as president, but as a nation, America ignored the warning signs, content that the future would advance securely without addressing the social fractures of its past. After all, we have been reassured by Francis Fukuyama that we are at the end of history. What we seem to ignore — what Hoffer recognized in 1951 — is that a leader with authoritarian tendencies can give shape to an insurrection movement by stoking the seething discontent and perceived injustices of the past, a leader with clearly definable traits. Hoffer’s enumeration of the required traits of such a leader is chilling for it describes Trump so clearly:

    “Exceptional intelligence, noble character and originality seem neither indispensable nor perhaps desirable. The main requirements seem to be: audacity and a joy in defiance; an iron will; a fanatical conviction that he is in possession of the one and only truth; faith in his destiny and luck; a capacity for passionate hatred; contempt for the present; a cunning estimate of human nature; a delight in symbols (spectacles and ceremonials); unbounded brazenness which finds expression in a disregard of consistency and fairness; a recognition that the innermost craving of a following is for communion and that there can never be too much of it.”

    Given what we know about President Trump’s character and leadership style and compare it to Hoffer’s list, his role in encouraging, throughout his time in office, what finally transpired on January 6 is not surprising — nor should his unprecedented second impeachment be. Now the challenge to secure a resilient democracy is to learn from our recent history. The outcome of the impeachment trial and the Republicans’ subsequent behavior will determine the resolve of our political system to thwart authoritarian passion. Democracy requires a Republican Party grounded in principles and policy rather than one guided by personalities, conspiracies and seditious impulses. 

    More broadly, how do we transform groups with collective narcissistic mentalities into proponents of deliberative democratic action? How do we stay alert to the ascent of autocratic leaders with the character flaws Hoffer has enumerated? If we do not address these two questions, the ashes of the Capitol Holl insurrection will be the foundation for future mass movements of violent political disruption. Maintaining a vibrant democracy in the United States requires vigilance and the recognition that exceptionalism does not make us invulnerable to the autocratic impulses of our past.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      A New Social Contract Amid a Crisis

      by

      The COVID-19 pandemic coincides with a worldwide movement toward more authoritarianism and fewer civil liberties — a movement that has been going on for some time, well before the outbreak. Populism, conspiracy theories, disinformation campaigns, right-wing political extremism and the rise of autocratic governments are not a new phenomenon. However, their convolution and combined speed, intensity and scale are unprecedented and have already led to a significant decline of legitimacy in governance, threatening the very foundation of modern human civilization.

      In this unfolding drama, COVID-19 has led to a new act, if not a climax — one that appears to catalyze and accelerate the preexisting tendencies toward undoing the social contract on which liberal democracies and other forms of legitimate governance are based.

      Europe’s Far Right Fails to Capitalize on COVID-19

      READ MORE

      This raises the important question of whether the social contract that is at the heart of any form of governance is threatened during periods of crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or global climate change. As such, the current pandemic may be instructive in revealing whether the tenets of legitimacy and democracy will be under siege when the fallouts from climate change intensify. Or, more generally, do existential threats provide rationales (or even legitimacy) for breaking the longstanding, implicit social contract between citizens and their government in constitutional states? Can we expect a slide toward more autocratic tendencies within existing constitutional democracies as future threats become real? These questions are universal but particularly timely as the US election rapidly approaches.

      The Shift to the Extreme Right

      A global drift toward authoritarianism has been occurring ever since Francis Fukuyama proclaimed “the end of history” after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union imploded. Throughout history, the transformation to autocratic governance was typically accomplished via a coup or revolution, whereas the contemporary shift to more authoritarian rule has occurred incrementally and within liberal democracies. Indeed, many of the institutionalized pillars of legitimacy and democracy — free speech and press, open and fair elections, independent and apolitical justice systems, and personal freedoms — today are assailed as unnecessary or counterproductive, and as relics of a system that is to be turned over, as was the case in Germany in 1933.

      The last two decades’ shift to the extreme right has been accomplished by a fateful coupling of authoritarian predispositions with populism and anti-science narratives, two other 21st-century phenomena. This fusion has had a myriad of implications for countries’ pandemic responses and bodes poorly for responsiveness to climate change outcomes.

      Embed from Getty Images

      As we noted in an earlier op-ed on Fair Observer, that fusion has contributed to the rejection or selective acceptance of scientific “facts,” adding confusion to public health measures taken by governments, particularly in the US, the UK and Brazil. Also, the nationalistic predispositions associated with populism have driven a wedge in efforts to build global collective action on COVID-19.

      This distrust in international organizations such as the World Health Organization or international vaccine coalitions has created a globally fragmented response to the coronavirus. Finally, populism encourages an “us-versus-them” mentality when the converse is required for a pandemic or any global existential threat — that is, a unity of spirit and collaboration based on trust, not transactional benefits. 

      Whether democratic or authoritarian or hybrid systems respond more effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic is not simple to say because few “pure” forms of either are left. Today, the categorization of a regime is not binary, for the delineation between “democratic” and “authoritarian” is progressively blurred. Some countries appear to have recently drifted away from democratic governance toward more authoritarian and, in some cases, anti-democratic rule.

      Despite the absence of empirical data, a recent study of COVID-19 tests per 1,000 people observed that both select European countries and states like Qatar and Bahrain exhibited high levels of performance. The poor showing of some “democratic” nations like the US and Brazil may be because — as Ivan Krastev notes in a recent New York Times article — Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro have been unable to expand their authority during the crisis as they have not leveraged the fear of the pandemic in ways they did in the context of immigration or political unrest. In both countries, COVID-19 has been viewed more as a threat to maintaining their political base than to public health.

      The Right Response

      Responses to catastrophic events such as the pandemic, Hurricane Katrina, the Lisbon earthquake or the California wildfires do require strong executive leadership — wearing masks, banking the levees, evacuating neighborhoods, etc., actions that save lives. But where is the line between strong executive action and autocratic governance? The tipping point along that line is when the fundamentals of the social contract become breached.  

      It is possible to have executive authority in disruptive events and temper a government’s inclination to extend its power in a non-legitimate manner. Germany has been praised for its response to COVID-19, which has been surprisingly decentralized and led by federal states and counties. Allaying fears of creeping authoritarianism requires that a government’s crisis behaviors be continuously checked on the basis of seven fundamental political norms:

      1) Requiring executive authority to be transparent, social contract-based and held accountable for end results
      2) Requiring mutually agreed upon collaborations between diverse scales of governance and decision-making — national, state, region and local 
      3) Using court systems, investigative non-biased media and NGOs to monitor, expose and prevent actions and decisions made solely to secure political gains and establish authoritarian rule
      4) Creating mechanisms for effective input from legitimate citizen groups such as citizen councils, nonprofits like the Red Cross, faith communities and neighborhood associations to create democratic involvement in resilience building
      5) Recognizing disparities and unfairness in how diverse groups or individuals are impacted by command decisions and make appropriate adjustments to ensure equitable resource allocations
      6) Relying on trusted sources of information and evidence-based science for all decision-making, and vigorously disavowing incorrect and biased information 
      7) Recognizing that global support can and should be networked to abate crisis conditions (these networks must be constructed on the basis of mutual respect and interests and not transactional gains)

      New Social Contract

      Major global crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, pose enormous risks and challenges to humanity, but they also come with opportunities. This is the hour for a renewal of the idea of the social contract — an agreement of everyone with everyone to protect and further the common good — based on the principles of truth, equality, shared responsibility, solidarity and legitimacy.

      The concept of the social contract is foundational to governance. Yet it is seen by some as antiquated, not in alignment with contemporary neoliberal ideology where contractual terms are transactional in nature. Still, the relationships between citizens and governments that sustain legitimate and democratic tenets through times of crises — be it a pandemic or the risks associated with climate change — require an understanding of the “glue” that binds us together as nations.

      Much will depend on our ability to reestablish that “glue.” If we succeed, the outcome will be a more resilient society. If we fail, chaos will reign.

      *[This article was submitted on behalf of the authors by the Hamad bin Khalifa University Communications Directorate. The views expressed are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the university’s official stance.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More