Kissing The Whip: Electoral Politics And The Authoritarian Personality.

Sure To Rise? The rather alarming conclusion of a recent Politico article by Matthew MacWilliams 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. 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.”

 

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.

 

This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Wednesday, 24 February 2016.

Authoritarian Labour: Why Kelvin Davis Needs To STFU - Right Now!

One Angry Man: For a person who attaches so much importance to the concept of "respect", it's a pity Kelvin Davis seems utterly incapable of respecting other politicians and parties on the Left. If Labour continues to behave as if it has no need of allies, it's chances of winning the election are nil.
 

DAVID, MATT, SOMEBODY – PLEASE! Tell Kelvin Davis to pull his head in. His outburst on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report this morning was way beyond embarrassing. The ill-considered slagging of Hone Harawira and the Internet-Mana Party (IMP) not only reflected poorly on his own political skills, but it also raised doubts about Labour’s overall ability to read what is happening in the run-up to 20 September.

 

It wasn’t just the absence of any semblance of strategic – or even tactical – understanding that was so worrying about Davis’s performance this morning, it was his barely concealed aggression. There is an anger in Davis that calls into question his suitability for any kind of public office. Anger, and what appears to be a classic authoritarian character structure (the two often go together).

 

Just listen to how he describes his family in the potted biography Labour has displayed on its website. Davis tells us that he is “married with three beautiful, intelligent and respectful children”. It’s the use of the word “respectful” that gives him away. Such a public declaration of the importance Davis attaches to the concept of respect is a very telling character marker. It tell tells us a lot about his personality and where he most likely fits on the Left-Right/Authoritarian-Libertarian grid.

 

My guess is that he occupies a position that places him towards the Authoritarian end of the Authoritarian-Libertarian gradient and on the right of the Left-Right spectrum. He is very far from being the first Labour MP to be so located. Indeed, it would have been impossible for the Clark-led Government to have introduced so many pieces of reactionary Corrections and Justice legislation without the presence of a solid rump of such individuals in Labour’s caucus.

 

The authoritarian character structure does not, however, confine its political influence to law and order issues. Authoritarians tend to be threatened by just about any form of behaviour which deviates from what they define as “normal”. If required to do so they will tolerate “deviant” behaviour and life-styles, but their toleration should never be mistaken for acceptance. In the company of trusted “normal” colleagues, their true feelings will be aired – and seldom in a tolerant or accepting way!

 

The other give-away contained in Davis’s biography is his almost total reliance on education as a means of lifting families out of poverty. “Kelvin is passionate about improving outcomes for Maori and believes education is the vehicle that will enable Maori to fulfil their aspirations.” While no one can sensibly dispute the role education plays in enabling social mobility, when it is held up by politicians as a universal panacea, then their advocacy usually merits closer scrutiny.

 

Does Davis believe education is the Maori people’s best hope because, liberally interpreted, education draws forth from every individual both the self-knowledge and the self-confidence needed to live a full and self-determined life? Or, does he measure the value of education in terms of its ability to inculcate the social, political and economic values of those who control capitalist societies like our own? And because this latter type of education turns out individuals who are “fit for use” by those whose business it is to use them?

 

My concern is that Davis belongs in the second camp. How else should we interpret the statement that: “He believes that Treaty settlements are but the cream on the cake, and not the cake itself - he believes that education is that path that Maori need to take to enable us all to achieve greater health, wealth and happiness.”?

 

Surely this is an assimilationist view of Maori development? And isn’t the word “education” being used here by Davis as a sort of code for “equipping Maori for a place in the world that global capital is daily reconfiguring”? Is he not lining up alongside those who insist that Maori cultural identity is best relegated to a subsidiary, “off duty”, status? That Maori are best advised to let the sugared cream of monetary compensation, via the Treaty settlement process, obliterate the bitter taste of their people’s defeat and dispossession?

 

If this is, indeed, Davis’s view, then his barely concealed aggression towards Hone Harawira is readily explained. Not only is Harawira’s warrior persona an affront to the former intermediate school principal’s sense of order, but Harawira’s vision of a decolonised – an emancipated – Maoridom, is diametrically opposed to Davis’s vision of a New Zealand in which the well-paid servants of global capital might just as well be Maori as Pakeha.

 

Bluntly stated, Hone stands for everything Kelvin despises. Moreover, in the eyes of this angry representative of authoritarian Labour, the IMP can only be seen as a deeply subversive assault upon neoliberal capitalism’s core ideological values.

 

And what can Davis possibly make of Kim Dotcom? A highly successful capitalist who refuses to take the power of money seriously? A capitalist who plays with his money, makes merry-hell with it, and, now that the Powers-That-Be have come after him with armed policemen and extradition orders, is using it to carve a path to power – using Hone Harawira, Laila Harre, Annette Sykes and John Minto as his hammers and chisels.

 

Labour needs to decide – and quickly – if the authoritarian Davis really is the very model of a modern Labour MP that he (along with many others in the party and the news media) sees himself as representing. If he is, then it will be war in Te Tai Tokerau and throughout the country, and John Key will win the election. If he is not: if Labour wants to be seen as something more than an aggressive hard-man bereft of all strategic and tactical understanding; then someone has got to make Kelvin Davis STFU – right now!

 

A version of this essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Friday, 30 May 2014.