I recently noticed a Republican spokeperson blaming Charlie Kirk’s assassination totally on the ‘ruthlessness’ of left-wing values and on vitriolic Democratic rhetoric, while holding her own party utterly blameless. Such myopia always surprises me, though these sentiments really should not shock me in the least. Scapegoating, blaming others, is a hallmark of the rigid or ultra-right mindset. On the other hand, exploring reactions to the sad events associated with the Utah shooting may reveal insights into the MAGA mindset. So, let’s go!

One can go right to the wanna-be strongman himself to find the classic authoritarian response to any public tragedy  … blame your enemies. Jeff Timmers of Lincoln Square put Trump’s immediate response to the Kirk tragedy this way. “His oval office response to the assassination was pure authoritarian theater. With not a shred of evidence, Trump blamed his political opposition. He did not pause for facts, for law enforcement, for mourning. He reached for the strongman’s first tool: scapegoating. By blaming his enemies, he seeks to mobilize his followers, discredit his critics, and justify repression. This is not a new tactic. It is a well-worn script of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet … and now, unmistakably, Trump.”

Considering the meme above, can anyone really believe that the stock MAGA response has been little more than the time worn cynical  gamemanship long mastered by those of an authoritarian bent. Could our MAGA friends actually believe what they are saying or is it just more psychological projection? Perhaps they suffer from some sort of cognitive shortfall or have fallen prey to a kind of delusional thinking. The easiest answer to these queries lies with being afflicted with a mental pathology that makes being disingenuous far easier than for those burdened with an actual conscience.

Still, such conundrums got me thinking about the deeper sources of our current threat to national democracy. Why do our national leaders take glee in seeing the comity that once existed in our political fabric totally unravel? Why has American politics become a blood sport?

There is little doubt that civility and reason have been the first  victims of the recent push toward authoritarian rule. George W. Bush, while not a man of deep thought, occasionally hits a high note. On the 20th anniversary of 9-11, he said the following, “… a maligned force seems at work in our common life that turns disagreement into argument, and every argument into a clash of cultures. So much of our politics has become a naked appeal to anger, fear, and resentment.” He went on to add the following. “There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists at home and abroad. But in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our duty to confront them.”

No one epitomizes this foul spirit noted by Bush (the son) more aptly than Stephen Miller, Trump’s Chief of Staff and inspiration behind the administration’s mass deportation thrust, otherwise known as ethnic cleansing. In response to the Charlie Kirk assassination by a young, white man from a MAGA supporting family, Miller lashed out at his (and Trump’s) enemies with rather extreme language even by the low to non-existant standards of the MAGA crowd: “There is an ideology that has been steadily growing in this country which hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and which celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved. It is an ideology at war with family and nature. It is envious, malicious, and soulless. It is an ideology that looks upon the perfect family with bitter rage while embracing the serial killer with tender warmth. Its adherents organize constantly to tear down and destroy every mark of grace and beauty while lifting up everything monstrous and foul. Its an ideology that leads, always, inevitably and willfully, to violence … violence against those (who) uphold order, who uphold family, who uphold all that is noble and virtuous in the world. It is an ideology whose one unifying thread is the insatiable thirst for destruction.”

Wow, who are these demons? Should I go out and finally buy a gun? Is Stephen talking about Fascists, Marxists, Islamic Jihadists? No, he is referring to people like me, like you, and like all my retired professional friends who yet believe in democracy, compassion, and civility. The ideology he rails against are those labeled as woke in MAGA circles … merely those gentle souls who seek a fairer and more equitable society where everyone has a chance to succeed. He is talking about those who actually appreciated Christ’s message as a moral teacher.

His rant, reflective of the instinctive, knee-jerk MAGA response to the Kirk assassination, contradicts the findings of a DOJ report issued just last year. That document stated clearly that, since 1990, far-right extremists were responsible for far more ideological-motivated homicides than the far-left or even Islamic extremists. It might be noted that the report was deleted from the DOJ website shortly after the Kirk incident. It failed to support the administration’s propoganda push.

Miller, of course, is the architect behind recasting ICE as a contemporary version of Hitler’s Gestapo. In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect blessed the Los Angeles immigration raids that swept up people who looked Latino, spoke Spanish, and worked those low wage jobs typically avoided by native white Americans. Speaking for the minority of justices opposed to this decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded as such. “We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work in a low-wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” She is trying to remind the court of long held principles, like probable cause, steps embedded in the Constitution to protect the basic rights of people. She, and her two progressive colleagues, are waging a hopeless fight to keep America as a nation of laws.

In my prior blog, I argued that we have always had an authoritarian tendency in America, despite being considered a laboratory for democracy and freedom. Aside from George Washington (see prior blog), one of his later political opponents (James Madison) also argued in the Federalist Papers arguing for ratification of the Constitution that extremist political factions could arouse partisan passions and possibly threaten our emerging and yet fragile Republic. One thing the Founding Fathers agreed upon was the need to avoid a return to authoritarian rule, such as a renew form of monarchy or any similar strongman rule.

However, let us next look at what is considered an authoritarian outlook? Well, it is a perspective that values order over liberty, hierarchy over equality, tradition over change, rigidity over innovation, obedience over participation, loyalty over individuality, and certainty over nuance. Real Democracy, when practiced (and which took a long time to mature in America) challenges the authoritarian outlook. It is inclusive, messy, uncertain, and very difficult to effect and sustain. Thus, authoritarians prefer a more hierarchical, top-down form of governance that values stability and predictability.

Authoritarians,  and their designated leaders, often seek to master the elemental instruments of control: the bureaucracy, the military, internal security,  the legal system, higher education, the media, election protocols, and the civil society or culture. Even a cursory review of Trump’s second term is a classic example of authoritarian usurpation of these essential systems. Make no mistake, his purpose is to institute permanent MAGA rule, thus ending the American experiment.

Perhaps a brief comment on where authoritarianism creeps into overt mental illness is in order. Most dimensions of human belief and behavioral tendencies lie on a spectrum. Authoritarian personalities, in the extreme, can border on various forms of psychopathy. Think of Steve Miller, Steve Bannon, the late Charlie Kirk, several cabinet members (Pete Hegseth or Robert Kennedy Jr.). Such individuals, and many others in the Trump’s immediate orbit appear to have psychopathic traits … either in the form of malignant narcissism, apparent sociopathic tendencies, or outright psychopathy. Let us peek at each of these.

Narcissism (especially of the malignant variety) is revealed as a constant need for praise and recognition. Most of us have ego needs to some extent. But a few have such compelling and overwhelming needs in this regard that the afflicted individual cannot empathize with the legitimate needs or perspectives of others. Their world centers on themselves. Witness Trump turning cabinet meetings into childish gatherings in which each official is expected to heap egregious praise on his excellency.

Still, normal narcissists can feel some remorse when confronted with their extreme behaviors. Those with a malignant form of the condition, however, likely are evidencing borderline sociopathic or psychopathic traits.

Sociopathic individuals have zero regard for ordinary societal rules that govern interpersonal relations. They take pleasure in being manipulative, even aggressive to the point of inflicting pain or harm on others. When things go wrong, they blame those same others though, in some cases, can appreciate their own culpability. Unlike those afflicted with psychopathy, there is little evidence that this condition is hard wired. There might be more nurture than nature in this affliction.

Psychopaths represent the extreme form on this spectrum though, admittedly, it is not always easy to separate one condition from another. However, the true psychopath has no empathy for others. They literally cannot feel what others experience. Thus, they cannot form relationships, though they can be charming and fake superficial forms of attachment. At their core, they have a meanness that is incalculable, spilling over into outright joy at inflicting pain on others.

Psychopathy is more of an innate trait (nature over nurture), often identifiable from distinctly different developments in the amygdala and other parts of the brain. People are born as psychopaths. Steven Miller seems to possess all the classic traits though he is far from the only one who does at the top of the Trump circus.

Of course, most of Trump’s base support do not possess any of these overt mental diseases, at least we hope that’s the case. For more insights into the typical MAGA cultist, let us look at the work of Political scientist Mathew MacWilliams who has researched and written extensively on the topic of authoritarianism.

He notes that there has always been an embedded attraction to strongman rule in America. A. Palmer Mitchell used his government position to launch the so called Palmer raids at the end of WWI, anticipating today’s ICE raids by slightly over a century. He hoped to first exploit and then ride a growing fear of Bolshevism straight into the White House but never achieved enough name recognition to do so. Huey Long of Louisiana achieved name recognition during the great depression but was assassinated before he could do serious national harm. Various American neo-nazi groups (the Silver Shirts, the German-American Bund, other neo-Nazis) espoused the virtues of strongman rule until the attack on Pearl Harbor changed all. Senator McCarthy from Wisconsin tried to ride the post WWII Red scare to prominence but fell short in light of his advancing alcoholism before totally imploding.

Based on his extensive survey work, MacWilliams notes that between 35 and 40 percent of the U.S. population agree with the statement … ‘we need a strong leader who pays no attention to Congress or the Courts.’ This is a core sentiment embedded in the authoritarian personality. In the 50s and 60s, those with such authoritarian tendencies were distributed across the parties and, as a consequence, had no political base from which to do much harm. But the political and ideological realignment during the post-civil rights era irrevocably changed all that.

Three other factors are associated with the visible rise of authoritarianism we see fully expressed by the Trump era. First is the scale of communications. Contemporary social media platforms permit the almost instantaneous communication of views across like minded groups without the moderating influence of major centrist venues. These niche outlets permit the like minded to communicate with one another absent contradictory input. Remember that Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propoganda chief, sought to place cheap radios in every German home to spread the pernicious Nazi message.

Second, we have the phenomenon of demographic succession. All generations have somewhat common, though unique, experiences that they share. Old farts like me can recall times when government did good things … ended the depression or defeated Fascism or improved the nation’s infrastructure. Their (our) memories lead them (us) to a deeper faith in democratic impulses. The younger generation grew up in a world that distrusted government and most large institutions, where political lying or chicanery was routinely revealed, and where economic inequality spiraled and social opportunities seemed to diminish. Not surprisingly, there are dramatically different attitudes toward authoritarian rule across generations. While 65 Percent of old farts like me express a strong affinity for democracy, only 24 percent of today’s youth evidence similar sentiments.

Finally, there is a strategy called the path-dependent or critical path process to be considered. The current administration has blatantly, and without adequate resistance, employed obvious differential rewards to favor friends and punish enemies. No politician has threatened so called enemies as outrageously and effectively as Trump. Just ask the Presidents of our top Universities. Or ask the Board of the iconic New York Times that has been hit with a $15 billion dollar libel suit by Trump merely for printing all the news that’s fit to print, including items unfavorable to our dictator wanna-be. Not since John Adam’s infamous Alien and Sedition Act at the end of the 19th century has an administration sought to so transparently punish political opponents, though John was far less effective in doing so.

If today’s authoritarianism starts with a natural base of some 35 to 40 percent of the population, then these ancillary processes will quickly expand the base to a majority, or nearly so at least. Absent some countervaling set of circumstances or adverse political head winds, democracy in America will soon be spoken of only in the past tense.

In my head, I keep going back to the apochryphal Ben Franklin story. When asked by a curious bystander what form of government the founding fathers had created, he replied “a republic, if you can keep it.’ Now we face the severest test of his condition … if we can sustain it against today’s unrelenting attacks.

There are many hypotheses being raised to explain the rise of Trumpism. Some are quite reasonable, like the hollowing out of the middle class, the destabilizing rapid pace of change in contemporary society, the loss of inherent hegemony among white nativists, or rising inequality and perceived loss of social mobility. These, and many others, have merit. But I would not rule out an explanation based on basic flaws inherent within the American character. Perhaps this is what is meant by the phrase American exceptionalism. That is, we have a tendency to be exceptionally bat-shit crazy.

🥴😵‍💫😥