The last post held that much of modern life occurs at an arms-length for most US citizens. We have so distanced ourselves from the actual processes that govern our lives, that we must rely upon experts to fix problems. That procedure allows for greater expertise, but it also means that most people now must rely upon someone or some institutions with authority to make sure that everything moves seamlessly. I think that it is fair to say that one hundred years ago, most Americans were familiar with most sources of relevant authority: the local grocer, the local doctor, the mayor, the school committee, and most of their neighbors. Today, all these people and institutions are less connected to their localities, and most of our interactions are with anonymous people on the telephone or the internet.
Attenuated authority is difficult to assess, and becomes even more so if there are competing authorities. And most people lack the ability to make rigorous assessments. Just think about how people assess the veracity of their news sources. Is CNN reliable? Fox News? MSNBC? And over the last 8 years, Americans have been subjected to a withering barrage of criticisms about eacsh source. How does one go about finding a Medicare Supplement Plan? There are numerous insurance companies which want your business, but the plans are complicated, opaque, and, in many cases, misleading. Under such circumstances, many people will defer to someone they think is trustworthy to make the decisions for them.
We actually know a great deal about why people defer to authority. The Milgram experiment suggested that a commanding percentage of people would engage in activities that their senses and experience clearly indicate a high degree of harm to others. The Zimbardo prison experiment indicated that many people behave quite differently than expected when cast into roles that demanded harsh treatment of others. Erich Fromm’s desire to understand how the Holocaust could occur led to his superb work, Escape from Freedom. But the most compelling analysis of deference to authority is Dostoyevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. In one part of the book, Dostoyevsky imagines that Jesus returns to earth during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. The religious authority in Seville (The Grand Inquisitor) has Jesus arrested in order to prevent Jesus from undermining the authority of the Catholic Church. What follows is a monologue by the Inquisitor (Jesus says not a word in the excerpt) outlining a criticism of Jesus by giving people the freedom to choose between good and evil. The Inquisitor argues that the Church has corrected that error by taking away that freedom:
“No science will give them bread as long as they remain free, but in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us: ‘Better that you enslave us, but feed us.’ They will finally understand that freedom and earthly bread in plenty for everyone are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share among themselves. They will also be convinced that they are forever incapable of being free, because they are feeble, depraved, nonentities and rebels. You promised them heavenly bread, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race? And if in the name of heavenly bread thousands and tens of thousands will follow you, what will become of the millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will not be strong enough to forgo earthly bread for the sake of the heavenly? Is it that only the tens of thousands of the great and strong are dear to you, and the remaining millions, numerous as the sands of the sea, weak but loving you, should serve only as material for the great and the strong?”
The argument is straightforward: people will defer to authority when they feel vulnerable. This statement is similar to the Hobbesian state of nature: if you want power over a people, make them know fear. Our feelings of vulnerability are not unique, but they can be amplified, manipulated, and directed. The fears of the French after the Revolution led them to embrace Napoleon. The fears of the German people after World War I and the punitive terms of the Peace Treaty, made them embrace Hitler. The American people have not suffered similar calamities, but their sense of vulnerability is heightened by their inability to live out the American dream of the rugged individual. We are acutely aware of the fact that we have little direct control over some of the things that are necessary to survive in such a complicated, overly technological environment. The American people have become alienated because of the growing discrepancy between what they can and cannot explain and that uncertainty has made them susceptible to easy and direct answers.
Unfortunately, those easy and direct answers do not really address the real issues. It is undeniable that the American working class suffered a great deal due to globalization which sent many jobs to low-wage areas such as China. But the decisions that led to those job losses were not made by the government; they were made by private corporations whose job is to create profit for their shareholders. Attacking the government is purposely misleading. But the distraction does not end with attacking the government. Somehow, many people in America believe that their economic misfortunes are due to undocumented immigrants, or gay or transexual individuals, or diversity initiatives. The tactic is familiar to those who study historical and contemporary despots, and should be threadbare by now. But it seems as if it is still resonating all over the world as evidence by recent events in France, Germany, and the Netherlands.
The proper political response is to highlight the systems that lead to economic decisions that harm people. One should focus on the processes that allow the accumulation of wealth, such as the taxation rules, the disregard for markets overwhelmingly dictated by oligoplies, such a petroleum and agriculture, the willingness to tolerate the hiding of wealth in offshore banks, and the insane neglect of the global environment. Unfortunately, political decisions in the US now seem to be determined by unregulated campaign contributions. Elon Musk invested $280 million in the re-election of Mr. Trump; his wealth since 6 November has increased by about $200 billion–an obscene commentary on the state of democracy in the US.
World Politics News 