Dissident Politics: MAGA builds an American totalitarian state

In a 2019 post I wrote about how Hannah Arendt describes totalitarianism, Adam made two detailed comments. Adam is intimately familiar with Arendt's 1951 book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. I copied both comments and fed them to Pxy to summarize. I then asked Pxy if what djt and MAGA elites are doing fits at least reasonably well with the structure an power flow of totalitarianism. Pxy said yes, it fits.

Apparently, the unease and sense of dread I started feeling rather acutely in the last few weeks may be due to a more more malicious and cruel vision of what MAGA elites are planning, whether djt is aware of it or not. I thought they were intent on building a somewhat benign kleptocratic dictatorship tinged with kleptocratic plutocracy for the elites and bigoted kleptocratic theocracy for the Christian nationalists.

I now think our situation is a lot worse than barely tolerable lust for wealth and power. I now see MAGA as forcing a vicious, cruel, intolerable wealth and power state. In essence, djt is setting himself up as an American variant of Hitler or Stalin. I suspect he does not know it yet and probably never will. I still think he is too stupid and self-centered to see this. In my opinion, that's in large part because his arrogance and narcissism blinds him to what MAGA elites really want. They see djt as expendable.

Here is part of Adam's 1st comment:

Probably the best example of this, if you were looking at the Trump Administration, is how someone like Elon Musk is considered over someone like Linda McMahon. Ms. McMahon's office gives her far more formal power than Elon Musk. And yet, it seems clear that Elon Musk is far more on the "inside" than Linda McMahon, who seems very much on the "outside" of power. Marco Rubio has a lot of formal power accorded to him by the Constitution. But he strikes me as very much outside of power compared to someone like Tom Homan, who technically works under Rubio. I could be completely wrong about these relationships, because it is in the nature of totalitarianism to be rather opaque about its internal structure when seen from the outside. And by "outside," this is the relative outside, compared to the next layer of the "inside" you are adjacent to.

At the heart of this structure is, as rightly described, the Leader. But I think it is important to understand that the Leader, for Arendt, is both the most important figure of the totalitarian regime and the least important. He can be replaced at any time. In fact, it almost becomes necessary at some point that he be replaced. Because when the contradictions mount up, and the reality becomes too intolerable, the best way to keep everything moving is to install a new leader, and blame the problems on the old leader.

Here is the Pxy analysis:

PERPLEXITY

Q1: Summarize Adam's comments, copied from the blog post. (Too long to post both comments here)

A1: Understanding Arendt's Totalitarian Structure: A Summary of Commentary on Chapters 10-11 of "The Origins of Totalitarianism"

The commentary [Adam's comments] provides an insightful analysis of Hannah Arendt's conceptualization of totalitarian structure and propaganda as described in chapters 10 and 11 of "The Origins of Totalitarianism." This summary examines the key elements of this interpretation and connects them to Arendt's theoretical framework.

The Spherical Structure of Totalitarianism

The commentator emphasizes that understanding Arendt's description of totalitarian structure in Chapter 10 is essential before grasping her analysis of propaganda in Chapter 11. Unlike traditional political systems with hierarchical pyramidal structures, Arendt conceptualizes totalitarianism as spherical, with power flowing from inside to outside rather than top to bottom^[1][2]. This organizational model resembles an onion with multiple layers rather than a flowchart, where one's proximity to the center determines real power regardless of formal position.

In this spherical model, a cabinet secretary might hold high formal office but remain on the "outside" of actual power. The commentator illustrates this with contemporary examples, suggesting how figures like Elon Musk might be closer to the "inside" of power than officials with greater constitutional authority like Linda McMahon or Marco Rubio.

The Leader's Paradoxical Position

At the center of this spherical structure sits the Leader, whom the commentator describes as simultaneously the most and least important figure. While the Leader projects an aura of infallibility while in power, they can be replaced when "contradictions mount up" with the new leader often blaming all problems on the predecessor^[2]. The example of Stalin illustrates this dynamic—revered during his lifetime but denounced by Khrushchev immediately after his death.

Propaganda and Front Organizations

The commentary clarifies a significant aspect of Arendt's theory: propaganda in totalitarian systems operates unidirectionally from inside to outside^[2]. It targets "the nontotalitarian strata of the population at home or the nontotalitarian countries at home." Rather than providing internal coherence as Orwell suggested, propaganda primarily serves to communicate with external audiences.

Totalitarianism creates demarcations between "in" and "out" groups, starting with the distinction between party members and sympathizers. The commentator explains how front organizations function as protective layers, each insulating the one inside from external scrutiny while normalizing it to the layer outside^[3].

The Dual Dynamic: Propaganda and Terror

The commentary identifies the dual mechanisms that maintain totalitarian control:

Propaganda flow: Moving from inside to outside, propaganda makes each layer appear normal to those in the outer rings
Terror dynamic: Operating in the opposite direction, terror keeps each layer in line through fear of those in the inner circles^[2][4]

The Nazi Example

To illustrate this structure, the commentator provides a detailed example using Nazi Germany, tracing relationships from Karl (a German-American in Chicago) to Fritz (a Nazi party member) to Otto (an SA member) to Konrad (an SS officer). Each layer protects those inside it while being controlled by them through terror. The example demonstrates how the front organizations work—each layer insulates the inner core while making it seem normal to those outside, creating a system where propaganda flows outward while terror flows inward.

Conclusion

This commentary offers valuable insight into Arendt's conception of totalitarian structure and its mechanisms of control. By emphasizing the spherical rather than hierarchical nature of totalitarianism, it helps explain how such regimes maintain power through the dual dynamics of propaganda and terror^[2][3]. The analysis highlights why traditional understanding of political hierarchy fails to capture the true nature of totalitarian power and provides a framework for recognizing similar patterns in contemporary political contexts.

⁂

Q2: Is what Trump and MAGA elites are doing in conformance with building a totalitarian state more or less in accord with how Arendt describes totalitarianism? Is it possible that Project 2025 and the 180 Day Transition Plan are a roadmap to a modern American totalitarianism?

A2: The alignment between Trump/MAGA initiatives and Hannah Arendt's analysis of totalitarianism reveals significant parallels in structure and methodology, though important distinctions remain. Drawing from Arendt's framework and current developments:

Structural Parallels with Totalitarian Systems

1. Spherical Power Structure
Project 2025's plan to replace up to 50,000 nonpartisan civil servants with political loyalists^[5][6][7] mirrors Arendt's concept of concentric power circles. This creates an "onion-like" structure where proximity to the leader—not formal titles—determines influence, insulating decision-making from institutional accountability.

2. Propaganda Dynamics
The Trump administration's reliance on disinformation (e.g., election fraud claims)^[8][9] and MAGA's media ecosystem exemplify Arendt's observation that totalitarian propaganda flows outward to non-core supporters. This external-facing narrative management aims to normalize radical policies to broader audiences while maintaining ideological purity within inner circles.

3. Terror Mechanisms
Plans to weaponize the DOJ against political opponents^[5][7] and deploy the Insurrection Act against dissent^[5][9] align with Arendt's "terror dynamic," where fear of inner-circle retribution enforces loyalty. The proposed "Election Crimes Branch"^[7] could institutionalize this terror by criminalizing routine political activity.

Key Components of Project 2025 as Totalitarian Roadmap

Arendtian Feature	Project 2025 Implementation	Source
Leader-centric hierarchy	Unitary executive theory expansion	^[5][10]
Institutional capture	Replacement of 50,000 civil servants	^[5][7]
Legal system subversion	DOJ politicization plans	^[5][6]
Paramilitary integration	Insurrection Act deployment proposals	^[5][9]
Reality distortion	Preemptive election fraud narratives	^[8][9]

Critical Divergences from Classical Totalitarianism

Institutional Resilience: While seeking to dismantle checks and balances^[5][10], U.S. institutions like an independent judiciary and free press still exist—for now. Arendt emphasized totalitarianism's requirement to destroy all mediating institutions.
Ideological Coherence: MAGA's mix of Christian nationalism, corporatism, and personal loyalty to Trump^[11][12][13] lacks the unified worldview Arendt identified in Nazi or Soviet ideologies. However, the Heritage Foundation's systematization through Project 2025^[6][14] suggests movement toward doctrinal consolidation.
Violence Scale: Current paramilitary collaboration (e.g., Proud Boys)^[8][9] remains less institutionalized than Hitler's SA or Stalin's NKVD, though the 180-Day Plan's security proposals^[6][7] indicate escalatory intent.

Modern Totalitarian Trajectory

The 920-page Mandate for Leadership and 180-Day Transition Playbook^[5][6] constitute a blueprint for what Arendt called "the substitution of the real will of the leader for the will of the people." Key risk factors include:

Bureaucratic Inversion: Converting civil service into a patronage system^[5][7], mirroring Nazi Gleichschaltung (coordination)
Legal Nullification: Proposed Schedule F executive order^[6] would enable rule-by-decree tendencies
Information Control: Plans to weaken independent media^[5] align with totalitarianism's requirement for reality domination

While full totalitarianism remains unrealized, the project's architects explicitly reference authoritarian models like Orban's Hungary and Erdogan's Turkey^[5][12]—regimes exhibiting what Arendt termed "totalitarian elements within non-totalitarian systems." The combination of spherical power structures, propagandistic reality-building, and institutional demolition creates conditions matching Arendt's warning: "The most important qualification of a mass leader has become unending infallibility; he can never admit an error."^[8][9]

In conclusion, Project 2025 operationalizes several core Arendtian totalitarian mechanisms through modern governance tools. While lacking the explicit mass violence of 20th-century regimes, its systemic dismantling of constitutional safeguards and institutional capture strategies follow the pattern Arendt identified—transforming democracy through gradual "coordination" rather than sudden revolution^[8][5][10]. Whether this constitutes full totalitarianism depends on implementation rigor, but the structural parallels and stated intentions suggest it represents the most comprehensive attempt at authoritarian transformation in modern U.S. history.

⁂

Dissident Politics

Etiquette

Sunday, March 30, 2025

MAGA builds an American totalitarian state