Personalism: A probable model of modern tyranny

The current urge for a strongman that now grips the radical right Republican Party comes at a time when global democracy is weakening in the face of a continuous onslaught of authoritarianism. Some experts suggest that the current crop of demagogue dictators, theocrats and kleptocrats may not model their dictatorships on those that dominated the 1900s. 

Political scientists call these 

people personalist dictators[1]

Brookings writes about what appears to be a preferred model for modern anti-democratic authoritarians:

Beyond the most imminent foreign policy challenges facing the new administration looms a macro-trend that deserves attention: the rise of personalist “strongmen” authoritarian governments. 

Classic examples of personalist regimes include Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, and the Kim dynasty in North Korea. Yet less overtly repressive authoritarian regimes are progressing from consolidating power within their borders to projecting power beyond them. In Russia, for example, the centralization of internal power under Putin has taken place alongside adventurist foreign policies and military strategies in Ukraine, the near abroad, and in the Middle East.

Over the last decade, authoritarians have pushed back against the world’s prevailing democratic order. For the 11th year in a row, Freedom House has announced an overall drop in freedom worldwide. Most countries today (55 percent) are considered not free or partly free according to the civil liberties and political rights citizens enjoy. At the same time, highly personalized regimes are taking control of autocratic and even democratic political systems.

Compared to the Cold War era when powerful Communist and socialist parties presided over most dictatorships, today around 40 percent of autocratic governments are ruled by strongmen. Across regions, consolidated power is settling into the hands of one man or a small group of illiberal individuals, ranging from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and leaders in Ecuador, Venezuela, Hungary, and Poland.

Classifying this global trend is complicated by the fact that authoritarian governments in the 21st century do not look like Stalinist Russia or Fascist Germany. In the absence of mobilizing ideologies, modern autocratic leaders abuse and corrupt other sources of power, including those that we recognize in democratic systems such as political competition, the rule of law, public debate, and access to open information.

Moreover, autocrats have taken advantage of globalized communications and advanced technologies to maintain control over their populations. Governments have more elusive and powerful tools of monitoring, censorship, and disinformation available at their fingertips, allowing political leaders to move their instruments of persuasion from the pulpit to the digital space. Leaders in nations as varied as Russia, Turkey, the Philippines, and Venezuela have tapped into popular national narratives that highlight how their countries have been exploited by the United States and the West. These leaders then project their ability to stand up to such exploitation, which resonates with their populations.  

Personalist rule is just one distinct mold of autocracy. Other types of authoritarian systems include single-party regimes (where a strong party organization exercises some power over the leader) and military autocracies (in which one or several high-ranking military officers maintain centralized control). In comparison, personalist regimes concentrate power in the hands of one individual or a small group not accountable to the military or an institutionalized party. Personalist leaders have limited constraints on their decision making abilities and are held less accountable for policies, including those with negative outcomes. They are able to appoint friends, relatives, and cronies to important offices. These handpicked insiders have strong incentives to remain loyal to and uncritical of the leader. 

The Brookings article goes on to point out that recent research indicates that personalist authoritarians are the more likely to initiate conflicts abroad than democracies. They tend to pursue aggressive, risky foreign policies, making them unpredictable. Because personalist dictators have little limit on their power, and little or not accountability for success or failure, they can implement volatile policies with little notice or fear of retribution for failure.

The analysis considers personalist dictator traits. As a group, personalist dictators are ambitious, cut-throat and divisive. That drives them to be more aggressive internationally compared to democracies. Of course, some people will dispute that some democracies are not internationally aggressive. Personalist leaders appear too see lower costs of war than leaders of democracies or more limited autocracies with fewer aversions to force. Personalists do not feel or internalize the costs of war. They seem to view force as more effective than diplomacy or international cooperation. A lack of strong institutions that can punish the personalist for mistakes leaves lots freedom for violence and bad policies without adverse consequence. Finally, personalist leader enablers and subordinates are unwilling to challenge the leader’s personal biases. Profound groupthink and overestimation of the likelihood of victory is the typical result.

All of this sounds a lot like Trump and the radical right Republican Party. It adds context and reasoning to why radical right Republican elites are so smitten with Hungary’s personalist dictator Viktor Orban and what he did to convert that former democracy into a dictatorship.

Source

This analysis feels spot on. There is substance in this argument. We are probably not facing Nazism, fascism or communism. Instead, we are facing personalism.

Footnote:

1. That source comments:

Putin is what political scientists like us call a personalist dictator. The center of power in Russia is not a political party or the military. It’s him, personally. Strongmen’s choices are relatively unconstrained by these institutions. All power is thus concentrated in his hands, including, most notably, personal discretion and control over decision-making and appointments to state offices.

This is the type of dictator who causes much of modern global strife. They start conflicts with other nations, invest in nuclear weapons and repress their own citizens. In addition to Putin, notable examples from recent history include Moammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and three generations of North Korean leaders.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to PD for bringing this to my attention. 

On the continuing rise of Christian nationalism

I see Christian nationalism (CN) as a powerful aggressive, anti-democratic theocratic political movement. Its core goals are (i) more power and wealth for elites, (ii) subservience of everyone to wealthy White, heterosexual Christian males, and (iii) overt, legalized oppression of hated groups such as non-Christians, the LGBQT community and racial and ethnic minorities. Most conservatives and few radical right and hyper-radical right people (mostly Republicans and libertarians) see little or no significant threat to democracy, civil liberties, pluralism and secularism the CN movement constitutes.

As more people become aware of the staggering power the CN movement has and is now ruthlessly using, e.g., CN judges control the US Supreme Court, more attention is being paid. NPR writes on some alarming poll data about the breadth and depth of the CN movement in the US. The movement can no longer be dismissed as fringe and little or no threat: 

Long seen as a fringe viewpoint, Christian nationalism now has a foothold in American politics, particularly in the Republican Party — according to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institute.

Researchers found that more than half of Republicans believe the country should be a strictly Christian nation, either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21%) or sympathizing with those views (33%).

Robert P. Jones, the president and founder of the nonpartisan PRRI, has been surveying the religious world for many years now. Recently, Jones said his group decided to start asking specifically about Christian nationalism.

"It became clear to us that this term 'Christian nationalism' was being used really across the political spectrum," he said. "So not just on the right but on the left and that it was being written about more by the media."

Christian nationalism is a worldview that claims the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the country's laws should therefore be rooted in Christian values. This point of view has long been most prominent in white evangelical spaces but lately it's been getting lip service in Republican ones, too.

During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said party leaders need to be more responsive to the base of the party, which she claimed is made up of Christian nationalists.

"We need to be the party of nationalism," she said. "I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists."  

While a majority of Republicans currently either adhere to or sympathize with Christian nationalism, the survey found that this remains a minority opinion nationwide.

According to the PRRI/Brookings study, only 10% of Americans view themselves as adherents of Christian nationalism and about 19% of Americans said they sympathize with these views.  

Tim Whitaker, founder of The New Evangelicals, grew up in the church and now spends his life trying to detangle these kinds of views from the evangelical faith.

"We need to understand that the world of Christian nationalism largely rejects pluralism, which this study shows," he said. "Most Christian nationalists — either adherents or sympathizers — either agree or strongly agree with the notion that they should live in a country full of other Christians."  

According to the survey, adherents of Christian nationalism say they will go to great lengths to impose their vision of the country. Jones with PRRI said they found adherents are far more likely to agree with the statement: "true patriots might have to resort to violence to save our country."

"Now is that everyone? No. It's not everyone," Jones said. "But it's a sizeable minority that is not only willing to declare themselves opposed to pluralism and democracy — but are also willing to say, 'I am willing to fight and either kill or harm my fellow Americans to keep it that way.'"

As time passes, evidence the radical CN movement threat presents to democracy, civil liberties, pluralism and secularism continues to mount. It is easy to dismiss 10% as CN adherents and 19% as sympathizers as harmless pipsqueak. But pipsqueak could be potent sneak up and enough to kill our secular democracy. 

Think about it

Is that true?

What did Christianity start from?

Q: What are Christian values and how would they change the law, e.g., (i) require status as a Christian in good standing, whatever that means, as prerequisite for holding any elected office, and/or (ii)  impose a requirement that tax dollars pay for mandatory Christian public education?[1]

Footnote: 

1. CN dogma holds that White Christians should hold essentially all political power and secular public education should be 100% replaced with taxpayer funded fundamentalist Christian education. 

Quick note on radical right intolerance of inconvenient free speech

 A couple of weeks ago, I commented to a moderator at the Conservatively Speaking blog, asking if I could comment there. I said I was a pragmatic rationalist and an independent, not a conservative. The mod said sure you can post here, as long as you are civil. A few minutes ago, I finally screwed up the emotional will-power to make a comment in response to a different mod's comment. The post, link here,  was about former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lying about the Trump campaign-Russia collusion "hoax". When I wrote my comment and hit the Post as Germaine button I got this wonderful response:

I was banned! MAGA!!

My comment was this:

From what I can tell, lying is almost always protected free speech. That includes most lies by public officials, businesses, religious groups, etc. Also from what I can tell, these days, lying doesn't lead to hardly anyone's downfall. Who was the last politician to flame out because of lies? I can't recall, although there must have been some in the good old days when truth had some respect.

My comment was in response to this comment by the moderator Miss Jesse: 

Won't it be a glorious day when these liars finally get their comeuppance? They've always been the same. Generation after generation. Liars. But, these old tricks don't work any more. We're more savvy and have better information and ways to share it. Those old dogs can't learn new tricks. That will help lead to their downfall.

Welp, free speech fans, that now makes 9 out of 9 conservative sites that have banned evil Germaine for his respectful but inconvenient free speech. So when the radical right blithers about defending free speech, it is a load of crap. More lies from radical, tribal political ideologues who simply cannot handle inconvenient facts, truths and/or reasoning. I got banned for simply asking politely if I could comment.

Q: Is Germaine's canceled free speech track record impressive, or what?

I'm the champion!

News bits: The MSM becomes aware of the Supreme Court?; Anti-clean energy propaganda

The radicalized Supreme Court deserves no more deference than any other institution: An opinion that MSNBC posted is interesting. I think some folks are waking up to what the Supreme Court has become and how freaking much power it has. The opinion opines: 

Normally, attention on the Supreme Court peaks in June, when the biggest decisions of the term are generally released. But this year, despite a paucity of rulings, people are already paying close attention. Eyes are on the court long before the big decisions — which will include rulings in cases on race conscious admissions in higher education, student loan forgiveness, immigration, the First Amendment and civil rights laws, voting rights, and more.

The early scrutiny is of the court’s own making — through several years of questionable, and often partisan, actions. Many decisions from the court over that time, in its cases and otherwise, strongly reinforce the idea that Americans have a responsibility to treat — and, for journalists, to cover — the Supreme Court and justices no differently and no less skeptically than we would treat any other government body.

The Burwell decision, of course, preceded the recent years of high-profile, politicized activity from the court that began in late 2020 when Justice Amy Coney Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The shift was almost immediately obvious, when the court changed course in cases relating to Covid restrictions when the only real difference was who was voting in the cases.

And, then there was Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The decision overruling Roe v. Wade after nearly 50 years, the draft opinion that Politico published in May that preceded it, the leak investigation that followed, the leak investigation report that did not find a leaker and was unclear about how much the justices themselves were investigated, and the subsequent reporting from CNN that the “independent” reviewer of the leak investigation and report runs a firm that had done more than $1 million of security work for the court all meld together to present an almost impenetrable argument that treating the Supreme Court as different from any other government institution, let alone infallible, is completely unjustified.

As usual, one can expect two mostly opposing reactions from the left and right to arguments like this. The most of the left mostly agrees, and most of the right mostly disagrees. Some poll data backs that assertion. So does most political rhetoric from both sides, at least so far.

----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------

Radical right propaganda slanders clean energy: An opinion piece by Michael Bloomberg goes into some of the specific lies that the pro-pollution and/or anti-government radical right routinely deploys to slow clean energy growth as much as possible. Bloomberg's opinion was published in the Jan. 23, 2023 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek (posted in part at CleanTechnica). Here are the key points and lies:

• Polluters and pro-pollution ideologues routinely argue that solar panels and wind turbines are more unreliable than coal and gas and thus dangerous, but the opposite is true. About 90% of power outages in last December's cold snap were due to coal and gas power source failures, not clean energy failures.

• Clean energy is more reliable because, unlike giant coal and gas power stations, clean energy power generation is distributed. When there are clean energy interruptions, fewer people are affected compared to polluting energy outages from big generation plants.

• Electricity from solar and wind is now cheaper than from coal and gas. To protect profits by slowing growth of residential and commercial clean energy, (i) pro-pollution states make it hard to get permits to install solar, and (ii) coal and gas utilities relentlessly lobby state governments to block forced sale of excess solar to the grid. The net result is higher electricity and gas bills, blackouts more dangerous compared to clean energy failures more carbon pollution, which causes more human death and illness and more climate change.

• A weakness in clean energy is inadequate power transmission. The grid needs to be expanded and upgraded. That will be costly, but in the long run, carbon pollution, human deaths and climate change will be ameliorated. (I imagine the economic incentives for utilities favor not upgrading the grid to keep clean energy as hobbled as possible - that’s just brass knuckles capitalism as usual)

 

Annual US air pollution deaths

----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------

On Medicare, social security and Republican intent: An op-ed by Paul Krugman in the NYT says what we all know but needs to be repeated from time to time:

Politically, the most crucial moment in President Biden’s State of the Union address was his declaration that “some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset every five years.” Why did he say that? Maybe because Senator Rick Scott, when he was the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, released a fiscal plan last year with the bullet point “All federal legislation sunsets in five years.”

Seems straightforward, doesn’t it, despite cries of “lies” from the floor? But right-wing news media — well aware that Biden hit a nerve — has gone into overdrive insisting that his claim was false.

The basis for these denunciations, as far as I can tell, is the idea that calling a plan to sunset legislation a plan to sunset legislation is somehow misleading, because voters don’t know what “sunset” means. Indeed, just because the legislation authorizing a program comes to an end needn’t mean that the program will die; Congress can always vote to reinstate it.

But, of course, many Republicans do want to eviscerate these programs. To believe otherwise requires both willful naïveté and amnesia about 40 years of political history.  

First of all, if Republicans had absolutely no desire to make major cuts to America’s main social insurance programs, why would they sunset them — and thus create the risk that they wouldn’t be renewed? As Biden might say, c’mon, man.  

And then there’s that historical record. Two things have been true ever since 1980. First, Republicans have tried to make deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare every time they thought there might be a political window of opportunity. Second, on each occasion they’ve done exactly what they’re doing now: claiming that Democrats are engaged in smear tactics when they describe G.O.P. plans using exactly the same words Republicans themselves used.

Krugman then goes on to mention examples of GOP animosity to Medicare and social security. Examples include Ronald Reagan (1981), Newt Gingrich (1995), George W. Bush (2005) Paul Ryan (2010) and now in 2023, the modern GOP, as exemplified by MTG publicly calling Biden a liar for telling the truth during his State of the Union speech.  

For me, this kind of easily debunked lying by elite Republican politicians shows one of the most cynically immoral and anti-democratic aspects of the GOP. Lying to the public about what a politician in power wants to do is deeply immoral, if not evil. Shameless mendacity and deceit simply does not faze congressional Republicans or most other GOP party elites. When citizens in a democracy are deceived by politicians’ lies and act on the basis of deceit-based false beliefs, their power to decide, and then consent or oppose what they believe the politician actually stands for has been taken from them. That taking came without citizen knowledge or consent. That mindset is authoritarian, not democratic. In my firm opinion, that is undeniable moral rot.  

That is the frightening state of the current mendacious, immoral, authoritarian, radical right Republican Party leadership.

News bits: Regarding the Jesus loves everyone TV ads; Israel wins, Palestine loses; etc.

The Jesus TV ad campaign: The two Jesus gets you ads I saw yesterday during the super bowl were revolting and infuriating to me. But probably most people saw them as sweet and loving expressions of God’s gentle grace and boundless tolerance of diversity. In my opinion, this Christian nationalist (CN) funded ad campaign is firmly grounded in the shameless, hypocrisy and deceit, and deep mendacity that underpins the elites who control theocratic CN movement. The Jacobin commented on the ad campaign a week before the super bowl:

The foundation behind a $20 million Super Bowl advertising campaign to promote “the Jesus of radical forgiveness, compassion, and love” has also bankrolled a conservative nonprofit leading efforts to roll back abortion rights and allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ customers.

He Gets Us is a subsidiary of the Servant Foundation, a Kansas-based charity also known as The Signatry that says it “exists to inspire and facilitate revolutionary, biblical generosity.”

Between 2018 and 2020, the Servant Foundation donated more than $50 million to the Alliance Defending Freedom — a nonprofit that’s led big policy fights over abortion and nondiscrimination laws at the Supreme Court and in states around the country. The nonprofit is designated as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Alliance Defending Freedom says it helped draft the 2018 Mississippi abortion law at the heart of the Supreme Court decision last year allowing states to ban the procedure — and also helped argue that case before the high court. This term, the Alliance Defending Freedom is leading a new Supreme Court case arguing that businesses should be able to discriminate against LGBTQ+ customers.

While the Servant Foundation reported having nearly $1 billion in assets and making $390 million in grants in its 2020 tax return, its contributions to the Alliance Defending Freedom were among the five largest donations given out by the foundation in each of those three years, according to our review.

“He Gets Us is a movement to reintroduce people to the Jesus of the Bible and his confounding love and forgiveness,” said a spokesperson for the company. “The campaign is governed by the Servant Foundation, a 501(c)(3) [charity] with a 100/100 Charity Navigator rating.”  

He Gets Us says it wants to help people “understand the authentic Jesus as he’s depicted in the Bible — the Jesus of radical forgiveness, compassion, and love.” 

In one ad, the company says, “Jesus struggled to make ends meet, too.” A family-focused video says, “Jesus disagreed with loved ones. But didn’t disown them.” Another ad describes Jesus as “an influencer who became insanely popular” — before he “was canceled.”

Jesus may have lived a life of confounding love and forgiveness as a human in ancient times, but the modern radical right CN movement is the opposite. It openly promotes hate, intolerance and vengeance. It corrupts politics and backs efforts to cancel and discriminate against the LGBQT community, immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, women and non-Christians. CN's cynical hypocrisy and deceit here is beyond revolting. 

Q: Is me being revolted and angry at the hypocrisy, irrationality and deceit that underpins this taxpayer-supported propaganda campaign irrational, unwarranted, over the top and/or counterproductive?

------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

The Middle East misery and violence end game: The final moments of the Israel vs Palestine game are playing out as expected. The crowds are heading for the exits. Palestine lost, Israel won. Guess it’s time for the United Nations to find another plot of land for a new nation called Palestine, or whatever the world’s blasé/self-interested overlords choose to call it The the game can begin anew with the Palestinians oppressing the locals in the game’s new frontier. 

The rationale for doing that? How about the world’s indifference to the deed oppression of a hated ethnic minority called the Palestinians at the hands of a ruthless oppressor. The Guardian writes:

Israel to authorize nine ‘wild’ West Bank settlements

Security cabinet announces recognition of areas built without Israeli authorization, after series of attacks in East Jerusalem

Israel’s security cabinet has announced it will authorize nine settlements in the occupied West Bank after a series of attacks in East Jerusalem, including one that killed three Israelis.

“In response to the murderous terrorist attacks in Jerusalem, the security cabinet decided unanimously to authorize nine communities in Judea and Samaria,” the office of the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a statement on Sunday that included the name Israel uses for the West Bank.

Authorizing only nine? Why not finally end the game and authorize settlements anywhere that Israel  radical right religious fundamentalists want? It’s only a matter of time. Just go ahead put the Palestinians out of their misery and drive them all completely out. That’s the humane thing to do. Right?

------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

The Republican 2024 presidential race: It is still early and everything could change, but experts indicate that if there is one or more reasonably popular Republican candidates running for president in addition to DeSantis, that will split the vote and make Trump the party nominee. At present, that seems highly likely based on current polling data. Various sources, e.g., the AP**,  are reporting that this coming Wednesday, Nikki Haley will announce her candidacy. Experts who assessed poll data on a Haley vs DeSantis vs Trump race predict that Trump would win because Haley would hurt DeSantis more than Trump. As it is now, DeSantis is in 2nd place behind Trump among Republican voters. But, it is too early to put much weigh on these predictions. There are just plausible possible outcomes, nothing more.

** For context, Haley appears to be not much different from Trump. In 2018, she commented on her time in the Trump administration: “I proudly serve in this administration, and I enthusiastically support most of its decisions and the direction it is taking the country.” The direction that Trump was taking the US was undeniably away from secular democracy and into corrupt capitalist authoritarianism and corrupt Christian fundamentalist theocracy.  

What Is Fascism?

 

A Threat to Democracy

Some political scientists suggest that fascism is pushing democracy aside as dispirited voters seek to blame the establishment for their economic struggles.

Certainly, plenty of unscrupulous individuals are happy to exploit unhappy voters with platforms that contain elements of fascism, but are they true fascists? Let's take a look at the ideology to decide.

The Strongman Leader

Robert Paxton is a history professor at Columbia University, New York. He’s one of the world’s leading experts on fascism. He says it’s a complex ideology that centres around the concept of the strongman leader.

This strongman leader persuades his supporters that their country is under attack from internal and external forces: “Give me complete control and I will slaughter our enemies” is the simplistic call for support. This message is hammered home through the sophisticated use of propaganda.

Followers are persuaded to give up many civil liberties so their leader is not held back in his ability to “get things done.”

Fascist Ideology

Fascists are against a lot of things.

• They hate socialists, don’t like liberals, and frown on conservatives.
• They are not fond of foreigners and are suspicious of immigrants.
• They see democracy as a messy interference in the leader’s ability to make their country great again.
• They are opposed to an open media, especially when it is critical of the leader, who discredits journalism and then finds ways to shut down a free press.

Here are a few definitions of fascism:

• Writing for The Telegraph, Tim Stanley points out: “The thinker and historian Ernst Nolte argued that fascism was the great ‘anti’ philosophy that united people frightened by social and economic change: anti-Semitic, anti-socialist, anti-feminist, anti-democracy.”
• Fascism plays on emotions stirred up by a leader who appeals “to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.” (Dictionary.com)
• Historian George L. Mosse called fascism a “scavenger ideology.” By this he meant that it picks up bits and pieces from other ideologies and patches them together; there is no well-planned body of thought.
• It is built around the myth of a once-great nation that has been brought low by evil forces. Fascism is also about racial purity and the use of violence as a political tool.

The Poet Who Invented Fascism

It seems odd that an ideology that is very dark should come from a poet. However, writer Gabriele D’Annunzio is seen as the architect of fascism.

More details about Gabriele D’Annunzio and the Fascist movement here:

https://soapboxie.com/world-politics/What-is-Fascism

Fascism's Rebirth

A question often asked since Donald Trump became U.S. president in January 2017 was “Is he a fascist?”

We can turn to former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for some enlightenment. She had a long and distinguished career as a politician and diplomat. As a child in Czechoslovakia, she lived through the fascist dictatorships that tore Europe apart in World War II.

In April 2018, she published her book Fascism: A Warning. In it she saw a rise in the popularity of the strongman leader and authoritarianism. Racism was growing and she saw worrying similarities between Trump and the fascists of the 20th century.

Trump certainly has the instincts of a fascist, but Eliot Cohen says people should not be too worried about that. The former State Department official has written that Trump is “… too incompetent to be a successful fascist.”