American authoritarianism, part one: social bases

Brian M Downing

In the absence of common values, in a period when national institutions have lost their prestige, romance, and unifying force, when so much of life is increasingly antagonistic and violent, geographic and racial fissures do not augur well for the country. Without the reemergence of unifying forces, the fissures may well, in the course of a few decades, develop into secessionist movements.  We may one day follow the United States, not with the verb “is,” but with, “are,”  or perhaps with “was.”

Me in The Paths of Glory: Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam

Our democracy was once revered as ideal and eternal. It was respected across the political spectrum and endowed with a sacred aura. It endured painful wars and tremendous social challenges. The aura prevailed from independence to the 1960s, though not much later. It’s severely challenged today. 

The idea of homegrown authoritarianism once seemed farfetched, save perhaps amid the Depression when small cliques dreamed of it. Sinclair Lewis’s satire It Can’t Happen Here (1935)) saw bases of authoritarianism in opportunistic politicians and dwellers of small towns and rural areas. An angry mob drivies enemies from the Capitol and helps a populist leader assume extra-Constitutional powers. 

It’s no longer farfetched. It could happen here. The Left has authoritarian inclinations based on paralysis in Washington and moral imperatives of social justice, gun violence, and climate change. The Right has authoritarian inclinations, too – and it’s better prepared for what lies ahead. 

Defense of traditional America 

For many Americans the rise of a modern, largely secular, urban-oriented, and progressive country over the last half century has been a desirable process, and an inevitable one. It brought important social change for minorities, women, and the environment. 

For many others the process is neither welcome, inevitable, nor irreversible. It’s weakened traditional beliefs and institutions such as patriotism, religion, family, and Constitutional guarantees. An organic national community is giving way to a rational-legal majority whose viability is uncertain but whose hostility toward tradition is clear. The Right’s numbers and determination have stunned progressives, as has its militancy.

The Right draws from 19th-century populism that viewed urban elites and big business as pernicious foreign forces damaging American life. It also draws from Southern culture’s brooding resentments over defeat, occupation, and oppression at the hands of haughty Northerners. Resentments have risen and fallen since Lee handed his sword to Grant but they’re nearing levels the day cannon fired on Ft Sumter. 

The working class and globalism 

Blue-collar workers and their communities were once central parts of the nation. They built America. They were part of the myth of social mobility. Their men and women made the weapons that won World War Two, served on every front, and gave their lives. 

They have lost their high-paying jobs to inexpensive workers overseas. The work ethic and organic communities have lost out to the bottom line. Communities are gravely weakened, replaced by closed doors, broken windows, crime and drugs, and despairing people. Assurances that a burgeoning service sector will solve things rang hollow long ago. Politician after politician, from each party, promised renewal but nothing changed. 

Power prestige

The nation’s military and wars are very much part of the cultural divide. Progressives have adopted the “support the troops” slogan but emotional attachment is weak and actual service is usually restricted to family lore dating back to conscription. Military Times polls show over 60% of active duty personnel vote for GOP candidates and about 10% choose Libertarians. The disparity is higher in the officer corps.

Traditionalists take pride in America’s wars, even controversial ones such as Vietnam, and blame dishonorable outcomes on meddlesome politicians on the other side. They admire leaders who act confidently and decisively in the world. Eight former generals have won the presidency. Many others ran on war records. Traditionalists disparage those who don’t support wars, regardless of their judiciousness

Decisions leading up to the Afghan debacle were made by presidents on both sides of the divide but straightforward analysis can no longer be expected in Washington. There’s little doubt where traditionalists will ascribe blame. Consultants and pols are busily preparing condemnations for coming elections.

Closely associated with power prestige is gun culture. Soldiers often come from gun-owning and hunting families. Firearm owners, veteran or not, are concerned that stricter and unconstitutional gun control measures are just around the corner – a powerful energizing force in gun and paramilitary circles. 

Mistrust of government and democratic processes 

Reverence for national institutions is quite low on both sides of the divide. Decades of corruption, domestic boondoggles, foreign blunders, probing investigations, hefty donations, dissembling oratory, and soulless apparatchiks of ossified parties have seen to that. 

Traditionalist views of Washington have been sharpened by the heated rhetoric from rural clergy, the ridicule from talk-show hosts in media hubs, and the vitriol from opportunistic politicians in the heart of darkness itself. The government is a swamp of abuse and wickedness. Hidden actors pull strings from behind the stage. 

Democratic processes are gridlocked. To the extent they move at all, they’re advancing a diverse majority that will impose a new social and political order, instill progressive interpretations of history, and marginalize traditional America. Reform may be impossible now. More determined measures may be needed and the flaws of leaders can be overlooked. That’s easy these days.

©2022 Brian M Downing

Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.