Why is authoritarianism our biggest threat? It is because authoritarianism can play a highly significant role in how we determine what claims are true and what claims are not. It is also our biggest threat because it is becoming more prevalent, especially in the West
We should note a couple of things about authoritarianism. First, it always comes with hierarchy whether that hierarchy is based on ideology, ethnicity, wealth, biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or some other category. Some forms of authoritarianism revolve around a single leader or group of leaders. Other forms of authoritarianism revolve around groups that are based on ethnicity, ideology, or economic class.
Authoritarianism knows no ethnic, ideological, class, sexual orientation, or gender identity boundaries. That is because in authoritarianism, the leader wants their followers to reflexively or automatically accept or reject what is said based on who said it. In other words, it is the credentials of the source that determines a reflexive or automatic reaction. Here, we should note that we should recognize the credentials that experts have in the specific field(s) have. But with authoritarianism, credentials of the source are often irrelevant to the subject of the claims.
Basically, authoritarian leaders want to be nanny thinkers for their followers. And so they will attack the credibility and credentials of sources that their followers are exposed to. For example, when Hillary Clinton referred to a certain group of Americans as 'deplorables,' she was trying to get her followers to reflexively or automatically reject everything that the people to whom she was referring were saying. When Trump followers call those who protest against him as suffering from 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' those followers want people to reflexively or automatically reject everything that Trump protesters say. And Leftists have their own pejorative labels for those whom they oppose such as calling some the 'bourgeoisie.' In other words, when we see someone employing a pejorative use of labels on a person or group or ideology they oppose, they are making an authoritarian appeal.
However, the presence of authoritarian followers does not imply that a given leader is authoritarian. Why? It is because not all leaders who have authoritarian followers act as authoritarians. Non-authrotarian leaders might have some followers who are authoritarian followers. That is, without the authoritarian appeal of a given leader, some authoritarian followers will latch on to any leader that they consider to be appealing. Such a follower will automatically reject or accept what a source says solely based on whether their adopted leader contradicts what a source says. The basic dynamic here is the same however. If what a given source says is supported by the leader of an authoritarian follower, then that follower automatically accepts what the given source says. Otherwise, what a given sources says will is automatically or reflexively rejected.
This leads us to one of the problems with being an authoritarian follower. That is that an authoritarian follower does not use facts and logic to determine whether to accept or reject a claim. For the authoritarian follower to seriously consider what an unapproved source says results in a cognitive dissonance. For how can one both believe a single claim from an unapproved sources while trying to reject everything that that source says? As the follower continues to agree with what an unapproved source says, the more credentials the follower attributes to that source. As that credentials of that source increase, the follower must eventually decide whether to part ways with their adopted leader.
A caveat should be introduced at this time. It to automatically reject what an non-expert in a given field says is significantly different from automatically rejecting what an expert says. Though we shouldnˋt always automatically accept what a given expert in the field of the discussion says, they should be seen as having more credibility and credentials than a non-expert says.
Authoritarianism holds out a couple carrots to potential followers. Following a leader, especially a popular one, as being always or almost always correct can be an ego boost to some. It makes some people feel more significant because of how they have connected themselves with an esteemed person or ideology or group. Being an authoritarian follower can especially appeal to those who feel alienated from others. And so fear becomes involved because if one should decide not to follow leaders or ideologies, one can lose a vital connection that being an authoritarian follower provides. Thus, challenging the beliefs of an authoritarian follower, even when done with facts and logic, can seem personally threatening to the authoritarian follower.
Another carrot that authoritarianism holds out is that it allows one to feel more comfortable, and even more in control, in a world that often seems to complicated. It is easier to latch on to a leader and put all of one's trust in that leader than to battle through the complexities of life and the world to come to one's own conclusions.
Authoritarianism plays a big role in determining what many believe or reject. And unfortunately, that role doesnˋt revolve around facts and logic. It is very unfortunate because authoritarianism, though never having disappeared, is definitely on the rise in the West, both in Europe and in North America.
How should we respond to authoritarianism? We should note that authoritarian leaders want their followers to reflexively or automatically reject or accept what is said by a given source. The kind of thinking implied in authoritarianism is black-white thinking. In such thinking, either everything that a source says must either be accepted or rejected. And that provides the key in battling authoritarianism. To fight authoritarianism, we need to see red flags raising when someone employs black-white thinking And so we need to challenge the appeal to either reject or accept everything that is said by a source. To auotmatically reject everything that someone says is to say that that source needs to listen to me or us while we have no need to listen to it. Such an approach is driven by arrogance which, in turn, is often driven by ignorance. And to accept everything that an adopted leader says, implies that that adopted leader is omniscient. And contrary to Trumpˋs view of himself, the only being who is omniscient is God.
All-or-nothing thinking, including black-white thinking, is the cognitive foundation of authoritarianism. And so to refuse to employ all-or-nothing thinking is to reject authoritarianism.
But such an approach can be problematic for the religiously conservative Christian. That is because with what God has communicated to us, there are times to employ all-or-nothing thinking. But the source for such thinking is the Scriptures, not manˋs ideologies or abilities. We can learn much from manˋs ideologies, but we cannot afford to approach any ideology in an all-or-nothing manner. That is there is no ideology that does not need to be supplemented by other ideologies. There is no ideology that can solve all problems. Likewise, there are few ideologies that have nothing to teach us.
And so we can start stopping authoritarianism by learning how to take hybrid approaches to problem solving. For example, in his book, Stride Toward Freedom, King notes that while Marxism forgets that life is individual while Capitalism forgets that life is social. And so King proposed that we combine the best approaches and thinking that are in Marxism and Capitalism to find a better approach to the economy and politics. Such an approach prohibits us from automatically rejecting or accepting what a source says.
Again, we are seeing a move away from Democracy with equality and toward authoritarianism with hierarchy. To stop this move, we need to understand authoritarianism and the kind of thinking that it employs. That understanding can save us from being ruled by tyrants especially if those tyrants first appear to be wearing sheep's clothing.
