Last Tuesday, I wrote about my thoughts on the invasion of the Capitol. So why write another article on the same subject? It is because last week's article focused on the foot soldiers of that invasion. This week, I want to write about the enablers and leaders of that invasion.
What the foot soldiers, enablers, and leaders of that invasion have in common is a tendency to embrace authoritarianism. In particular, I am talking about the authoritarian personality type (click here and there). And yet there is a difference between the kind of personality type embraced by the enablers and leaders of the invasion vs that of the foot soldiers. Whereas the foot soldiers of the invasion tend to embrace a passive authoritarianism, the enablers and the leaders tend to passionately embrace an active authoritarianism. Fromm distinguishes between the two by saying that while those with the former personality type tend to sacrifice or allow themselves to be abused for a cause greater than themselves, those with the latter type appear powerful and can even be sadistic as they rule over the former.
But both authoritarian personality types have one thing in common; both are driven by fear. While the passive authoritarian is afraid of being accountable for one's own decisions and being alone, the active authoritarian is afraid of losing control of those under them and being alone.
So who are enablers and leaders? The enablers are those who repeat the big lie that supports following the leaders. In fact, some of those who enabled the invasion of the Capitol are also leaders in their own right. Of course the big lie was that the election was stolen. It was that lie that helped feed the anger and feelings of vulnerability of the foot soldiers. There are other lies that followed. But it was the lie about the stolen election that stole the show.
Some of the enablers were self-designated Christian prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. And the authoritarian nature of the relationship they had with their audience was that because they were speaking the words of God, they were not to be questioned. They could make any claim they wanted to and they didn't need proof. And yet, when arenas, like the courts, rejected their cases because they lacked real evidence, they could denounce those court decisions without having to address what the reasoning exhibited in the decisions.
Some elected officials, especially those in the House of Representatives but also some from the Senate, acted as enablers. And the question that should be raised is whether those enablers knew that they were spreading lies to manipulate people.
Though there were other big lies, the biggest lie, if true, should incite a great deal of anger in those that believed it. So then if we add to that motive instructions from the leaders, and here I am referring to those that spoke at the Save America rally on January 6, we have the recipe to incite violence by the foot soldiers. These foot soldiers were angry and already fearful. And they were also afraid that the other lies were true. One of those other lies said that those who were elected were anti-American socialists who were going to take away America from people.
Seeing themselves as the last of the loyal patriots, what further reason did they need to become violent once they were at the Capitol? They only needed the instructions that said to show strength, to undergo 'trial by combat,' and to kick some butts. They were told all of that so that their allies in Congress would remain strong and their opponents, including Mike Pence, would change their minds.
What we saw on January 6 was really decades in the making. It started with conservative talk radio where the most popular hosts, enablers if you will, assumed the active-authoritarian role and praised the members of their audience who took the passive authoritarian role. From there, the demonization of nonconservatives and the canonization of themselves cultivated a black-white worldview. And black-white worldviews are so very much a part of authoritarianism whether it is active or passive.
As a result, the foot soldiers of the invasion went there to implement a coup while the leaders stayed away at a safe distance. And now, some of those foot soldiers will learn in tragic ways the price of following the following the orders their esteemed leaders.
While I understand and have sympathy for many of the foot soldiers, I have less sympathy for both their leaders and the enablers who played them. These leaders and enablers must face more severe consequences than the foot soldiers.
