The Allure of Authoritarianism

Josh Landy
Why do some people find authoritarianism appealing?

Ken Taylor
Are humans just naturally drawn to tyrants?

Josh Landy
Or is it because of weaknesses in democracy?

Ken Taylor
Welcome to Philosophy Talk the program that questions everything…

Josh Landy
…except your intelligence. I’m Josh Landy.

Ken Taylor
And I’m Ken Taylor. We’re coming to you from the studios of KALW San Francisco.

Josh Landy
Continuing conversations that begin at Philosophers Corner on the Stanford campus, where Ken teaches philosophy and I direct the Philosophy and Literature Initiative.

Ken Taylor
Today, we’re thinking about the allure of authoritarianism.

Josh Landy
Allure? There’s no allure, Ken. I mean, authoritarian leaders, they throw their opponents in jail, they they close universities, they demolish the free press. I mean, if people go along with that, it’s because they’re forced to. No one wants to live under Stalin.

Ken Taylor
I wish that were true. But man, have you looked around the world? People actually vote for these guys, sometimes millions and millions of people? I mean, take Hitler. He didn’t seize power he wanted in a democratic election. And you know, they were even Jews who voted for him in 1932.

Josh Landy
Okay, but you know, people like that who vote for authoritarians, that they’re not making an informed, rational choice. They’re deluded that their heads are addled with a bunch of propaganda. Well,

Ken Taylor
I agree there are a lot of adult headed voters, but I don’t think I think also there are a lot of them are, are acting completely rationally and actually acting on their deepest values for very compelling reasons.

Josh Landy
Ken, what what are you talking about?

Ken Taylor
Oh look, I’ll bring it to your domain. Josh. You’re a soccer fan, right? And your team is from I think I heard you say for Liverpool.

Josh Landy
You’ll never walk alone.

Ken Taylor
I have no idea what that means. But I’ll take that as a yes. Okay, so you as a Liverpool fan despise fans of—what’s another team the like, evil empire?

Josh Landy
Manchester United. I can’t stand those smug gits.

Ken Taylor
Oh I don’t know what a smug git is either. But again, I’ll take that as a yes. So come on, let’s imagine something. Imagine that Manchester United has taken over the Premier League. They’ve bribed all the referees, like they fix the rules and the appeal system. They’ve infiltrated the back pages of the newspapers. So you know, they’re, they’re hell bent on making sure that other teams just don’t get a fair shake.

Josh Landy
That would actually explain a lot.

Ken Taylor
Ok, so now imagine a charismatic figure comes along, he’s going to, he’s going to save soccer from the from the, you know, someone you trust. He embodies your deepest aspirations for soccer.

Josh Landy
Steven Gerrard,

Ken Taylor
Oh yeah, okay. Steven Gerrard I have no idea who that is. But Steven Gerrard comes along, he tells you Liverpool fans, I am going to restore fairness to the beautiful game we’re gonna make soccer great again or what do you say make football great again. I’m gonna fight for the little guy for the real football fan. Not those arrogant usurped beings What did you call them? Gits!

Josh Landy
But hang on Ken. Look, I am assuming that your Steven Gerrard is going to like shut down the free soccer press. He’s gonna He’s gonna put the manager of Manchester United in jail and seize all power for himself. That’s tyranny. I want my football freedom.

Ken Taylor
You are going to get football freedom, you’re going to gain more football freedom does freedom from those scuzzy usurping gets. They’re the only ones who might lose a little freedom. And come on, admit it. Admit it, you think they deserve to lose their freedom for what they’ve done?

Josh Landy
I don’t know, Ken. Pretty soon they’re going to start coming for the Chelsea fans. And then the Arsenal fan.

Ken Taylor
You think that’s a bad thing?

Josh Landy
Well, we shouldn’t be opening the floodgates on this. I mean, if the max really were rigging the system, what Liverpool should do is go through channels, launch an official protest use the institutions of soccer democracy.

Ken Taylor
How can you be so naive? You can’t count on democracy? Witness skuzzy gets the usurping kids have rigged the system and look even at its best. You got to admit democracy is slow and creaky and super messy.

Josh Landy
I’m with Winston Churchill on this, Ken. I mean, democracy is the worst system except for all the other systems that are being tried.

Ken Taylor
I know that’s a ritual incantation of Churchill. But let’s put the sincerity of that incantation to the test. I know you think the American Second Amendment is an abomination. Well, suppose you could abolish the Second Amendment by seizing total control for just a day. Wouldn’t you do it what you do it in order to make America safe again?

Josh Landy
I’m gonna plead the Fifth Amendment on that one.

Ken Taylor
Aha, touché Josh!

Josh Landy
But look, here’s what I will say. I mean, if people really do have reasons for electing a strong man, those reasons are usually terrible. You may tend to one it’s a deep seated disdain for people who are different. A disdain that’s totally irrational.

Ken Taylor
Totally irrational, unlike your hatred of those guys. usurping Manchester gets right now to say good luck. I can see we’re not going to agree completely on this. Maybe we should get some help from ou,r Roving Philosophical Reporter, Shereen Adel who was a witness to the Egyptian uprising in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring. She files this report.

Shereen Adel
The day the protests started, I was there. I grew up in Cairo. And at the time I was home from grad school. I knew there would be protests, but I didn’t think they would get so big or have such an impact.

Journalist #1
Social media has played such an integral role in getting protesters out into the streets and demonstrating in Egypt the last several days

Journalist #2
Of course, we’ve been watching the social media revolution, as well as the real life revolution across the Middle East.

Shereen Adel
But for a lot of people, the real live revolution didn’t start that day.

Friend
I am definitely not someone who was into activism or really engaged in any political thing within Egypt, simply because there was no politics and there was no political system.

Shereen Adel
Recently, I talked to one of my friends from high school about it. He asked to remain anonymous because of the most recent wave of protests. But we’ll get back to that later. Like me, he didn’t immediately jump into action that first day. But the protest gained momentum.

Friend
And then I wake up a Friday, June 28. They had cut off internet completely. And they cut off all cell phone service. I actually had to use my landline for the first time and I don’t know how many years. So he made up his mind. I was like, Screw this like, that is way too intrusive and ridiculous. And I was thinking, okay, like, I need to go down and see this. Next thing I know, yeah, I’m in the middle of a huge protest, like chanting and being a part of somehow that dictator Hosni Mubarak unified everyone against him. So people I have fundamental issues with on so many levels. During those hours, I was like 100% unified with them to try and achieve this one goal.

Shereen Adel
And they did it. Mubarak resigned. The military took power in the interim and began planning elections. But many people questioned its legitimacy and continue to protest. My friend didn’t even want to vote. Nonetheless, those elections saw the highest turnout in years.

Naila Hamdy
Voting was very exciting for me. It was the first time that I ever voted in my life.

Shereen Adel
That’s Naila Hamdy, a professor in the Journalism Department at the American University in Cairo. Like my friend, she doesn’t consider herself an activist, but she joined the demonstrations on and off. She said the thought of democracy was attractive.

Naila Hamdy
I voted at every single election that went on. I haven’t missed a single election actually since. But I don’t know if I would still continue to vote. That feeling is a little bit d ying out for me.

Shereen Adel
So what changed? After the country voted in an Islamist President, Mohamed Morsi, there were more protests. Within a year the military forces resignation. In the next election, the military’s commander in chief Abdel Fattah El Sisi was a candidate. Hamdy supported him.

Naila Hamdy
I just thought that we would have a more democratic country, even if the President came from military background. And it was something that we really desperately wanted. Because remember, the country was chaotic.

Shereen Adel
The economy was suffering,

Naila Hamdy
There was no real police force. I mean, we live in a jungle. So you know, really, at the time more than anything else, I was looking for security, stability, some really, really basic things that seemed even at that time, much more important than complete freedoms.

Shereen Adel
After three years of political turmoil, people had had enough. They hoped a military leader would calm it all down. But stability did not necessarily make things better. These days, the economy is even worse. And the state has regained control over the media. But Hamdy doesn’t think it’s sustainable.

Naila Hamdy
Because there are ways to receive information. It’s difficult to be the technology and the savviness of people to receive information, actually, not just now, but forever, even historically.

Shereen Adel
And she’s right. In September of 2019. From the safety of his new home in Spain, actor and real estate developer Muhammad Ali began posting videos accusing the government of improper spending and corruption. His calls for protests brought hundreds to the streets for the first time in years, despite a ban and the government responded with sweeping arrests, detaining over 1900 people. The people I spoke to are not hopeful for real change anytime soon.

Friend
It will require a huge group of people acting against their own benefits to maybe, maybe have a chance to reform things here.

Shereen Adel
For Philosophy Talk, I’m Shereen Adel.

Ken Taylor
Thanks for that bracing report on how the hope for democracy can give rise to an embrace of authoritarianism. Shereen. I’m Ken Taylor, with me is my Stanford colleague Josh Landy. And today we’re thinking about the allure of authoritarianism.

Josh Landy
We’re joined now by Michael Lynch, professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, and author of “Know-It-All Society: Truth and Arrogance in Political Culture.” Michael, welcome back to Philosophy Talk.

Michael Lynch
Well, thanks so much for having me, guys.

Ken Taylor
So Mike, you Josh and I are all old enough to have witnessed quite a few tyrants inaction in our lifetimes. What was it one of them? The rise of one of them, for example, who first got you interested in this subject? Or what was it?

Michael Lynch
I don’t think it was really, as it turned out the rise of an authoritarian, but it was certainly my perception of that I am old enough to remember the election of Ronald Reagan. And like a lot of you know, young lefties at the time, I was really worried that we were heading down the, the path towards some sort of totalitarian regime, you know, but how naive we were? Yeah, no idea about bad things could get.

Josh Landy
And of course, a lot of people voted for him. And a lot of people who voted for certain other people we could put into that category. So So what do you think you know, about the debate that Ken and I were having a moment ago, we know what explains that? I mean, I my claim was that people have to be tricked or coerced. And Ken was saying, no, no, you can really freely choose to sign up for it rationally, and, and you know, back to your deepest values. So So who do you think’s right?

Michael Lynch
Well, I have to say, my, my heart is with you, Josh. But I do say that Ken has a point. You know, at the end of the day, I think that authoritarian leaders are both, we might put it a mirror and a model. I mean, on the one hand, they’re a mirror in the sense that they you know, they reflect back, what we already is already there in the electorate, the sorts of sort of feelings about threatened anxiety that Ken talked about. But you know, at the same time, they also serve as a as a model for others to imitate.

Ken Taylor
And here’s the thing, I believe, about the mid the early part of the 21st century, that a question that we thought was settled in the 20th century is unsettled. Again, whether democracy or authoritarian forms of government or OPT, optimal forms of, of collective life. I think we’re in the grips of trying to figure that out. I don’t know. Do you agree or disagree?

Michael Lynch
I think we are in the grips. I mean, at the I think I you know, I was sort of joking when I said we were naive. But I think at the end of the 20th century, there was you know, there were books coming out like the end of history, and the last man about the the, you know, that we were all congratulating ourselves on the fact that democracy was really had been, you know, the arc of history had ended at the shining pot of gold. That was democracy, and everybody was happy. And it was just a matter of making sure that everybody was on on board with that. That’s no longer the case. I think we are at precisely at a spot not just in the United States, but worldwide, where we’re really coming to grips with, with this question of which form of government is the best one and as it turns out, all options are on the table.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, that’s an unsettling, perhaps exhilarating, perhaps disturbing fact. You’re listening to Philosophy Talk. Today we’re thinking about the allure of authoritarianism, with Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut.

Josh Landy
Why are people sometimes tempted by authoritarianism? Is it xenophobia, economic anxiety, the collapse of democracy?

Ken Taylor
Misplaced fears and misplaced hopes—plus your calls and emails when Philosophy Talk continues.

The Sinceros
Take me to your leader… tonight!

Ken Taylor
Why are some people so easily taken in by authoritarian leaders? I’m Ken Taylor. This is Philosophy Talk, the program that questions everything…

Josh Landy
…except your intelligence. I’m Josh Landy, and we’re thinking about the allure of authoritarianism. Our guest is Michael Lynch, author of “Know-It-All Society.”

Ken Taylor
So Michael, we’ve been throwing the term and concept authoritarianism around a bit, but we haven’t defined it. So why don’t you define authoritarianism for us?

Michael Lynch
I think the definition is pretty simple. It’s a form of government that emphasizes a strong central executive, either a person of most likely or a bunch of people with it, which and that strong central executive has a tight grip on what we might call the reins of power. That’s the straightforward definition. But the real thing to keep in mind is that when we’re talking about authoritarianism, governments can it’s a matter of degree, you can form a government become can be more or less authoritarian. And that’s the thing to really keep your, your mind on your eye on.

Ken Taylor
I think that’s, I think that’s an important thing. Because I mean, we, I mean, some people think of totalitarian governments in which government has a monopoly, not on just power and force, but even the means of persuasion. Right. And there aren’t elections and and it’s the party says, jump.

Josh Landy
And it’s also an invasion of private life as well.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, right, exactly. There’s public sphere right towards the totalitarians want to erase the distinction between between private, the private and the public sphere. That’s why totalitarian societies are often surveillance societies, right? And Stasi land and all that. But I think it’s important that if, for example, the United States is to lapse into authoritarianism, it’s not very likely that we’re going to lapse into totalitarianism. What would a sort of non totalitarian but still authoritarian regime look like in a place like this, for example?

Michael Lynch
Well, I think one of the one way to answer that is to think about, you know, what are the signs that you’re already drifting into authoritarianism? What are, what are the signs along the road, you know, that are blinking billboards that you’re passing, that you should be paying attention to? And what do they say? I mean, one of the things that, I think is we would see, to answer your question is, we would see an increasing increasingly the case that the rule of law, the rule of law, is no longer acknowledged by the the executive branch. That’s a that’s a clear sign in all authoritarian governments, that the rule of law is no longer acknowledged. And what I mean by that is not that there aren’t any laws, or that people don’t follow those laws, but that the laws that pertain to the executive power, and it’s the limits of that power, or no longer knowledge

Josh Landy
That makes sense that connects back to something you were saying earlier about, you know, drawing on the fears of the population. Also stoking those fears. Now, Hannah Arendt made that a nice point about totalitarians needing constantly to stoke the fears of the populace. Because if you can, if you can present the AR national situation as one of facing an existential imminent threat, well, then you can say, well, just for the time being, we need to suspend the rule of law, just for now in the situation of emergency because the emergency becomes a perpetual state of emergency. Right?

Michael Lynch
Exactly. I mean, I think this is this is a you’re right, that Aaron, almost, you know, 70 years ago now, made this point that it’s always in the interest of an authoritarian leader, to cultivate anxiety, and the feeling of threat or perceived threat in the minds of their followers. But at the same time, here’s something else he emphasized that I think is really important, paradoxically, that the leader also has an interest in an authoritarian leader in cultivating an attitude of superiority. They wonder if they want their followers to feel threatened, but at the same time, they want them to believe a sort of narrative about what Jason Stanley calls the myth. Mythic past, they were the best justify.

Ken Taylor
Right. But but let’s let’s slow down here, because you’re talking about the authoritarian wanting to cultivate this, this anxiety and fear. Okay, that supposes that it’s not already there. And it’s not already a basis for acting and choosing a leader. I mean, suppose that this is the people are like, deeply divided, and intolerant of one another. And I’m in a section of the people say, are problematic, those people, it’s those black people, it’s those white people, it’s those usurping millionaires itself. I mean, that’s not something that they thought Rotarian has to cultivate. It’s more like it’s something that they can exploit. I mean, how much of it is what the authoritarian cultivates and what the authoritarian exploits?

Michael Lynch
I’ll just go back to my original point, but let’s put it let’s keep with its gardening metaphor for a second because in my view, authoritarian leaders are the dark gardeners of the soul, you know.

Ken Taylor
That’s a nice metaphor, say that again.

Michael Lynch
They’re the dark gardeners of the soul. What they are, is they cultivate the seeds that as you just pointed out, can are already planted before they came along. But why they’re there, but they know the seeds are in the soil, but okay, plant more seeds. Can they also plant more seeds? Yeah,

Ken Taylor
I agree. So I don’t disagree with you. But the reason I think we’re focusing on the allure of authoritarianism, that planting of the seeds is not something merely done to the people. It’s something that calls forth something that’s already in the bin nurture something that’s already in the people and that people feel. I mean, why did all those people vote for Hitler because they want to rebuild Germany and he promised to rebuild Germany, they didn’t know what they were getting into fully, but he wasn’t just planting stuff in them.

Michael Lynch
No agreed. As I said, I think the seeds of an authoritarian regime are always there in in perhaps latent, perhaps not perhaps very explicit in the minds of the people who are, as you pointed out earlier, are often poised to to follow a powerful leader, and they’re poised to follow it because they’re already feeling rightly or wrongly, in a sense of a sense of threat. Be right now a lot of people who are who are white, middle aged men, like myself in this country feel, rightly or wrongly as if their status is being threatened. They are tracking the fact that they’re no longer going to be the sort of majority in the country. That is whites in I think, that sphere that fear, whether it’s front and center in their consciousness, which it is for some, or whether it’s just something that’s running along, like a buzz in the back of their ear, that sort of fear is something that a authoritarian the right sort of person can come along and stoke.

Josh Landy
That makes sense. And Lloyd, right. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Is there also perhaps another type of seed, right, we’ve got one type of see that’s already there. And then they can cultivate this sort of this fear of loss of status and things like that. But, but But what about something more like an authoritarian personality type, but it’s something that some people have, since Adorno, people have had this thought that maybe some people are just, maybe it has to do with, you know, high reactive versus low reactive infants, that those kinds of studies? I mean, what do you think about that idea that, you know, some of us just have a greater tolerance, and even love for change, variety, diversity, and other people really crave a certain kind of stability, control uniformity. And that’s a different kind of seed that could be exploited and cultivated by an authoritarian.

Michael Lynch
I think, you know, there has been working, as you guys know, in social psychology, Jonathan Hite, among others have have talked about the different ways in which different sorts of moral views and different psychological views that underpin them on different sides of the political fence in this country, I think there’s a lot of value to that the research. On the other hand, I often think that it’s too simple to just say that some people have a authoritarian impulse and others don’t, I think, given the right in the right context, given you know, if you’re on the lifeboat or proceed, that you are, you’re going to be looking for a strong captain to lead the way. I think that’s a natural thing for people. I think the other side that I’d want to focus on is the idea that I mentioned earlier, which is that sense of superiority, when we think one of the things that people really want to feel in their lives is a sense of strength. They want to feel that they’re strong, and they’re part of a tribe that strong, they want to feel as if they’ve got things figured out. It’s It’s comforting to think that and, again, cultivated by the right sort of person, that sort of desire to want to feel like you are on top, can end up with a politics that’s not really just about us versus them, but about us over them.

Ken Taylor
Michael, I was thinking of Jonathan. Hi, Michael, I think you’re right, I want to add a thing about the psychological research on authoritarian personalities. I mean, this research has gotten more sophisticated, more empirically rich, but they would agree with something you said a lot of non authoritarian people, they have these tests of authoritarian personalities. A lot of people who don’t pass the test of authoritarian personality type can still be triggered to support authoritarianism, when, when, like external threats arise. And so you know, the war and terrorism, you can even get people who don’t pass these tests. But there’s still a difference between the kind of readiness that people have to respond, the work seems to show there’s still a difference in the kind of readiness that gets a non authoritarian personality type to respond and endorse authoritarianism and authoritarian personality type. It takes like an external threat in the one case, but that’s that’s a complicated thing. But let’s get some callers in here. You’re you’re listening to Philosophy Talk. We’re talking about the the allure of authoritarianism with Michael Lynch, and Joe from Petaluma is on the line. Welcome to Philosophy Talk.

Joe
Thank you. It seems to me that authoritarian government, military and profess many of the same thing as liberal, one, freedom, prosperity, ending of corruption, and so I wonder if authoritarianism or at least the appeal of it, is a critique of the liberal border. So natural problems that people have an alliance with the liberal order, and then I wonder if the fallacy is that In seeking maybe quick, hard solutions to problems with the liberal order, people do not think about what the alternative would look like under an authoritarian government. Do you think that that’s a valid assessment of what authoritarian?

Ken Taylor
So thanks for the question, Joe. So, Michael, what do you think?

Michael Lynch
Yeah, well, I think that certainly gels with some of the things that we were talking about. I mean, as Joe mentioned, Plato thought that democracy eventually collapse. And they often collapse into, you know, things like oligarchies because they can’t, among other things serve to unite the diverse points of view, that’s what they’re interested in is freedom. The idea that democracies want freedom, and they want to a diverse set of opinions, but then they get what they want. And they don’t have a mechanism for uniting them and pointing them all in the same direction. And Plato thought, well, that’s bad news for democracy.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, today, peep dogs. Democracy was the second worst form of government. The worst form was tyranny towards democracy was going to inevitably devolve, right?

Josh Landy
Because it’s because freedom ends up with too much freedom, right? Norms break down to anarchy. People don’t respect their elders and things like that. And then, and then people freak out and want at all costs, right? We establish order.

Ken Taylor
So I want to ask you a question, though, coming from that people often say democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest that Churchill thing but actually, the way you talked about it and the allure of authoritarianism. I wonder, what the heck is the allure of democracy is to say, I gotta, I gotta kind of regard all these others. I got to regard the usurping gets as Josh, as free and equal citizens, then a free and equal citizens serving gets what’s the allure of democracy, given how divided and contentious political life is?

Michael Lynch
That’s a super great question. And I think I don’t think I pretend to have the right answer to that. But I think that’s the question we should be asking ourselves right now. And what I will say is this, I think the allure of democracy is precisely embedded in Churchill’s famous aphorism that that Josh pointed out, which is that democracy really appeals only when you’re conscious of what the alternatives are, when you forget what the alternatives are, when a sense of history is lost. When you you generations forget what happens when there aren’t diverse points of view, what happens inevitably, when somebody was given all the power, because, you know, inevitably, it’s true power corrupts. When that happens, when people forget like that, they forget the allure of democracy, they forgot the allure, which is that what I’m claiming, at least right now, is that it’s, it’s a law, this is partly negative, it’s based on a reaction to the ways things go, when we don’t respect the idea that we all have a right to contribute to how we are governed.

Ken Taylor
That’s a powerful, embracing thought, let’s get a caller in here before the break. O.V. from Oakland, welcome to Philosophy Talk, O.V. What’s your comment or question?.

Eid
Hello, I think this discussion is extremely a historical and is a bias toward assuming society is just made up of a bunch of individuals instead of groups. Study of fascism in the 20th century shows that what happens when the liberal order democracy falls apart, the economy falls apart, the ruling class, which controls the media, educational institutions, the church, so on and so forth. Is is is motivated to to animate the lower middle class to scapegoat other people, and for the benefit of the class. So basically, this this lacks a class analysis. And it’s really a historical.

Josh Landy
That’s really interesting. I, you know, in our defense, I think that was part of what we’re getting at we were talking earlier about propaganda. I mean, you know, propaganda is one of the main tools of an authoritarian regime. And, you know, I think your point is well taken, sometimes that propaganda takes the form of scapegoating, some kind of other maybe a class-based other.

Ken Taylor
What do you think?

Michael Lynch
Well, I think obviously, class is a big, big element in any political story. And you know, it’s right to be reminded of that fact. But I also think that you guys are right, that propaganda is certainly a mechanism a chief mechanism of the of an authoritarian rule. And when I was talking about those signs on the highway to authoritarianism. One of them is that the executive branch starts using up propaganda to reinforce that mythic past narrative that we were talking about before. And I think that’s, you know, it’s pretty clear that that meant those mechanisms in the old days meant trying to control the newspapers, for example, in certain authoritarian states, which, you know, heads more towards totalitarianism. But right now, of course, the newspapers as much as I love them are not the prime prime ways to get your message across. Yeah, what that message

Ken Taylor
Yeah. And that’s, that’s for better or for worse, because it’s a complicated media landscape now with social media. And you’ve written a lot about that. But we’ll take up some more pressing issues of this type. When we return you’re listening to Philosophy Talk. We’re thinking about the allure of authoritarianism, with Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut, author of “Know-It-All-Society.”

Josh Landy
With authoritarianism on the increase around the world, what can we do to stem the rising tide? Create new laws control, social media and propaganda outlets, educate the young and civic virtues, work on our own hearts and minds?

Ken Taylor
Turning the tide against tyranny when Philosophy Talk continues.

They Might Be Giants
You’re not the boss of me now, and you’re not so big.

Ken Taylor
How can we push back against authoritarians who want to be the boss of us all and make life unfair? I’m Ken Taylor. And this is Philosophy Talk the program that questions everything…

Josh Landy
…except your intelligence. I’m Josh Landy, our guest is Michael Lynch from the University of Connecticut. And we are asking about the allure of authoritarianism.

Ken Taylor
And we’ve got another caller on the line that we really want to get to—Eid from Berkeley, welcome to Philosophy Talk. What’s your comment or question?

Eid
I think in case of Egypt to have to make an exception, very big exception for the reason 33 million Egyptian walked out of Cairo together Mubarak, but what they ended up with a Muslim Brotherhood, which went totally against a leader, or Morsi, which was against the secular nature of Egypt, Egyptian sacred, they don’t care what religion you are. And he only spent a year and a half in office, the impulses distorted version of Islam. But what we have now as strong leader and not a dictator, as he is a strong leader, why do we need him because he is dealing with tourists. You have this bunch of bloody tourists in the Sinai, killing Egyptians and Egyptian soldiers every week. So we need him. What is happening that Muhammad Ali is a bogus guy is the guy. He doesn’t have any credential at all. And most Egyptians are against the current. You know, unrest in Egypt, you need you need LCC because he is putting the clamp on the tourists. And actually, what is pushing this time? Demonstration archers every week. Why was six beautiful? Okay, men and women.

Ken Taylor
Eid thanks for the call. It sounds like you really know the situation and need to well, there’s lots of chaos. We need a strong leader the claim is as a genuine danger, there’s a genuine danger. And what do you do in response to a genuine danger? Not a made up danger? You need a strong leader? What do you think of that thought, Michael?

Michael Lynch
I think it’s it’s a you have to be very careful, because I’m not going to announce on Egyptian politics. I’m no expert on that. But I will say that it’s always tempting to think that we’re in that place where we need that leader, we’re in it right now, it’s very difficult to tell when you’re in that situation, or you just think you’re in that situation.

Ken Taylor
Well, and even if you are in that situation, I mean, a man America thought of itself as in that situation. And we passed the Patriot Act. And the Patriot Act was a nightmare. Right? It was an abdication of fundamental things about democracy is democracy, that sheep, okay, we’re in a dangerous situation, democracy can’t deal with it. Do you believe that? I mean, does democracy really lack the resources to deal with external threats and all that without giving away the fundamental tenets of demand? I think that’s a tempting thought. But I hope it’s both.

Michael Lynch
I agree with you about that. I hope it’s a false thought, too. Because, you know, and I think actually, the history of the 20th century has examples where democracy did not respond. Well, you just mentioned one, but also where it started to become undemocratic and willingly. So but there are other there are other situations in which democracies didn’t respond. Well. I mean, if you think about how democracies responded, at least some of them in World War Two, especially, you know, in, in, in wartime, of course, there were under democratic things done, people were rounded up and put in camps in our country in the United States. But also, there were norms reinforced by the Congress.

Ken Taylor
But Michael, I read something in preparation for this show. Yeah, peace in foreign affairs. That was actually pretty bracing. It said, the victory of the democracies over the totalitarians in World War Two, blinded us to the weaknesses of democracy. and made us underestimate the strength of authoritarian regimes. And the appeal be because a lot of the victory was due to contingencies, right contingencies. One of the contingency was that the United States was this huge continental power with great resources. But if the European democracies and the European totalitarians had just like squared off, there’s no telling where that would have gone. And there’s no telling what the totalitarian societies would have become, there’s no telling what the democratic societies would have come without this behemoth that was sitting on the sidelines and then brought tons and tons and tons of arguments. There’s no telling what would have happened, had Hitler listened to his generals and not going to Alaska.

Michael Lynch
I mean, there’s, of course, there’s going to be a lot of contingencies. And of course, that’s right. And it’s also right, to remind ourselves of what we were talking about earlier in the show, which is that, in my view, at the end of the 20th century, and maybe partly because of our luck in the beginning part of the century, which is, you know, really what you’re talking about, is we were lucky. Well, we’re lucky if that’s and I think that’s not completely right. But I think it’s right enough, it’s a good enough point, to take this lesson from it, which is to see that what happened is that by the end of the 20th century, we sort of had forgotten that we were lucky we were we forgot that democracy needs a constant, constant, you know, work to make it right. Democracy is, you know, like a marriage, it’s not just going to go well, just based on what’s happened in the past, you got to put work into it.

Josh Landy
So let’s think about that work. I mean, you know, we’re witnessing a dangerous rise of authoritarianism around the globe. I mean, what can we all do to stem the tide of that? I mean, as voters, educators, organizers, what is this work that we can actually put in?

Michael Lynch
That’s, that is a need a hard question. I think that like a lot of people, I think maybe it’s gonna come down to a two tiered approach. My view, on the one hand, you need to actually double down on your, on your institutions, if, as we we’ve been talking about authoritarianism, is a matter of punting on the rule of law, on dub, you know, on on enforcing sort of property propaganda across the media culture, poisoning, poisoning the media culture in that way, and a variety of other things that we talked about, then I think that what we need to do is think about what civic institutions can provide a bulwark to that. And that means, for example, our education system, you mentioned that in the in the setup, that’s sort of a no brainer, in my view. Civics is a really important one. But you know, sometimes we need to remember that things that are truisms are called Truth, truisms for reason guy, right? Because they’re true. And civics is a really important thing to teach our kids.

Josh Landy
I agree. I mean, a wise man once said, a rejection of objective truth invites despotism. And this same wise person also added that academia has been complicit in devaluing objective truth, that wise person was a certain Michael Lynch, do you still feel that way? Do Do we have a job not just in high schools with civics lessons, but do we educators at second, you know, at universities have a have a responsibility to, to push back by, you know, making our students allergic to obfuscation and propaganda by, you know, training them and methods of investigation inquiry?

Michael Lynch
I think we do. I think that’s a critical part of our function as university educators is to try to supply people not just with the skills, but with concepts, they need to recognize the sorts of distinctions that we’ve been talking about on the show.

Ken Taylor
But I also think, just want to add something. Yeah, sure. This conversation that you guys are having about the educate. I think that’s important. I don’t deny it. But here’s the thing about constitutional design for democracy, especially our democracy, it doesn’t have very much in it that is meant to colocate through constitutional means civic virtue, the Constitution basically leaves citizens as they are with all their contradictions in tech, and then you fight it out to the vote in politics. I mean, how do you design a polity? And the Greeks used to believe in the cultivation of civic virtue as a matter of like, basic design, how do we design a polity in which the polity as such is committed to the constant the cultivation of certain democratic virtues? Because without those, I think it’s kind of hopeless to tell you the truth.

Michael Lynch
Yeah, so how, you know, I don’t know how to design a polity from the ground up. And, you know, frankly, you know, I’m, I’m an academic, I’m lucky if I can, you know, figure out what shoe to put on. So, asked me a hard question like this. I don’t know what to say. But I do know this. I think that when we talked about I talked about that two tier approach. I said, Yes, civic institutions are important in teaching civics is important. But it’s a little wider than just teaching civics. If you want to talk about a polity and you want to talk about our the public, you’re actually talking about a bunch of bunch of individuals. And one of the things that all of us need to do is examine our individual attitudes, and our attitudes towards our own beliefs. In our attitudes, as Josh put it towards truth. I mean, one of those signs on the along the road for authoritarianism is the idea that the leader thinks that truth is whatever he says that it is, that truth is in the hands of the powerful, he’s the powerful. So he gets to decide what the facts are. Hannah Arendt pointed out that before the authoritarian leader can grasp the reality and make it bend to his will, through power, he has to believe that he can never make a mistake, he can never make a wrong. And I think that we see that happening right now in our country. I mean, Sharpie gate was a huge, beautiful example of this sense that we’re, we’re you know, that the President has that he cannot be wrong. But I think, look, that’s the problem is, is that a lot of people are willing to sort of go along with that attitude.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, no, there’s definitely lots of people with an R in front of their party affiliation. Oh, are definitely willing to go along with that attitude. And on that depressing note, I’m gonna thank you for joining us. It’s been an authoritative but non authoritarian conversation, Michael.

Michael Lynch
Thanks so much for having me, guys.

Ken Taylor
I guess it’s been Michael Lynch. He’s a professor of philosophy from the University of Connecticut. He’s author of many things, most recently know it all society, truth and arrogance in political culture. So Josh, you got any authoritative non authoritarian thoughts?

Josh Landy
Yeah, you know, listen, Michael was talking about the dark garden as the soul but I think we can be bright gardeners of the soul, you know, we can encourage each other to give and insist on honesty and we can encourage each other to to be least tolerant of variety and change. If not, if not lovers of that, and you know what else we can we can hope from each other. A sense that freedom is something valuable, not something we turn over to an authoritarian, you’re Dostoevsky this lovely passage in The Brothers Karamazov, the Grand Inquisitor where we’re Yvonne is painting this amazing picture and basically draws the conclusion that the thing human beings hate the most is their own freedom and and the first thing they’re gonna do is try to run into the arms of a desperate to try to get rid of that freedom. You know that I think we should be cultivating an attitude of you know, what freedom is your is your most fundamental good.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, but you’re right. I believe freedom is your most fundamental good, but I think not just does I ask you, but the extent existential is like Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir understand that freedom is a terrifying thing, because you’re like, What are you? You’re nothing determine it? And where is the answer going to come from? You turn yourself over to the tyrant? You know, that’s what they call seriousness. Right? You turn yourself over to the realm of the series that dictates to you in a world that has not pre given. I mean, I think that’s a powerful urge. And I don’t think humans as they are given are just made to fully exploit freedom.

Josh Landy
I agree. I mean, that that’s exactly why we need to be out there helping each other not just universities, but but just in everyday conversations, right, not just the university nurses as political organizing. But you know, what, just whenever you’re hanging out with your friends, whatever you can do to increase the norms of honesty, and increase people’s sense that you know, what, being a free autonomous subject, that’s not only Okay, that’s great.

Ken Taylor
I think I agree. That’s a great thing. But I think I just don’t want to underestimate the challenge of designing a polity from scratch and so that human beings embrace their freedom and their diversity rather than flee from it and flee to a cocoon of like rejecting the other. I think that’s so so hard, and that makes democracy so, so complicated. But you know what, on that uplifting note, I will say, this conversation continues at philosophers corner at our own online community of thinkers where our motto with absolutely no apologies to Descartes is Cogito ergo Blago, I think, therefore, I blog, and you can become a partner in that community by visiting our website, philosophytalk.org.

Josh Landy
And if you have a question that wasn’t addressed in today’s show, or if you’re bedeviled by a conundrum in your own life, and could use some philosophical insight, we’d love to hear from you. Email us at conundrums@philosophytalk.org.

Ken Taylor
Now, let’s hear it from the tyrant at fast talk—Ian Shoales, the Sixty-Second Philosopher.

Ian Shoales
Ian Shoales… Not always, but quite often, when a coup occurs and a new leader of a nation steps in to crack down, that leader is a member of the military. And quite often, not a general, but a colonel. Think of Colonel Khadafy, Colonel Oliver North- kidding! There was a colonel in Sudan in 1969, Bolivia in 1971, recently in Niger, and there was the Junta in Greece in the late 1960’s, known as the Regime of the Colonels. In Guatamala in 1954 one Colonel was ousted by a different colonel. The CIA was behind that one. Surprise surprise. Insurrections inside armies are even called colonels coups, a term of art for internal coups instigated by a faction of the military, and not the military establishment. Why colonels? Well generally, a self styled populist revolution is a revolt against the elites. Generals are about as elite as you can get. A general is educated, probably went to a military school, might speak French, probably plays bridge with the Prime Minister or El Presidente. His uniform is tailored. He has a nice haircut. He has a staff. He has a wife who is good at rearranging furniture, and seating charts. He plays golf. He has a sullen mistress with an enormous bosom who wants to be a singer. Generals are emblems of authority, with their medals and salutes, but do not generally exercise authority, spending most of their time at state dinners, opera openings, museum galas, policy meetings, and delegating. They’re not gonna lead a coup. They have it made. The grumbling of the populace stirs them not. If the powers that be is worried about revolutions, the general can issue snipers and tanks, and go back to the cocktail party. And you aren’t going to get privates and sergeants to lead a coup. They don’t have the infrastructure, the air of command, the boldness, the plan, the impulse, followers to obey him, the ambition. But the colonel is the interface between general and army, probably came up through the ranks, probably works out, good looking guy, might be very religious or pretends to be, might drink heavily, which the people like, knows how to throw communists from great heights, whether they’re communists or not, which the people seem to also like, so long as they are left alone to watch their stories in their cozy homes. Colonel are middle managers. With machine guns. That’s who leads a coup. Colonels will also prevent strangers from coming in and taking our jobs, and Colonels harbor great bitternesses, because the generals get all the glory. Which the people also understand because they also do not get glory, and the guy across the street plays his music too loud. All of this translates into anger about the injustice of it all, cookies ain’t got chips no more, money’s too tight. Grumblings and mutterings get stirred up by blogs, and radio, and teevee, and rightwing newspapers, and before you know it, tanks in the street. Generals and presidents fleeing in helicopters, the Colonel moves into the Big House, to drink all that fancy wine in the basement, traitors are lined up against the wall and shot, and everybody else is happy. Until the schools are shut down because the picture of the colonel in the auditorium just isn’t big enough. But at first people don’t mind. An authoritarian is what they want. Punishment. Revenge. The people who like the autocrats are the people mad that comedy isn’t funny any more because we’re too woke. People who are sad that we can’t be racist like we used to which wasn’t racist at all we’re just so sensitive any more. People who are sick of Mexico taking our jobs. What jobs? I dunno. They’re gone. It’s about time we got somebody we can look up to, who gets things done. We love a brute with a line of patter. Everything is better, because the Colonel says so. Elite, but not too elite. The general had a limo. Colonel has a jeep. General had a driver, colonel has a sergeant. General had a mansion. Colonel plunders the mansion and machine guns the accountants. Our biggest American colonel, outside of Oliver North, of course, was Andy Jackson. He was a general but seemed like a colonel. Hot blooded, hot headed, with strong opinions about bankers. Generals have to believe in history. Colonels make their own. Generals have tactics and strategies studied in books. Colonels play it by ear. Generals know the truth and it makes them sad. Colonels make their own truth. Sadness is for losers. And the people love the Colonels. Until they don’t. I gotta go.

Ken Taylor
Philosophy Talk is a presentation of KALW local public radio San Francisco and the trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, copyright 2019.

Josh Landy
Our executive producers are David Demarest and Tina Pamintuan.

Ken Taylor
The senior producer is Devon Strolovitch. Laura Maguire is our Director of Research. Cindy Prince Baum is our Director of Marketing.

Josh Landy
Thanks also to Merle Kessler, Angela Johnston, and Lauren Schecter.

Ken Taylor
Support for Philosophy Talk comes from Stanford University and from the Partners at our online Community of Thinkers.

Josh Landy
The views expressed (or mis-expressed) on this program do not necessarily represent the opinions of Stanford University or of our other funders.

Ken Taylor
Not even when they’re true and reasonable!

Josh Landy
The conversation continues on our website, philosophytalk.org, where you too can become a partner in our community of thinkers. I’m Josh Landy.

Ken Taylor
And I’m Ken Taylor. Thank you for listening.

Josh Landy
And thank you for thinking.

The 700 Club
Colonel Sanders. It is great to have you here. It’s nice to be here. It’s a wonderful establishment, wonderful programs you’re doing. I’m happy.