(I've inserted a few parentheticals and the bold highlighting)"The key to the rise of authoritarians, they explained, is their use of language and false history.
Authoritarians rise when economic, social, political, or religious change makes members of a formerly powerful group feel as if they have been left behind. Their frustration makes them vulnerable to leaders who promise to make them dominant again. A strongman downplays the real conditions that have created their problems and tells them that the only reason they have been dispossessed is that enemies have cheated them of power.
Such leaders undermine existing power structures, and as they collapse, people previously apathetic about politics turn into activists, not necessarily expecting a better life, but seeing themselves as heroes reclaiming the country. Leaders don’t try to persuade people to support real solutions, but instead reinforce their followers’ fantasy self-image and organize them into a mass movement. Once people internalize their leader’s propaganda, it doesn’t matter when pieces of it are proven to be lies, because it has become central to their identity.
As a strongman becomes more and more destructive, followers’ loyalty only increases. Having begun to treat their perceived enemies badly, they need to believe their victims deserve it. Turning against the leader who inspired such behavior would mean admitting they had been wrong and that they, not their enemies, are evil. This, they cannot do.
Having forged a dedicated following, a strongman warps history to galvanize his base into an authoritarian movement. He insists that his policies—which opponents loathe—simply follow established natural or religious rules his enemies have abandoned. Those rules portray society as based in hierarchies, rather than equality, and make the strongman’s followers better than their opponents. [They believe] Following those “traditional” rules creates a clear path for a nation and can only lead to a good outcome. Failing to follow them will lead to terrible consequences. [They believe]" - Heather Cox Richardson
The easy reading of this is to put a personal outgroup into the "they/them" slot...
The harder, but maybe more personal growth/self-evaluation approach. is to put myself in that slot, and ask myself what rhetoric/emotional appeals/events/sinful inclinations put ME into the they/them slot?
For a quick one off the cuff, I thought of the centrist/moderate Republican, whom I would have some affinity with on numerous areas/policies... In some ways I can consider them one of my in-groups or at least adjacent to. And they used to be very powerful, if not utterly dominant within that tent. No more. So according to the above narrative, possibly vulnerable to a strongman "hero"...
I invite you to consider these questions for yourself (and try to avoid only applying to someone out there...)
PS Alongside this reading, I've been listening to a podcast (Real Dictators) and their episodes on Spain's Franco. Imo confirmation that history can repeat itself if enough are unaware. One of the reasons I post this in History...
