| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
Political Psychology & Authoritarianism in America | |
<
< | -- By AnnieIsabel - 20 Feb 2025 | >
> | -- By AnnieIsabel - 14 May 2025 | | | | |
>
> | Democracy has always been a contested project, vulnerable to both internal contradiction and external pressure. Today, it faces an especially acute test–rooted in structural weaknesses and psychological dynamics that enable authoritarianism to take hold (CAP 2025; Snyder 2024; Snyder 2017). Though the United States retains important institutional advantages over countries where authoritarian rule has taken firmer hold, these safeguards are not self-sustaining (Levitsky & Way 2025). The Constitution, for all its strengths, cannot guarantee democratic outcomes without active support from institutions, civil society, and a public committed to the rule of law (Id.). Authoritarianism often emerges not through dramatic rupture, but through legal manipulations, norm violations, and the erosion of institutional independence (Snyder 2017; CAP 2025). In such moments, complacency is not neutral—it is an accelerant (CAP 2025). Understanding why democracy is vulnerable requires close attention to political psychology, especially the mechanisms by which authoritarian appeals gain traction in instability (Zaller 1992; Stenner 2005). But beyond diagnosis, democratic actors must rebuild institutional foundations from within (CAP 2025; Levitsky & Way 2025). | | | | |
<
< | Section I: Introduction
The threat to American democracy is often framed as a problem of individual figures who catalyze democratic backsliding, as demonstrated by Trump’s reelection. However, a deeper issue lies in the American public’s psychological vulnerabilities—particularly the systemic pressures that limit political engagement and the activation of authoritarian tendencies during periods of social and economic stress. Political psychology research suggests that these vulnerabilities, when activated by fear and social division, can destabilize democratic institutions. Through this lens, Trump’s success can be understood as a result of both these underlying factors and widespread economic and social dissatisfaction. Without addressing them, American ideals of democracy will remain at risk, regardless of who holds office. | >
> | Political psychology shows that public opinion is not inherently stable or ideologically consistent (Converse 1964; Zaller 1992). It is shaped by cues, symbols, and emotional triggers—especially in times of stress (Lodge & Taber 2013; Iyengar & Kinder 1987). Research shows that most individuals process political information through bias and that political reasoning often follows motivated cognition, not deliberation (Zaller 1992; Lodge & Taber 2013). This dynamic creates openings for authoritarian leaders to exploit fear and frame conflict in identity-driven terms (Stenner 2005; Snyder 2024). Trump’s political strategy exemplifies this dynamic (Snyder 2024). His rhetoric emphasizes existential threats—immigration, crime, internal enemies—which primes loyalty and fear over policy or process (Zaller 1992; Iyengar & Kinder 1987). This strategy, rooted in historical authoritarianism, prioritizes emotional dominance over coherence (Snyder 2024). Messages of betrayal and decline displace democratic reasoning and justify exceptional measures (Id.; Lodge & Taber 2013). Karen Stenner terms this reaction “authoritarian predisposition”—a latent preference for order and conformity triggered by perceived breakdown (Stenner 2005; Altemeyer 1996). Though dormant in stability, this trait is easily activated under threat (Stenner 2005). The danger is not limited to ideological authoritarians, as non-authoritarians may adopt authoritarian views when they feel society is under siege (Id.; Snyder 2017). This explains growing polarization and punitive attitudes across the spectrum (Stenner 2005; Snyder 2024). | | | | |
>
> | U.S. institutions offer resilience but also deep vulnerabilities (Levitsky & Way 2025; CAP 2025). Compared to Hungary or Turkey, the U.S. benefits from federalism, a bicameral legislature, an independent judiciary, and a robust civil society (Levitsky & Way 2025). These features make authoritarian consolidation harder, but they are not immune to exploitation (Id.; Snyder 2017). Trump’s first term showed how constitutional ambiguity and institutional fragmentation can expand executive power and undermine oversight (Levitsky & Way 2025). Even well-designed constitutions contain exploitable gaps (Id.). The same legal system that enabled Jim Crow, Japanese internment, and McCarthyism? have allowed a president to pressure state officials, target critics, and politicize federal agencies (Id.). Institutional design must be reinforced with formal rules, political culture, and civic mobilization (CAP 2025). Codifying judicial independence and oversight—though long-term goals—serve as essential bulwarks when protections fail (Id.). Without them, backsliding proceeds under legal cover, diminishing effective opposition (Id.; Snyder 2017). | | | | |
<
< | Section II: The Impact of Priming and Framing on Political Opinions | >
> | The U.S. is not alone in facing these challenges (CAP 2025). Democracies across Europe have implemented structural reforms to preempt obstruction and fortify institutional independence (Id.). Germany reduced procedural hurdles in the Bundesrat and clarified federal-state authority, allowing for more responsive governance (Id.). “Cutoff motions” and “mediation committees” deescalated partisan conflict and encouraged cross-party dialogue (Id.). Such measures are not cosmetic but prevent procedural manipulation by extremist actors (Id.). Spain’s “guillotine motion”—mandating a vote after a set debate period—stabilized democracy in its post-Franco era (Id.). More recently, Poland’s pro-democracy coalition began reversing judicial capture by requiring supermajorities for appointments, depoliticizing oversight bodies, and instituting age and officeholding restrictions (Id.). These are practical, targeted responses to democratic erosion, grounded in the recognition that broken norms don’t self-repair (Id.). The U.S. would benefit from similar reforms. Setting appointment standards, streamlining legislative rules, and reinforcing oversight would improve institutional resilience without depending on leaders’ goodwill (CAP 2025). These efforts are most effective when enacted before decay becomes irreversible—but legitimacy can still be restored even after damage occurs (Id.). | | | | |
<
< | A key observation in political psychology is that individuals often adjust their opinions based on elite cues and media framing, rather than adhering to stable ideological positions (Converse, 1964; Zaller, 1992). As David Lodge and Charles Taber (2013) argue, political reasoning is often driven by preexisting biases, with individuals rationalizing their preferences rather than carefully weighing evidence. Thus, public opinion can be fluid, shifting according to what information is most accessible or emphasized at a given time. Priming is a central mechanism in this shift, as it is the psychological process of making certain considerations more mentally accessible, such that these considerations influence evaluations and judgments (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). Political opinions are subsequently formed or expressed based on what considerations have been primed (Zaller, 1992). | >
> | Institutions are only as strong as the public commitment sustaining them (Verba et al. 1995; Levitsky & Way 2025). Civil society—encompassing media, unions, universities, and civic groups—plays a vital role in this foundation (Levitsky & Way 2025). In the U.S., civil society remains pluralistic and relatively well-resourced (Id.). Its dispersion of power across non-state actors has historically served as a buffer against overreach (Id.). But civil society cannot defend democracy passively (Id.). When judges, journalists, and educators self-censor or disengage, anti-democratic norms take root unchallenged (Snyder 2017; CAP 2025).Cross-sector engagement—linking lawmakers, think tanks, and grass-roots organizers—can form the connective infrastructure of democratic resistance (CAP 2025). These networks become vital when institutional levers are compromised (Id.). | | | | |
<
< | The 1997 film Wag the Dog serves as a cultural illustration of the public's susceptibility to media manipulation. In the film, political operatives fabricate a war to distract the public from a presidential scandal. They succeed by shaping media coverage and using priming and framing techniques. The film is fictional, but the underlying psychological dynamics are real and observable in American politics. Trump’s political strategy has relied heavily on exploiting these dynamics. He has used social media and traditional media coverage to dominate public attention, employing priming and framing to shape perceptions. Timothy Snyder (2024) notes that Trump’s approach aligns with certain fascist tendencies, particularly the use of language to confuse and mobilize rather than inform. Trump’s rhetoric often disregards factual consistency, instead emphasizing loyalty, threats, and conspiracy theories. This approach resonates with citizens who are not closely following policy details but are emotionally responsive to symbolic appeals. | >
> | The threat to American democracy arises not only from leadership or partisanship but from the convergence of psychological vulnerability, institutional fragility, and structural inequality (Zaller 1992; CAP 2025). While significant advantages remain—civil society, federalism, constitutional separation—these must be actively maintained (Levitsky & Way 2025). Democratic reinforcement requires clarifying legislative processes, safeguarding judicial independence, expanding voting access, and resisting politics rooted in fear and exclusion (CAP 2025). These are not theoretical aspirations but proven, actionable responses (Id.). They reflect the view that democracy must be fortified from within (Id.). Defending democracy is not about crisis rhetoric or alarmism (Snyder 2017). It is about long-term maintenance and adaptation, which can be sustained by resolve, implemented through institutions, and carried forward by coalitions of engaged citizens (CAP 2025; Levitsky & Way 2025). | | | | |
<
< | Section III: Authoritarian Predisposition
Underlying this responsiveness is a second key concept from political psychology: authoritarian predisposition. Research by Karen Stenner (2005) and Bob Altemeyer (1996) suggests that authoritarianism is a latent trait in many individuals, activated in times of perceived social or cultural threat. Authoritarian individuals value order, uniformity, and strong leadership. They tend to respond positively to messages that emphasize threats to social cohesion and call for punitive measures against outsiders. Trump has repeatedly activated authoritarian tendencies in the electorate. His rhetoric on immigration, crime, and national decline frames politics as a battle against dangerous outsiders. This strategy echoes Carl Schmitt’s theory that authoritarian politics thrives on defining an enemy. Trump’s depiction of the 2020 election as fraudulent is a further example. The claim, though baseless, reinforced the sense of existential threat that triggers authoritarian responses. The January 6th insurrection demonstrated the extent to which some citizens were willing to subvert democratic norms under the influence of this mindset.
The problem is not confined to Trump’s “cult of January 6th martyrs” (Snyder 2024). Stenner’s work emphasizes that even individuals who are not predisposed to authoritarianism can exhibit similar behaviors under conditions of threat. This helps explain why political polarization has led both the right and left to display increasingly rigid, punitive attitudes toward opponents. It also underscores the reality that many who supported Trump in the most recent election may not be driven purely by authoritarianism, but by a deep dissatisfaction with the political and economic status quo. Compounding these vulnerabilities is the suppression of marginalized communities’ political participation. One example of this can be found in the barriers to voting within the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, where linguistic, informational, and physical obstacles exacerbate voter disenfranchisement (NORC APPI Issue Brief, 2023). Limited outreach and lack of translated voting materials reduce political engagement in these communities. This suppression aligns with broader voter suppression tactics that disproportionately affect racial minorities (Hajnal et al., 2017). Such practices narrow the electorate, amplifying the influence of citizens more susceptible to authoritarian appeals. Efforts to suppress minority voting, therefore, not only disenfranchise individuals but also weaken democratic resilience (Verba et al., 1995).
Recent analyses emphasize that authoritarianism can develop through gradual, seemingly rational decisions. Timothy Snyder (2017) describes the phenomenon of “anticipatory obedience,” in which individuals and institutions preemptively conform to authoritarian expectations. This process accelerates democratic backsliding because it normalizes autocratic practices without requiring overt coercion. Businesses, media outlets, and universities may self-censor or align with government preferences to protect their interests, creating a feedback loop that further erodes democratic norms (Gessen, 2025). Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s classic essay “The Path of the Law” (1897) offers a legal perspective that aligns with these psychological concerns. Holmes argues that law is best understood as a tool for predicting how power will be exercised, rather than as a moral system. This pragmatic view underscores the importance of recognizing the political and psychological realities shaping law and governance. When citizens are uninformed and susceptible to authoritarianism, legal institutions are more likely to reflect those tendencies, rather than serve as a neutral safeguard.
Section IV: Conclusion
The future of American democracy depends on addressing the vulnerabilities. Civic education, media literacy, and inclusive electoral reforms are critical to strengthening the electorate’s capacity for democratic decision-making. Reducing barriers to political participation, particularly for marginalized groups, is equally essential. However, it is also necessary to address the economic and social precarity that drives citizens to prioritize daily survival over civic engagement. Without these efforts, the psychological weaknesses that enabled Trump’s rise will continue to endanger democratic stability.
This is a competent summary of a coherent viewpoint supported by a reasonable range of sources. But from an editorial perspective there is much less here than meets the eye. "Reducing barriers to political participation" by civic education and increased media literacy, and "addressing economic and social precarity" sound like good ideas. Perhaps they are parts of the long-term policy goals of mass political parties in a social democracy. What have they to do with countering an authorittarian assault on civic institutions and the rule of law happening, over a scale of weeks, _now?_Either an implicit proposition underlying the essay is that no such urgency exists and no such process is under way, or there would appear to be some substantial tension between what the piece says and what it is about. Clarifying this disjunction, which might involve some more substantial rewriting, looks to me like the best route to improvement.
| | | You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|