Germany under Hitler has been much on my mind for the past several years. It was never exactly clear to me just why the German people would go along with such a man. Willingly follow him into the abyss. I've read probably more than a dozen books about Hitler and the German people, and I'm no closer to truly understanding it.

I have perhaps a cloudy notion of why. People are social creatures, we don't exist as atomistic entities. There are exceptions, but fewer than most suppose, I think. Most folks who claims to be "independent," are either ignorant or delusional, maybe both. About a quarter of registered voters in my county in Florida are "independents." The majority of them vote Republican. Consistently. Every election. I've been told that what statistics seem to show is that "independents" generally vote the way their neighbors do.

We're social animals that exist in a hierarchy. I don't think human beings could ever exist in a truly egalitarian social order. Whether or not we could, the fact is that we do; and people are very aware of how people rank within the hierarchy, be it economic, political, military or academic.

We create hierarchies of authority, presumably to establish and maintain order. We understand authority, we know it when we see it, and we choose to either recognize it or not. Comply with it, or not. We use symbols and titles to display authority. Badges, uniforms, robes, coats, collars, furniture, housing, signage, vehicles. People with no authority sometimes try to impersonate someone with authority by appropriating these symbols.

Some people conflate power and authority. They believe authority gives people power. In doing so, they surrender their own agency. In Annie Jacobsen's Operation Paperclip, I read again and again, German scientists and doctors, most of them Nazi Party members, claiming that they were "just following orders," when they could no longer deny the horrible things they did. The generals at Nuremberg, likewise, claiming that if they didn't follow orders then there was no military, no discipline. It might as well just be a mob.

But people became Nazis willingly. Carried out mass murder on an unprecedented scale. (The same can be said about the United States Army Air Force in WW II, and the RAF, with the bombing raids on Japanese and German civilian population centers.)

It seems that nearly all people have some capacity for cruelty and violence, to one degree or another. Some people have an enormous capacity. Maybe they were damaged at some point in their lives. "Hurt people hurt people."

As social creatures, we have mechanisms in place to check that capacity, inhibit it, in most circumstances. Certainly in public settings. Not so much, perhaps, in more intimate ones.

Within the in-group, the larger society within which we identify, these mechanisms and measures are somewhat effective. The worst failures are considered newsworthy because we recognize them as failures.

But that capacity for cruelty and violence can be summoned by someone in a position of authority. A leader. Someone looked up to, held in some esteem. Like a "successful, billionaire businessman and former president." As horrible a human being as I believe Donald J. Trump is, there are many Americans who look up to him as a leader.

But in order to mobilize that capacity for cruelty and violence, the leader must identify a target, a threat, an "other" to which the ordinary norms of civil behavior do not apply. Because it's not "cruelty," if you're "protecting" something or someone you value. And violence is appropriate because of the high value of what is threatened.

Israel. Gaza.

We're social creatures. Irrational ones. Our cognitive abilities are limited. To the extent that we use them at all, it is often to justify or explain our interior emotional state to ourselves. To "rationalize" our behavior, our opinions.

I heard someone in a "focus group," broadcast on cable news, say that she thought Kamala Harris was an idiot. When asked what made her think that, she said something to the effect, "Because she hasn't done anything."

Irrational. Emotional.

Voter.

I thought, foolishly it seems, that Donald Trump would fade from the public arena. I expected a "Trump v2.0" would emerge. Someone who would exploit the same grievances, the same fear, the same prejudices, but in a more "civil" manner. Maybe Ron DeSantis, or, more likely, Rick Scott. DeSantis was trying to be "Trump v1.1," younger, with better hair.

What Trump has shown is that this kind of leadership works.

Not only is democracy on the ballot, so is who we are. Who we choose to look up to as leaders. What we are prepared to do in response to their "call to action."

I don't know how to reach the people who think Donald Trump's rhetoric is inspiring. I don't know how to convince them that they're being manipulated, conned into becoming the worst versions of themselves. I don't know how I should feel about them. I struggle with that, because most of my feelings are negative.

To no small degree, how this election turns will depend on what abilities Kamala Harris can summon as a leader. The contrast is clear, but it must be articulated clearly, to reach those minds that can be reached.

Originally posted at Nice Marmot 12:27 Thursday, 25 July 2024