The specter of totalitarianism in the Tea Party

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen,a man of solid conservative credentials (albeit he would be described as an "establishment" conservative by the radicalized far-right) has a problem with the Tea Party taking the country hostage to achieve their political objectives. Buried within his opinion is this remarkable paragraph: Cohen sees the specter of totalitarianism in the Tea Party. Green with Tea Party envy:

The odd thing about the Tea Party is that it uses Washington to attack Washington. This is a version of Hannah Arendt’s observation that totalitarian movements use democratic institutions to destroy democracy. . . Note that the Tea Party is nowhere near a majority — not in the House and not in the Senate. Its followers have only 60 seats in the 435-member House, but in a textbook application of political power they were able to use parliamentary rules to drive the congressional agenda. As we have known since Lenin’s day, a determined minority is hands down better than an irresolute majority.

This paragraph is in reference to one of the great political works of the past century, Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (1951). This book continues to be one of the definitive philosophical analyses of totalitarianism, at least in its 20th century form. I am surprised that Richard Cohen dared to speak this in his opinion, given the swift retribution he can expect from the right-wing propaganda noise machine in this country.

I have also been giving this much thought recently as I have watched the federal debt ceiling "crisis" play out over the past several weeks. I believe the passage that Mr. Cohen vaguely references in his opinion is this passage, Excerpts from Hannah Arendt, THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM (footnotes omitted):

It was characteristic of the rise of the Nazi movement in Germany and of the Communist movements in Europe after 1930 that they recruited their members from this mass of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention. The result was that the majority of their membership consisted of people who never before had appeared on the political scene. This permitted the introduction of entirely new methods into political propaganda, and indifference to the arguments of political opponents; these movements not only placed themselves outside and against the party system as a whole, they found a membership that had never been reached, never been "spoiled" by the party system. Therefore they did not need to refute opposing arguments and consistently preferred methods which ended in death rather than persuasion, which spelled terror rather than conviction. They presented disagreements as invariably originating in deep natural, social, or psychological sources beyond the control of the individual and therefore beyond the power of reason. This would have been a shortcoming only if they had sincerely entered into competition with other parties; it was not if they were sure of dealing with people who had reason to be equally hostile to all parties.

The success of totalitarian movements among the masses meant the end of two illusions of democratically ruled countries in general and of European nation-states and their party system in particular. The first was that the people in its majority had taken an active part in government and that each individual was in sympathy with one's own or somebody else's party. On the contrary, the movements showed that the politically neutral and indifferent masses could easily be the majority in a democratically ruled country, that therefore a democracy could function according to rules which are actively recognized by only a minority. The second democratic illusion exploded by the totalitarian movements was that these politically indifferent masses did not matter, that they were truly neutral and constituted no more than the inarticulate backward setting for the political life of the nation. Now they made apparent what no other organ of public opinion had ever been able to show, namely, that democratic government had rested as much on the silent approbation and tolerance of the indifferent and inarticulate sections of the people as on the articulate and visible institutions and organizations of the country. Thus when the totalitarian movements invaded Parliament with their contempt for parliamentary government, they merely appeared inconsistent: actually, they succeeded in convincing the people at large that parliamentary majorities were spurious and did not necessarily correspond to the realities of the country, thereby undermining the self-respect and the confidence of governments which also believed in majority rule rather than in their constitutions.

It has frequently been pointed out that totalitarian movements use and abuse democratic freedoms in order to abolish them. This is not just devilish cleverness on the part of the leaders or childish stupidity on the part of the masses. Democratic freedoms may be based on the equality of all citizens before the law; yet they acquire their meaning and function organically only where the citizens belong to and are represented by groups or form a social and political hierarchy . . .

from "The Totalitarian Movement"

What we have today is an economically, socially and politically displaced mass of people who are no longer invested in the established order of our economic, social and political institutions. As Arendt describes, "This permitted the introduction of entirely new methods into political propaganda," i.e., the right-wing propaganda noise machine (talk radio and FAUX News), "and indifference to the arguments of political opponents" (the demonization of "libruls" and the left).

"[T]hese movements not only placed themselves outside and against the party system as a whole, they found a membership that had never been reached, never been 'spoiled' by the party system." Isn't this a principal claim of the Tea Party? — that they are not beholden to either major political party (though they caucus with Republicans), and profess to be a leaderless grassroots movement?

Arendt continues, "They did not need to refute opposing arguments and consistently preferred methods which ended in death rather than persuasion, which spelled terror rather than conviction." The Tea Party was willing to kill their hostage, the American economy, in order to get their way. This is economic terrorism, and while you may argue the "death" is metaphorical, it would be very real for many people affected by the consequences of a default on the federal debt and the resulting economic depression.

Arendt continues, "They presented disagreements as invariably originating in deep natural, social, or psychological sources beyond the control of the individual and therefore beyond the power of reason." Does this not describe the Christian Reconstructionist Movement on the Religious Right? Politicians who claim to be divinely inspired to run for political office and refer to the GOP as "God's Own Party"? “The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise,” Gary North, a top Reconstruction theorist, wrote in his 1989 book, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. “Those who refuse to submit publicly…must be denied citizenship.” A Nation Under God | Mother Jones.

And what of the two "illusions" of democracy described by Arendt? "The first [is] that the people in its majority had taken an active part in government and that each individual was in sympathy with one's own or somebody else's party." Political participation in our democratic process is probably at an all-time low. Apathy rules (with rare exceptions like Wisconsin and Ohio).

The rise of so-called "Independent" voters and "No Party Preference" voters speaks to political alienation and the decline of allegiance to any political party institution or platform. As Arendt argued, "[T]he movements showed that the politically neutral and indifferent masses could easily be the majority in a democratically ruled country, that therefore a democracy could function according to rules which are actively recognized by only a minority." Totalitarians will seek to rewrite the rules, or to play by their own set of rules. Does this sound familiar?

"The second democratic illusion exploded by the totalitarian movements was that these politically indifferent masses did not matter, that they were truly neutral and constituted no more than the inarticulate backward setting for the political life of the nation." Well, the anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-government, anti-democracy masses have been heard from and they do matter. They are not invested in the established order of our economic, social and political institutions. They represent a clear and present danger to these institutions. They advocate "chaos" theory.

As Arendt concluded, "Thus when the totalitarian movements invaded Parliament with their contempt for parliamentary government, they merely appeared inconsistent: actually, they succeeded in convincing the people at large that parliamentary majorities were spurious and did not necessarily correspond to the realities of the country, thereby undermining the self-respect and the confidence of governments which also believed in majority rule rather than in their constitutions."

How may pundits or even average Americans have you heard say that "our government is broken" and "dysfunctional"? This delegitimizes government and political institutions. It undermines the very foundations of our economic, social and political institutions which have existed for more than two centuries and made this country great. It creates a crisis of faith in our institutions. To be replaced by what? Totalitarianism? Theocracy? Serfdom under a modern form of Corporatocracy? Before you destroy an institution you had better be damn clear about with what you intend to replace it.

If there is something wrong with this country today it is the facile acceptance of and legitimization of what is in essence a totalitarian movement that is anti-government and anti-democratic, and thus un-American. "WE The People" are the government in this constitutional democratic Republic! This totalitarian movement is at war with their fellow Americans. And that is unacceptable.