What Has Befallen Us: Hitler and the Rise of Trump

Posted on April 22, 2024April 29, 2024 by Peter Scott Cameron

What has befallen America? It has been a privilege to split my life between two great democracies, Canada and the United States, and I have lived comfortably here despite the country’s foibles. I became a citizen after 9/11, as an expression of gratitude for and solidarity with the American people. The U.S. has been generous and hospitable to me, and I am grateful.

And yet. I have grown increasingly disquieted and anxious here among my neighbours and fellow citizens. After a first inexplicable and frightening Trump presidency, and with electoral polls showing him possibly winning again, I no longer feel at home in this United States. How could nearly half the people support such a person?

Before the 2020 election, my neighbours over the hill and down the road hung their Trump banners on their house and barn: Finally a president with balls, one stated. On a few weekends before the election, they practised shooting their semi-automatic weapons in their fields. They mowed gigantic letters into their hillside: FREEDOM. After Joe Biden was elected, they hung their huge American flag, inverted, dominating the hilltop, meaning: Distress. Extreme danger to life and property. Who are these people?

I fear they are the same people who allowed Hitler to take power in 1933 in Germany. The everyday view of Hitler’s ascent is that he “seized” power, but this not really correct. Instead, the despot was handed power by enablers who believed they could control and manage him. He was appointed Chancellor, through the legitimate democratic process of the time. Then he consolidated and took over, using available means. He did not have a mandate from the majority in the election that preceded his appointment; rather, he was given his position as a kind of compromise candidate, even though most of the “conservative political class” at the time regarded him as a “chaotic clown” – an idiot. (1)

Here in America, we are facing a situation that is parallel to the Weimar Republic of 1933. Although the mechanisms are different, we have an aspiring dictator who may well be handed power once again in November of this year. This is despite the facts: that Trump is a convicted fraudster and molester of women, that he is a misogynist, a racist and supporter of white supremacists, a chronic liar, a chaotic incompetent (demonstrated by his first term in office), a fool (such as pondering the internal use of disinfectants (2) to treat Covid), a threat to world peace and order, who undermines venerable domestic and international social and political institutions such as NATO, who is a foe of women’s rights and an impediment to climate action, who admires dictatorship, and who, by his own words, is a clear threat to the American Democracy itself. One wonders how so many people can support a person who threatens the foundation of the two-hundred-and-fifty year old American experiment in democracy and its – imperfect and uneven to be sure – struggle for development of the human potential.

We know the story of Nazi Germany too well: a once-decent society consumed by hatred and the holocaust, with not only six million Jews exterminated, but also another five million Gypsies, Poles, communist, gay, lesbian, mentally ill, and developmentally disabled people murdered. Along with that was the worst war in history, with an estimated 75 to 80 million deaths (worldwide) – in Europe occurring under the rule of a megalomaniac who nevertheless many saw as a fool. The Germans were not an uncivilized people – quite the opposite. The Jewish people were not outsiders in German society of the time – again, quite the opposite. There was of course, a virulent strain of anti-Semitism concentrated in the higher echelons, propagated mainly by elitists, pseudo-scientific thinkers, and some artists at the time, such as the notorious racist, the composer Richard Wagner. But overall, the Jewish people were integrated into German society. How could this catastrophe have happened? How could decent Germans have allowed a person such as Hitler to take power in their democracy?

Similarly, how could the decent American people allow a potential despot to take power in their democracy? In the end, this may be unanswerable. But there are themes:

1. Various constituencies believe the despot will represent their interests.

Too many people in Weimar Germany considered Adolf Hitler to be an idiot who would be useful to them, someone who could be manipulated while he would protect their assets. And so it is that too many people in America consider Donald Trump as, at least, an unsavoury character, but as someone who will defend their interests and position. A common refrain among Trump supporters is that “I don’t like the man, but I like the policies.” This judgement is a terrible error and it is the same thing that groups of Germans thought about Hitler.

Various communities of people, although they had a dim view of Hitler’s character, saw him as someone who would shield them from harm or loss. The conservative wealthy class and the managers of industry saw Hitler as a “performative” clown, but one who nevertheless would protect their wealth. Small business people and the self-employed, who felt their livelihoods were threatened, supported him. He appealed to the Catholics by his posing as someone who would defend Christian values. Likewise, he attracted the employed Protestant voters and domestic workers who felt secure in a rigid hierarchy with strong leadership. Of course, angry down-and-outers, accurately or not, saw in him someone who would recognize their victim-hood and help them our of their misery. Finally, there were those, the underground power-broker trolls of their day, like the Steve Bannons of our time, who wanted to tear down Germany society and establish strongman rule – although not by Hitler himself. They thought he would prove useful in the transition to autocracy but then could be disposed of and replaced by themselves.

All these constituencies together formed a powerful coalition with adequate numbers to create a pathway to power for Hitler.

The parallels are obvious. Somewhat unfairly, we Liberals often think of Trump supporters as rabble, donning red MAGA hats and yelling “lock her up” at his earlier rallies. But really these are disaffected people, many of whom have been harmed by long-term social and economic changes over which they have no power. Many are just angry working people partly disenfranchised by massive social and economic shifts. Trump appears to stand up for them by giving the finger to the more liberal, better-educated and self-satisfied establishment. The more outrageous and lawless he is, the better they like it; after all, they feel they have little left to lose.

In addition to that group, there is a very sizeable number of Evangelicals who see Donald Trump as a “flawed messenger,” but who nevertheless stands for their values and issues, particularly their determination to have control over women’s sex and reproductive lives. Also, there are some Catholics who will vote for him because of his opportunistic opposition to abortion. There is a swath of the middle class whose position feels threatened by economic changes, the influx of immigrants, and seismic shifts in social values. To them, Trump is seen as a defender of both their way of life and their social position. Further, he provides, as Hitler did with the Jews, convenient scapegoats: Muslims, who are believed to threaten us with cultural change and terrorism, and migrants who are “not people” and who are “poisoning the blood” of the country. Add to this a fantasy – a promised return to a better, prouder time, the “Reich,” a time of power and glory – and you have a perfect, complementary emotional formula to focus the projections of those who are unhappy or afraid in the present. Make American Great Again.

The conservative wealthy upper classes, knowing full well that Trump is a dishonest businessman who only dimly comprehends economics, nevertheless see him as someone who will work for them, ensuring that they will be well rewarded with tax-cutting, with libertarian policies, and with protection for entrenched interests such as the fossil fuel industries. Finally, there are those ready to tear down American democracy, from American proto-fascists like Steve Bannon (noted above) and Roger Stone, to radical libertarians like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, to professional political power cynics like Mitch McConnell in the Senate , and all the way to lunatic fringe members of the Freedom Caucus in the House. To these people, Trump is the useful idiot, who can be put into service, and then outflanked, in establishing a new order.

Underpinning all this, there is a powerful foundation of simple anti-black racism among white members all of the above groups; Trump has communicated clearly that he represents them.

Add to all this the single-issue gun people and climate deniers, and those who will vote Republican no matter what, and you have a sizeable coalition. This fusion of interests into a collective, similar to 1933 Germany, might fall short of a popular majority, but it represents enough people to enable Trump to win the presidency, especially with spoiler candidates such as the befuddled Robert Kennedy in play.

2. The despot is an astute media player and has major media enablers.

Donald Trump has been a brilliant player in the era of social media. I am certain that not a single day has gone by since June, 2015, when he announced his candidacy, that he has not been in the news. His very erraticism and unpredictability ensure that he garners attention and even his most abhorrent behaviours serve to promote him. He said it himself: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?” (3) Perhaps he underestimated himself here; if coverage of his criminal and other cases is an indication, he would not only not lose voters, but rather would gain them.

Hitler was also a master of the media of the time. He exploited “sound recordings, newsreels, and radio,” and he even campaigned, theatrically dramatic for the era, by aeroplane. In this, he was supported and used by media moguls, such Alfred Hugenberg, who like right-wingers of our time, imagined a media bias against conservatism. Hugenberg, like Rupert Murdoch of Fox News, and the likes of Tucker Carlson with Trump, capitalized on Hitler’s persona despite privately thinking he was “manic.” Hugenberg used Hitler to promulgate “catastrophic politics” with inflammatory news, and a disinformation campaign of “half-truths, rumours, and outright lies.” His goal, like the Murdochs, was to promulgate culture wars, divide the society, and polarize politics, in order to preclude a socially progressive consensus. Like Trump in the present, Hitler was seen as a useful actor in promoting this destructive agenda. Of course, once entrenched in the chancellorship, Herr Hitler took that agenda to extremes that even Hugenberg and others could not imagine.

3. Decent people believe that their playing by the rules will contain the despot.

Democracy is vulnerable and fragile, as indeed, is civilization itself. As Goebbels famously said: “The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction.” In order to work, democracy’s inherent untidiness has to be supported by people of good will and good faith, who agree to play by both the letter and the intention of the rules. The decent left, centre, and right of present-day America, and other democracies like Canada, the U.K., and The Netherlands, are prone to a belief that if they, themselves, continue to work fairly within it, the democratic system inevitably will protect against the lawless players. But this is a fallacy that the populist demagogue exploits at will. Hitler used this delusion to advantage, as did Senator McCarthy two decades later in America. Trump, even more bold-faced, has publicly promised to use the system against itself, for example by employing the Justice Department against his political enemies generally and Joe Biden personally if he is elected president.

Earlier on, the first line of defence in the U.S. against Trump populism would have been the Republican Party itself, but unfortunately the party has been following a long arc of decline in political ethics.(4) In the Trump era, decent Republicans, from very conservative like Liz Cheney to the moderately so like Mitt Romney, have either been railroaded from the party or have run for the hills themselves, unable or unwilling to subject themselves to the virulent onslaught. Too many of those who are left are fawning minions like Lindsey Graham, destructionists such as Matt Gaetz, the unhinged like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and cynical manipulators of power such as Elise Stefanik and the previously noted Mitch McConnell.

4. Decent people believe the motivations of the despot are like their own.

A second fallacy of decent people is that they assume that someone like a Hitler is motivated by the same, normal things that they are: wanting to make things better, wanting to help, enjoying being liked by others for doing good, and being part of the human community. The normal person wants to avoid wrongdoing and does not want to feel shame or guilt. Decent people assume that the demagogue will respond to these things and feel good when they do right, and feel shame when they do wrong. But this is wrong. These normal motivations simply to not apply to a Hitler or a Trump – people with psychopathic and narcissistic character structures. A person with the psychopathic traits (5) easily exploits the decency and normal motivation of regular people – as easily as he takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of political systems. He sneers at normal people, considering them inferior, or as Trump calls them, “losers.”

Much has been written of the character structure of Adolf Hitler (6), and certainly it is true that after-the-fact psychiatry can be all too facile and glib. Nevertheless, it is easy to see the psychopathy of Hitler, and to see that he was motivated by rage, and a desire to wreak upon the world his hatred and need for destruction. He lacked a conscience and empathy: these, the penultimate indicators of the psychopath. Further, obviously he craved attention and admiration: signifiers of the narcissist. There is no need to peer inside the psyche or to analyse his childhood in order to see these things; they are in plain sight. Hitler was a psychopath with narcissistic traits.

Similarly, Donald Trump’s narcissism and psychopathy are in plain sight, in his words and deeds. However in his case, it would be fair to reverse the sequence and describe him as narcissistic, with psychopathic tendencies. His primary motivation is his need for admiration and attention. He craves notice and tolerates only fawning acclaim from those around him and from the public. Hence, his favourite moments on earth are his rallies. When admiration falters or is withdrawn, as a narcissist he lashes out and dismisses the transgressor. “Pathetic,” he called Nikki Haley. (7) These moments alternate with episodes of farcical self-aggrandisement – he has proclaimed himself the most “presidential” of Presidents since Abraham Lincoln. (8)

However, his character structure does include psychopathic components of rage and hatred; life is about dominance, and winning. Others, even a venerable war hero and public servant, like John McCain, are “losers” – in this case because he “lost” by becoming a prisoner of war, after being captured serving his country in combat. (9) Trump never admits defeat, never admits errors, exploits others, and exhibits a lack of conscience and empathy. Still, his destructive rage is not primary, as it was in Hitler. He would not necessarily embark on a program to exterminate groups of people, as Hitler did. He is racist to be sure, but likely does not care that much about these people, as long as he is getting attention and admiration. His demonizing of migrants and Muslims is mostly opportunistic, a way to capture notoriety.

It is, perhaps, psychological hair-splitting to discuss whether narcissism or psychopathy is primary in these two people. Whichever way around it is, the narcissistic-psychopathic pairing in character structure is dangerous: dangerous to those around the person, and dangerous to the society. And in the case of the U.S., this person with the personality disorder is a clear threat not only to the decency and civility of the nation, but also to the Democracy itself.

The strength of American democratic institutions is greater than that of the post-world-war Weimar Republic, and Trump is no Hitler, exactly. Perhaps Mussolini would be a more apt comparison in character and deportment. But make no mistake: he is a very dangerous aspiring despot and conditions are ripe for the ascent of such a person. We should not be complacent or deceived. The parallels with the rise of Hitler are apparent. The means to subvert democracy are available and there is a broad coalition of people who believe Trump will protect their interests. The candidate is adept at media use and there are media players who capitalize on this. This candidate with a narcissistic-psychopathic character structure is an admirer of dictators and a would-be dictator himself, and there is a cadre of determined enablers, with plans prepared, that is ready to enable their useful idiot. As Isaac Arnsdorf has reported, Steve Bannon, for instance, one of Trump’s handlers, has a detailed plan for at least one-hundred years of rule by a gang of MAGA proto-fascists. (10)

Trump does not need to seize power. All he has to do is be elected, and then be allowed to consolidate. If he can be defeated at the polls, it will be a bumpy ride, but he will go away, and the road will be clearer to protect against the next Trump. If he is not defeated at the polls, then it will be up to all of us, and to every decent person who believes in democracy, to oppose, to challenge, and to stop him, by whatever peaceful and lawful means we have available to us. (11)

Meanwhile, what to do about the discomfort with my fellow citizens and my neighbours? Part of me, of course, just wants to flee. But it would be hard to do so in good conscience. The right thing to do is to stay and resist tyranny. In any case, we truly are one world, and there really is no escape from these people. Canada has its opportunistic, “populist” prime ministerial candidate, Pierre Poilievre. The Netherlands has Geert Wilders; France has Marine Le Pen, Italy has Giorgia Meloni, and Hungary, Viktor Mihály Orbán. They are everywhere, and this is not to mention Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping, Min Aung Hlaing of Myanmar, Nicolás Maduro Moros of Venezuela, and all the other tin-pot dictators the world over. No, there is no escape; the only way forward is to stay and fight.

The simple truth is that I just have to live with the disquiet I feel, and know that I am not alone in this. Kathy and I meditate; and every evening, she lights candles for peace on the dining room table. I take solace in knowing that there are very many good people out there in this country. Although the Supreme Court has become an unreliable protector of democracy, I know that if the man is elected, the good states, such as New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, will fight to resist the despot.

I also know that there are also many decent people who will vote for Trump. I have to accept that they have their reasons. To live with that, I can only adopt a Buddhist take on it. They are not bad people; they are just mistaken. As to my gun-toting neighbours: I can’t offer friendship, but I can offer peace. For now, their banners are down, the flag is upright, and there has been no shooting for a long time. Maybe they have had an epiphany and realize that the man is no good. We will see what they do.

I can only hope for the best, while preparing for the worst. And prepare to resist. To fight.

____________

After-note:

I find it depressing to write about this man, and I hope not to do so again.

Sources:

Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books, 2003.

Gopnik, Adam. The Enablers. The New Yorker Magazine, March 25, 2024

Ryback, Timothy W. Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power. Knopf, 2024.

Notes:

1. The historical analysis of the rise of Hitler here is entirely dependent upon the review by Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker Magazine, and on Timothy Ryback’s book, both listed above. Most quotations are from Gopnik.

2. President Trump Task Force Briefing. C-Span, April 23, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing.

3. Flores, Reena. Donald Trump: I could shoot someone and not lose any voters. CBS News, January 26, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters/.

4. Milbank, Dana. The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five-Year Crack-Up of the Republican Party. Doubleday, 2022.

5. I do not use the term, “Antisocial Personality Disorder,” from the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The Committee has whitewashed the diagnosis; it sounds like someone who doesn’t like social gatherings much, as opposed to an inhuman character structure that lacks a conscience and any empathy and is prone to interpersonal abuse and often violence. That is a psychopath: not someone who is “antisocial.”

6. See, for example: Martin-Joy, John. Erik Erikson: A Psychoanalyst Looks at Hitler. Psychology Today, July 28, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/politics-psychiatry-and-psychoanalysis/202007/erik-erikson-psychoanalyst-looks-hitler.

7. Moran, Lee. Donald Trump’s ‘Pathetic’ Excuse For D.C. Primary Loss To Haley Is Mercilessly Mocked. Huffington Post, March 4, 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-responds-nikki-haley-defeat_n_65e5743ce4b0f89059333258.

8. Cillizza, Chris. Donald Trump ranked himself 2nd on a list of most ‘presidential’ presidents. The Point, CNN, July 26, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/donald-trump-abe-lincoln/index.html.

9. Associated Press. Fact check: Trump says he never called John McCain a ‘loser.’ He definitely did. Chicago Tribune, September 5, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2020/09/05/fact-check-trump-says-he-never-called-john-mccain-a-loser-he-definitely-did/.

10. Pengelly, Martin. New book details Steve Bannon’s ‘Maga movement’ plan to rule for 100 years: Isaac Arnsdorf’s Finish What We Started shows how the strategist wanted to create a dominant coalition to take US political power. The Guardian, April 4, 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/04/steve-bannon-book-maga.

11. Over 20% (28% of Republicans, 12% of Democrats) agree that violence may be necessary to “get the county back on track.” Santhanam, Laura. 1 in 5 Americans think violence may solve U.S. divisions, poll finds. PBS News Hour, April 3, 2024. Retrieved from: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/1-in-5-americans-think-violence-may-solve-u-s-divisions-poll-finds.

Revised April 29. 2024.

The Malarkey Scale

Posted on January 28, 2024January 30, 2024 by Peter Scott Cameron

Malarkey (mel-ŏr´kē) n. Slang. Exaggerated or foolish talk, usu. intended to deceive. (1)

Picture Joe Biden’s big blue 2019 campaign bus: NO MALARKEY! Mostly the slogan was derided, seen as antiquated, out of touch, and reflective of Joe’s advanced age. (2) However, many of us, usually oldsters, enjoyed it and understood it immediately, having endured the four chaotic years of the previous scurrilous occupant of the White House. There is some truth to the charge that it was antiquated, but that makes it even better! It is exactly the word we need to describe what we are all wading in, in our so-called “information” age. (3)

Let me challenge, right here, those younger who would mock the word. I would say, if we old-timers have been expected to learn strange terms in our old age such as what gnarly means to a skateboarder, what gaslighting, ghosting, doxxing and catfishing mean to social media addicts, to understand what fetch means when uttered by a mean girl, or even that a really hot girl is one who wears no undergarments so as to better display her attributes – well, then, younger people should be expected to understand and use English.

Hearken, kids: you should know what it means to peregrinate, what it is to be purblind, what chicanery involves, what sort of raiment a person is wearing, what it is to twattle, and how it is to feel crapulous after over-indulgence the night before. You should know the difference between someone being indefatigable as opposed to indomitable; they are similar, but not the same, certainly. And, for good measure, speaking as a retired professor who has graded too many papers, you should know where apostrophes go, rather than just sprinkling them on the page like confetti.

Thus I think we owe Joe Biden kudos for his effort to revive this wonderful and useful word. In this age of distorted public discourse, social media prevarication. marketing nonsense, public relations impression management, public figure pontificating, not to mention outright lying and disinformation, we need a good word to describe it all. That word is malarkey.

Of course, there are other words for it, as the Princeton University philosopher, Harry G. Frankfurt (1929 – 2023) described earlier. (4) Uncle Joe, though, is too circumspect and civil to have used NO BULLSHIT! on the side of his bus. The other guy, who is a much cruder and more primitive fellow, might do such, although he would be lying, of course. There are other terms; one might use “humbug” for example. Malarkey is richer, however, because it includes considerations of degree – quantity and quality – as well as consciousness vs. unconsciousness, and matters of intent. Humbug is a much simpler concept. It is mere humbug to say that the country is under the guidance of divine providence, for example, but if this is taken further, it becomes malarkey. An example would be to claim that the aforementioned providence entitles citizens to believe that they are especially selected, and have the right to exceptional privilege, usually at the expense of others.

There are many kinds of malarkey (also spelled malarky – feel free) and the concept has important dimensions that are worth considering. Doing so leads inevitably to a Malarkey Scale: a rough measurement of the size, the qualities, and the impact of a particular piece of malarkey. Is it a little fib or a whopper? Is the intention relatively harmless, or does it seek to rob others of their well-being? Is its impact negligible or does it cause untold damage in a number of areas of civil life? That is, is it only an unconsciously believed small bit of nonsense that does little harm, or is it a monstrous lie, deliberately crafted, that harms many powerless people or helpless creatures?

For example, it could be as harmless as the idea that not wearing your rubbers in the rain will give you a cold. Or it could be as malevolent – albeit comically preposterous, of course – as Marjorie Taylor Greene’s claim that the California wildfires of a couple of seasons ago were caused by Jews firing lasers from outer space (in order to clear the way for a Jewish-financed high-speed rail project). You see the difference: we are talking about the size, the intention, and the consequences – each of which exist in degrees on a scale. Based on these dimensions, a piece of malarkey may qualify for one M, or it may deserve two (M M), three (M M M) or even four (M M M M) Malarkeys.

The first component is of course, size: how much actual balderdash there is in a particular manifestation of malarkey? Is it a tiny bit of nonsensicality, say, such as the idea that dreams predict the future? (More on this later.) If so, it probably will qualify for just one M. In many cases, although consequences are a separate consideration (see below), these tend to do little harm, and may even do a bit of good. I should mention that these constitute much of what we consider as “common sense,” which is to say, shared cultural understandings, accepted at face value, but that have no inherent relationship to reality. Some of these could just as easily be referred to as humbug.

A good example of this would be the pronouncement, most often made to teenagers, that “you can be whatever you want to be.” It is part of the constellation of common-sense American mythology and is a satisfying bit of folderol that can even be quite useful. It can be used, for example, to inspire Junior to stop watching TicTok videos of partly-clad young girls dancing, and instead get up off the couch and do something meaningful like studying mathematics or trying out for the hockey team. But it is not exactly correct, of course. True, with a reasonable I. Q., a bit of luck, a good education, and if one did the requisite ten thousand hours of study and work, one could accomplish a lot in almost any field. Nevertheless, you may not become the next Marie Curie, Max Weber, or Eric Clapton. You may just end up being an social media influencer. Still, you are a better person for having tried.

So, the above, even if it is a bit of hooey, has a grain of useful inspirational legitimacy in it. But the idea can be inverted and used to do damage, thereby qualifying for more than one M. An inversion can be, and is often, used to shame and unjustly blame people for their predicament. For example, there is an entire ideology that has been created that condemns the poor for their plight, thereby justifying stultifying inequality and rationalizing a half-hearted social safety net. It denies the reality of the structural nature of mass poverty, both domestic and colonial, in our consumer-capitalist society. (5) We say that the poor are poor because it is their fault; they’re lazy etc. True in some cases, of course, but it is mostly poppycock that makes us feel better about ourselves when we have more wealth. I would point out just one fact and then let it go at that. The large majority of poor families in North America have at least one member working full-time, full-year, often more than one job. (6) That is a structural problem, not a failure of the person.

This brings us to the second dimension then: intention of the malarkey-spreader. Is the person intending to deceive and thereby to harm others? Is he or she benefiting, consciously or not, from promulgating the malarkey? Is the intention to benefit, psychologically, socially, or materially usually at some cost to others? Again, it is a matter of degree. We oldsters might criticize the music of younger people because it makes us feel better while we are dealing with our arthritis or musing about our youthful hotness that has gone AWOL. This is minor: there is no harm done and their music isn’t that bad. We really don’t mean to hurt them and the young people certainly don’t feel hurt. After all, they don’t really care about our musical opinions.

On the other hand, the malarkey could be the malicious work of, say, an Andrew Tate, the purveyor of toxic masculinity, deliberately propagating hateful ideas to a large Internet following. He provides poisonous ideology to impressionable young men, amplifying their ignorance and feeding their misogyny so that…well, so that he can be somebody. And so that he can abuse vulnerable women. And so that he can drive expensive, fast cars. Pathetic really, but there it is: a developmentally delayed boy-man, propagating harmful claptrap with the full-on intention to harm others for personal gain. This makes his malarkey monstrous.

Finally, the third dimension is: consequences. Does spreading the malarkey do no, or little harm? Belief that the world is flat, for example, does no harm. Nobody cares, and usually the belief has no effect – and if it does have an upshot, it is positive: that is, providing beneficial amusement to others.

But the consequences of some malarkey can be catastrophic. Think blaming immigrants for crime as Trump did when he entered office and is doing so again this year (in fact, crime rates among immigrants are consistently lower than in the host population). (7) Trumpery, indeed. Think of (Trump again) the failure to condemn white supremacists after the Charlottesville demonstration and the murder-by-car of Heather Heyer, and later, in 2020, of his message to the Proud Boys, to “stand down and stand by.” It was an endorsement of the group and their cause, and they were thrilled and encouraged. (8) Think of Hitler blaming Jews for the political and economic woes of Weimar Republic. Enough said.

There you have it in assessing malarkey: the size or scale or degree of the lie, the intention, and the consequences. This leads quite naturally to the Malarkey Scale, as follows:

1. Minor Malarkey M:

This involves a smaller lie, just some flapdoodle made usually without intention to harm others, and the consequences are quite minor. I was, for example, in teaching about the sleep and dreaming cycle in psychology, surprised at how many students claimed not only that dreams predicted the future, but that they, themselves, had experienced such a prognosticating function resulting from the activation of random neurons in the brain stem during rapid-eye-movement sleep. It is untrue, of course, but there is no intention to harm another, and the effects, other than the believer sounding a bit silly, are inconsequential: just one M.

2. Moderate Malarkey M M:

This level of malarkey involves a greater degree of fibbing, possibly in more that one direction. The intention may not necessarily involve directly harming others, but there is definitely some intention to get something from or put something over on someone, for personal gain. One common example is the claim to psychic powers. One of our regional newspapers used to feature a column by someone claiming to be a pet psychic. She would tell you what your pet was thinking and even could tell you how Fido was doing beyond the grave. She could gather these “insights” just from the letter you sent her – no need to meet Buddy or hold a seance in person! A clever bit of gimcrackery, of course. Often the proponents of this kind of malarkey claim no intention to deceive and may even believe their own flim-flam. But deceive they do, with the benefit of either appearing more special than the next person, or having gainful employment (such as a clairvoyant column-writer) or both. The consequences are usually light: not much harm is done most of the time. I enjoy a good astrology column myself, and I make sure to get fortune cookies with my Chinese take-out, though I would not want to become delusional and start thinking there was anything to these things.

3. Major Malarkey M M M:

This involves a bigger lie, sometimes even a whopper, and the intention is usually to harm others, or at least separate people from their autonomy, power, and/or money. Most advertising is this: the major lie is the claim that this product will somehow magically make one happy. Research clearly shows that this is never really the case once you are above a basic level of material well-being. But the sleight of hand connecting greater material possession with happiness is accomplished masterfully; your fundamental human emotions, and your desires for experiences like relationship, love and sensuality are cleverly linked, that is, psychologically associated with material objects though a vicarious conditioning process. The intention is to rob you of your money, of course. The consequences of this marketing ballyhoo can be quite serious: the dead-end pursuit of endless material satisfaction, slavery to a paycheque, resulting over-consumption of resources and production of waste, and even, for some, an emptiness in living, that is, the old ennui. Three Malarkeys for this existential lie: M M M !

Some codswallop might otherwise qualify for four Malarkeys because of its maliciousness, but the fabrication is so outlandish, unbelievable, and moronic as to make it otherwise completely laughable. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s previously noted claim of Jewish outer space lasers is such an example, as well as the entire Q-Anon conspiracy theory, to which the congresswoman also adheres, by the way. (9) The scale of the bunkum would ordinarily lead them to be considered as M M M M. However, these theories are so outlandish that the harm to public discourse is somewhat curtailed in that nobody in their right mind would believe them, which leads to, of course, the non compos mentis factor – the dispensers of this baloney have lost contact with reality, and therefore most likely do not understand what they are doing and what the consequences are. Some allowance must be made here, although certainly these people should not be elected to positions of public responsibility or leadership.

4. Monstrous Malarkey M M M M:

This is the worst level of tommyrot. Racism is M M M M. Misogyny is M M M M. The lies are huge, the intention is to exploit, disempower and oppress others, or worse, and the consequences are very damaging, if not catastrophic. In addition, the charlatan is of a sane state of mind: that is, not delusional, although usually psychopathic, like Steve Bannon or Roger Stone, both sycophants of Donald Trump. Trump’s “stolen election” bunkum qualifies as Monstrous Malarkey on all fronts: degree of nonsense, intention and state of mind, with tremendous consequences. The twaddle that the election was stolen is entirely untrue – so outlandish, with all the investigations, evidence, court cases and the like as to no longer require refutation, if it ever did. The intention is absolutely clear: to seize power, not only undeservedly, not only illegally, but immorally. The state of mind of the perp is clear: he is a psychopath, without conscience. The consequences for America are catastrophic: the undermining, and if successful in this return election engagement of 2024, even the unwinding of the two-century-plus experiment in civil democracy. M M M M !

Monstrous Malarkey is so nefarious, so odious, that one might think that another, more dramatic word is called for, but at the bottom of it is classic malarkey. And so, I stick with the term.

America is in its long, tortuous election year and so we have to expect to be eyeball-deep in malarkey this year. There will be plenty of malarkey in Canada, too, which will have an election in 2025, if not before. Consider: Canada’s banking system is considered one of the best, most stable in the entire world. (There was no melt-down in 2008; the Canadian banks did not participate in the mortgage follies that preceded the crash.) However, the leading opposition candidate, Pierre Poilievre, who is likely to be the next prime minister, has proposed getting rid of the Bank of Canada and that the country go big into cryptocurrency. Go figure. And the current premiere of the oil province of Alberta, Danielle Smith, after the past year when Canada pretty much went up in smoke as a result of cumulative climate change problems, has implemented a moratorium on the development of…wait for it…renewable energy! Ah…well, go figure.

Still, the situation is less dangerous there right now than it is immediately in the U. S. In this country, the very democracy is at stake; at the same time, we are drowning in hogwash, disinformation, law-breaking, and fraud in the political sphere. It will get worse with the use of artificial intelligence, which will make dupery much easier to carry off, and much more difficult to discern.

Overall, “only” one-third of Americans believe the 2020 the fraud perpetrated by Trump, that the election was stolen; however that translates to close to seventy percent of Republicans who believe this hokum. (10) It also leads, incredibly, to a sizeable proportion of the population who intend to vote for the fraudster who inspires unbelievable loyalty, like a Mafia Don, and who aspires to dictatorship. The danger is grave, indeed.

My hope is that the Malarkey Scale presented here is helpful in identifying and assessing what we are facing – and ultimately in overcoming it. One hopes that intelligence, rationality, and sanity will prevail over the dark forces, and that in the long run, good will prevail. In the meantime, what specifically can we do? The simplest and most direct thing, when we hear, read, or see something, is to ask: is it true? Is it true, for example, that immigrants have a higher crime rate than native people? Then we dig in and find out from real, objective sources.

And finally, we all must thank Joe Biden for reminding us about the power and menace of malarkey – and for the need to be straight and true, to the best of our abilities. I, for one, would like to see the slogan go back on the bus.

____________________________

1. ITP Nelson Canadian Dictionary of the English Language: An Encyclopedic Reference. Thompson Canada Limited, 1997.

2. Yglesias, Matthew. “No Malarkey,” Joe Biden’s unabashedly lame new slogan, explained. Vox, December 3, 2019, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/3/20991841/joe-biden-no-malarkey. Accessed January 26, 2023.

3. An equally or possibly more legitimate term would be the “disinformation age.”

4. Frankfurt, Harry G. On Bullshit. Princeton University Press, 2005.

5. Desmond, Mathew. Poverty, By America. Random House, 2023.

6. Carl, John, and Marc Bélanger. Think Sociology. 2nd Canadian ed., Pearson, 2013.

7. Fact check: Immigration doesn’t bring crime into U.S., data say. PBS News Hour, February. 3, 2017, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fact-check-immigration-doesnt-bring-crime-u-s-data-say. Accessed January 23, 2024.

8. Subramanian, Courtney, and Jordan Culver. Donald Trump sidesteps call to condemn white supremacists — and the Proud Boys were ‘extremely excited’ about it. USA Today. September 29, 2020, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/29/trump-debate-white-supremacists-stand-back-stand-by/3583339001/. Accessed January 23, 2024.

9. Begs the question: how did this person ever get elected to Congress?

10. Kamisar, Ben. Almost a third of Americans still believe the 2020 election result was fraudulent. NBC News, Meet the Press Blog, June 20, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/almost-third-americans-still-believe-2020-election-result-was-fraudule-rcna90145. Accessed January 24, 2024.

The Day Democracy Died

Posted on January 7, 2021January 9, 2021 by Peter Scott Cameron

Yesterday, January 6, 2021, many of us watched in horror as a mob of white supremacist militia members, conspiracy theorist adherents, Christian evangelicals, bikers, “ordinary” Trump supporters, miscreants, and out-and-out thugs breached the defenses of the United States Capitol Building, a world-wide symbol of Democracy. They did so at the unequivocal urging of the rogue American President, and with the aid and abetting of a group of Congressional Representatives and Senators, seeking to overturn legitimate election results.

Some watched in horror, but to be sure, there were many who watched not with horror at all, but rather with hope and joy in their hearts.

The day was intended to be solemn and ceremonial: the ritual acknowledgement of the will of the people in choosing the next President. That is, Congress had gathered to ratify the votes of the Electoral College and to affirm the peaceful transfer of power. Instead, insurrectionists pushed aside police, terrified public servants, invaded the Senate Chambers, and one hoodlum even desecrated the office of the Speaker of the House, while elected members and senators were squirreled away to safety.

The President, after earlier in the day exhorting people to do exactly this, later suggested that they “go home” but while doing so affirmed once more his lies to the effect that the election was stolen. And he concluded by saying to the white supremacists, the Neo-Nazis, the deluded, the thugs and the malefactors: “we love you” and “you are very special.”

And so, Democracy died yesterday.

But Democracy does not die all at once. It dies by a thousand – or a hundred – different cuts. It dies when people affirm the worst, not the best, in us. It dies when we, and our elected representatives, serve ourselves, and not the community. It dies when we turn away from decency and working to make the world a better place, and instead feed our hatreds, and stoke the suspicions of those who live in fear of “the other.” For Americans, it dies when we give up on the ideal of toiling for a “more perfect union.”

And so, we can say that Democracy died yesterday. But we can also say that it died previously, on Election Day, November 3, 2015, when the country elected a cheater, a reality television star, a grifter, a person who represented the lowest in us, rather than the highest: a person without the temperament, the competence, the intelligence, and the moral character to assume and carry out his duties. A case in point: the complete dereliction of duty during this Covid crisis, which has only accelerated in the post-election period, and resulted thousands upon thousands of additional deaths, the responsibility for which can be laid directly at his feet, along with the dangerous crisis of governance that we are in right now.

However, we can also say that Democracy died before that, when Mitch McConnell assumed Senate leadership, on January 3, 2015. He stated his main goal: the vindictive (and I believe, racist) determination to ensure failure of the Obama presidency. And Democracy died again and again during his tenure: for example, on March 16, 2016, when Merrick Garland was nominated by Barak Obama for the Supreme Court and McConnell refused to bring the nomination to the floor. Or again on October 26, 2020, when he presided over the confirmation of the theocratic cult member Amy Coney Barret, to replace the noble Ruth Bader Ginsburg on that same court. Or simply: Democracy died every time he refused to bring helpful legislation to the floor of the Senate. This is not about having a “loyal opposition,” helping to ensure that the government in power has some checks and stays in balance. This is about a regressive white man from a small State, illegitimately controlling the legislative agenda for the entire nation, without being elected to do so.

Perhaps it was the Supreme Court itself that inflicted a death, in its Citizens United decision of January 21, 2010, when it struck down restrictions on “independent expenditures from corporate treasures,” thereby affirming that corporations would be unfettered in spending and bribing in their efforts to cultivate favour and direct legislative benefit toward themselves.

We could say that Democracy died the day that Newt Gingrich became House Speaker on January 3, 1995. He ushered in a new, invigorated era of demagoguery and has never stopped carrying that flag.

Reflecting on my lifetime, though, I go back further: yes, to the criminality of Richard Nixon; but at least he was found out and summarily (relative to today, that is), resigned rather than facing certain expulsion. (This, of course, is exactly what should happen to the current President, even though Joe Biden is taking over in thirteen days. Donald Trump is unhinged and unfit for office and should be relieved of his duties immediately.)

But all that aside for now, I would also say that the death of Democracy occurred on August 12, 1986, when then President Reagan said: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ ” People chuckled and nodded their heads upon hearing this nefarious witticism, but Reagan had planted a most destructive seed. Since that time, many Americans have turned away from an ideal: turned away from the idea of good, helpful, fair, and honourable government as a venerable and worthy institution.

The culmination of this was yesterday, when an ignorant, vicious mob disrupted the ceremonial duties of government – aided and abetted by the President himself as well by at least six Republican Senators and one hundred and forty Republican Representatives, including mine, Elise Stefanik, who voted to overturn the election results.

And so, what now?

Well, some would say that Democracy also lived yesterday. Despite all, the will of the people was affirmed, the voting result of the archaic[i] Electoral College was ratified. The Representatives and the Senators reconvened as soon as they were able, and over the objection of their less-than-honourable colleagues, did their duty in the wee hours of the night. It was a remarkable affirmation.

And one way or another, the current occupant of the White House and his corrupt family will be gone in less than two weeks. There is reason to hope and reason to believe in the resilience of the country, and that the United States will continue with its aspiration [ii] to become a real Democracy. The country has elected a President this time who is the very embodiment of decency, who more than anything works to bring out the best in us. And we have elected a Vice-President who champions justice and affirms the ambitions and capabilities of women – and men – everywhere, of all creeds and colours and ethnicities. And so, there is much to celebrate.

But I cannot say that I am entirely optimistic. The Trump supporters who believe the lie that the election was stolen, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are still here. Their signs remain in their yards nearby my home, even today. I find myself struggling to find a way to understand and accept this. Also, the White Supremacists, the Misogynists, the Haters, the Militias, the Theocratic Evangelicals, the Conspiracy Believers are all still here. They are not going anywhere. I, and we, must find a way to limit their toxicity.

So, what, in the end, can we think and do? Rather than embrace blind optimism, I would rather abide by the words of Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned by the Fascists in Italy and died eventually because of the deterioration of his health and the neglect of same by his jailers. Of course, I do not embrace his Marxist philosophy, but I find a famous aphorism that he was fond of quoting to be helpful in a time like this. [iii]

Gramsci advocated “pessimism of the intellect,” along with “optimism of the will.” Pessimism of the intellect: things will not get better by themselves. They will not even get better once and for all. Optimism of the will: we must never give up in the face of these setbacks. We must be unyielding in our striving for what is good, what is decent, what is fair and just. We must help the Nation take its steps from an aspiring Democracy, to an actual one. In the face of darkness, it is sometimes all we can do is keep the lights on and try again in the light of morning.

My heart is bitter today. In my weakness, I can only reach for inspiration from the great ones: Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, and the young Nobel prize laureate, Malala Yousafzai. I do not have their capacity, I do not have their courage, and I certainly do not have their love. But I can, at least, aspire to these.

And we, as a people, can continue to aspire to Democracy, to go forward, and not only for our citizens, but all of humanity, to achieve a more perfect union.

PSC

January 7, 2021

_____________________________________________

[i] More on this another time.

[ii] More on this, too, another time. It is true that formally, the U.S. is the oldest intentional aspiring Democracy, but it is not yet fully one.

[iii] He attributed this to the novelist, Romain Rolland.