Following World War II, a branch of American intellectuals became preoccupied with the notion of totalitarianism.
The term lo stato totalitario was adopted by Mussolini, but came to signify something more terrifying than mere tyranny, dictatorship or oligarchy, the latter two being relative to the US. The old focus was on the Stalinist and Nazi regimes, while Mussolini’s less powerful relationship with his military reduced his personal impact.
In 1940, Harvard University’s Carl J. Friedrich tried to make sense of things by denouncing the statism exemplified by the ancient Greek polis. He abhorred the glorification of the state, claiming government could be studied quite well without reference to it. Although Friedrich derived our morality from Christianity, his acrid polemic against Werner Jaeger’s Paideia: The Ideal of Greek Culture failed to appreciate how much early Christian thought was rooted in Greek philosophy.
An early reflection following the war came in 1951 from Hannah Arendt, who stressed the way totalitarianism had “exploded” the rational way things were normally done in healthy polities. Concepts were stood on their head, while terms like integrity, right and welfare were distorted or submerged out of recognition. She noted how easily a disillusioned population could become seduced by a forceful ideology, whether perverted communism or the inverted Christianity through the Nazi barbarisation of St Paul’s teaching in Romans 13 that all power comes from God, as Australian historian, John A. Moses, elaborated recently. D. J. Goldhagen had dramatised the point with Hitler’s Willing Executioners, 1996. For the enemies, democracy became the object of derision, since it stood for lack of decisive action informed by the effete ideology of liberalism. Antisemitism became the symbol for the totalitarian mind, since the world had become deranged by such as the existence of Auschwitz; the very air was poisoned.
Later, when there was a dispute about the usefulness of the term totalitarianism during the Cold War, Michael Curtis of Rutgers and Princeton Universities argued for its retention. He criticised Arendt for her failing to analyse totalitarian leadership and for failing to investigate its origin.
Meanwhile, Friedrich organised a symposium to discuss the relevance of the term. He separately teamed up with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was to become a key adviser to Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter, to write a comprehensive text on totalitarianism (1956). It focused on a set of defining features of their version of the regime: rule by a single party, enforcement of a single tolerated ideology; the rule of terror; a tight rein on all communications, a command economy and a monopoly on all weapons. They noted that community had dissolved into “islands of separation”, families, universities, churches and military organisations. As with Arendt, they did not essay the origins of the respective regimes and were criticised for imposing their schema over social realities.
The American contingent was joined by Leonard Schapiro of the London School of Economics who had been an observer of Stalinist Russia. Contrary to Friedrich, he argued that statism represented a comity, a “rational order”, which was absent from Stalinism and Nazism. In 1972, Schapiro linked totalitarianism to mass democracy as its product, since no dictatorial regime before the rise of mass politics could be likened to it. It was also a handmaid of religion ready to be usurped by the regime. Schapiro drew upon the observations of his LSE colleague, Michael Oakeshott, to consider mass hysteria, “herd paranoia” and the rise of the “anti-individual”. This sounds harsh on the modern democratic citizen, but these authors, with Arendt, had Auschwitz and the stalag in mind. Unlike Arendt, Friedrich and Brezinski, Schapiro focused on the leader. He stood at the centre of “contours” of the regime.
A disturbing change in approach appeared when Sheldon Wolin of Harvard released his Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Spectre of Inverted Totalitarianism (2008). His impact was shocking, and many declined to respond because of the implications. The US was already a totalitarian society as Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial Complex had grown like a hydra-headed monster. Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University had already projected a totalitarian conception on America by arguing that society had succumbed to the universal power of industrialisation: citizens had been reduced to customers and consumers, their community lifeblood drained by demands of modern life. The barriers that held back the tide of authoritarianism — church, college, guilds, societies, unions — had lost any political influence and no longer provided insulation from the rule of the commercial complex. So-called market freedom was a sham. It was as cynical as the sign over the Auschwitz gate, and may well have deployed the motto Kaufen Macht Frei, (shopping makes free) (Jihad vs McWorld, 2001). The Nazis called this destruction of society Gleichschaltung.
Wolin identified inverted totalitarianism as a system of oppression without an identifiable leader. Perhaps Schapiro’s defining characteristic of focusing on a leader is now emerging.
Some discussion debated the ’charisma’ of the leader. Charisma is a religious term for the bestowal of the grace of God. The new US president claims this charisma in the boast that he was “saved by God” from an assassin’s bullet. He publicly condoled the onlooker who was killed, but does he mean that God killed his follower? He once stood before a church holding a Bible, while some reporters, asking him what in it inspired him most, concluded he knew nothing about its contents. He certainly has hordes of “right-wing” Christians behind him. In political terms, charisma is the power to draw attention, to attract crowds, and to inspire loyalty. In this sense, Hitler, Stalin and even Mussolini had charisma. Hitler is said to have been congenial to his circle. A young man in the colonies said: “I had but one look into his eyes and I would follow him to the ends of the earth.” Yet, analyses suggests he was in a “chronic narcissistic rage” (Dreijmanis). The young Stalin was very handsome and must also have been used to admiration.
The leaders had an unquenched thirst for power. Schapiro reported Stalin as saying “I only have to wave my little finger and I can liquidate anyone in the country”. Hitler regarded the death of millions as a routine plank in his political platform and showed no empathy. Mussolini relished pictures of his jutting jaw as an emblem of strength. At all times, the focus had to be on the leader.
Trump has been described as the model of narcissism, although the celebrated author, Robert Jay Lifton, prefers to call him a solipsist, one who seems to think that nobody else in the world matters. Yet he displays unmistakable narcissist tendencies. He craves attention, longs for abject praise, and ejaculates menacing revenge upon his critics. He relishes the company and praise of billionaires because only they have proved themselves worthy of him. In his campaign rallies he unblushingly proclaimed his virtues: he is better looking than Kamala Harris, is a stable genius, smarter than others, and his public humiliation of President Zelenskyy made “great television”. In interviews: “Some people would say I’m very, very, very intelligent”; “My IQ is one of the highest”; “It’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking”.
Trump promised to be a dictator on his first day in office and then topped it off by deliberately offending American sensibilities, proclaiming himself king. He admires dictators: Orban, Putin, Modi, and openly envied Hitler for his tight control of the military.
He has taken complete control of the Republican Party which now offers a brand of loyalty that Hitler would admire. Several have switched from denigration to adulation of Trump. The US is under one-party rule and determined to dismantle the prevailing order and dismiss the rule of law, even in violation of the Constitution. Trump cares not for the balance of powers. Some commentators have noted similarity to earlier dark times, and the developments are threatening. The anxiety extends from the homeland, to stable trade and also international security. What appears to be a sharp dissociation from Europe, Canada and Mexico presages an alarming realignment of world alliances. We are all exposed.
Graham Maddox
Graham Maddox is Emeritus Professor of Politics, University of New England. He is author of five editions of Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice, and more recently Stepping Up to the Plate. America, and Australian Politics.