We have witnessed the undermining of the American democracy with Former President Trump in leadership. The breakdown was profound, fought at every turn and gratefully so, but, it ended with a sincere attempt at a coupe of the presidency of January 6, 2021. To that end Trump could not carry out his hatred of this country without the use of social media.
Social hierarchies in democracies and authoritarianism: The balance between power asymmetries and principal-agent chains
Rationality & Society
March 13, 2020; Issue published: August 1, 2020
Volume: 32 issue: 3, page(s): 334-366
Author: Björn Toelstede,
Linköping University, Sweden
Department of Economics, Linköping University, House A Campus Valla, Linkoping 581 83, Sweden.
...During the last decade, (click here) the people of several countries fought for freedom and democracy (e.g. in the Arab world or in Hong Kong). Their countries had different starting points and they took different courses. We could observe not only regime break downs (e.g. Tunisia/Libya), revolutionary threat-driven reforms (e.g. Morocco/Saudi Arabia), popular pro-democratic movements (e.g. Tunisia/Hong Kong) but also civil warfare and authoritarian restoration (e.g. Libya/Syria). These incidences motivated me to think about the movement of countries between democracy and authoritarianism depending on their respective degree of social hierarchy.
Recent approaches on this subject focus either on the distinction between hierarchical/horizontal societies or on the pro-/anti-sociality of the same. They describe social hierarchies as ambivalent (Van Vugt et al., 2008), divide them into productive or dominance hierarchies (DHs; Rubin, 2000) or functional and dysfunctional hierarchies (Anderson and Brown, 2010). Henrich and Gil-White (2001) distinguish between two behaviors, dominance and prestige. Democracies rather reward prestige and punish dominance meanwhile authoritarian systems do the contrary. Dubreuil (2010) writes that “the [hierarchical] state can be simultaneously the most efficient and most dangerous tool under human control” (p. 230). Magee and Galinsky (2008: 21f.) define hierarchies as “differentiation across individuals or groups on any (commonly) valued dimension” which can differ between cultures (Bowles, 2009; Dubreuil, 2010: 176). For Lake (2009: 264), hierarchies are any form of social differentiation and stratification as well as differences in authority over others (here: power asymmetries). All these approaches distinguish either between pro- and anti-sociality or between hierarchical and non-hierarchical societies.
The combination of both, the degree of pro-sociality and the degree of social hierarchy, can be found in Aristotle (2009: 100f.). He distinguished between governments whose objective is the “common interest” (pro-social) and those who are “directed to the [selfish] interest” (anti-social). Furthermore, he defined three degrees of social hierarchy between non-hierarchical and strongly hierarchical. In short, he combined different degrees of power asymmetries with the pro- or anti-social use of power.
The question about social hierarchies is also present in contemporary political discussions. When talking about democratic transitions, the common standpoint often endorses the (immediate) establishment or extension of institutions and hierarchical escalation. For example, Tharoor (2014) and Friedman (2019) claim the missing hierarchy in Hong Kong’s pro-democratic protest movement as the main reason of its alleged failure. Another example for the endorsement of more power asymmetries is France’s reaction on the 2015/2016 terror attacks. Immediately after the attacks, the country responded by increasing the number of security forces (Toelstede, 2019a, 2019b). The widespread endorsement of hierarchy-reinforcing responses on public goods problems justify a model that allows to categorize countries according to their degree of social hierarchy....
Rationality & Society
March 13, 2020; Issue published: August 1, 2020
Volume: 32 issue: 3, page(s): 334-366
Author: Björn Toelstede,
Linköping University, Sweden
Department of Economics, Linköping University, House A Campus Valla, Linkoping 581 83, Sweden.
...During the last decade, (click here) the people of several countries fought for freedom and democracy (e.g. in the Arab world or in Hong Kong). Their countries had different starting points and they took different courses. We could observe not only regime break downs (e.g. Tunisia/Libya), revolutionary threat-driven reforms (e.g. Morocco/Saudi Arabia), popular pro-democratic movements (e.g. Tunisia/Hong Kong) but also civil warfare and authoritarian restoration (e.g. Libya/Syria). These incidences motivated me to think about the movement of countries between democracy and authoritarianism depending on their respective degree of social hierarchy.
Recent approaches on this subject focus either on the distinction between hierarchical/horizontal societies or on the pro-/anti-sociality of the same. They describe social hierarchies as ambivalent (Van Vugt et al., 2008), divide them into productive or dominance hierarchies (DHs; Rubin, 2000) or functional and dysfunctional hierarchies (Anderson and Brown, 2010). Henrich and Gil-White (2001) distinguish between two behaviors, dominance and prestige. Democracies rather reward prestige and punish dominance meanwhile authoritarian systems do the contrary. Dubreuil (2010) writes that “the [hierarchical] state can be simultaneously the most efficient and most dangerous tool under human control” (p. 230). Magee and Galinsky (2008: 21f.) define hierarchies as “differentiation across individuals or groups on any (commonly) valued dimension” which can differ between cultures (Bowles, 2009; Dubreuil, 2010: 176). For Lake (2009: 264), hierarchies are any form of social differentiation and stratification as well as differences in authority over others (here: power asymmetries). All these approaches distinguish either between pro- and anti-sociality or between hierarchical and non-hierarchical societies.
The combination of both, the degree of pro-sociality and the degree of social hierarchy, can be found in Aristotle (2009: 100f.). He distinguished between governments whose objective is the “common interest” (pro-social) and those who are “directed to the [selfish] interest” (anti-social). Furthermore, he defined three degrees of social hierarchy between non-hierarchical and strongly hierarchical. In short, he combined different degrees of power asymmetries with the pro- or anti-social use of power.
The question about social hierarchies is also present in contemporary political discussions. When talking about democratic transitions, the common standpoint often endorses the (immediate) establishment or extension of institutions and hierarchical escalation. For example, Tharoor (2014) and Friedman (2019) claim the missing hierarchy in Hong Kong’s pro-democratic protest movement as the main reason of its alleged failure. Another example for the endorsement of more power asymmetries is France’s reaction on the 2015/2016 terror attacks. Immediately after the attacks, the country responded by increasing the number of security forces (Toelstede, 2019a, 2019b). The widespread endorsement of hierarchy-reinforcing responses on public goods problems justify a model that allows to categorize countries according to their degree of social hierarchy....
The attempted coupe that would have lead to the end of democracy in the USA was based in social content far different than ever before attempted. It was penetrating and dangerous to the point where it forced every person that loves this country to become a cog in the wheel that would end Trump's reign. The desire for American power in the hands of one man is more than evident with CPAC and it's recent convention in Hungary. Viktor Orban is the least of the hatred spewed at that convention.
21 May 2022
By Flora Garamvolgyi and Julian Borger
A notorious Hungarian racist (click here) who has called Jews “stinking excrement”, referred to Roma as “animals” and used racial epithets to describe Black people, was a featured speaker at a major gathering of US Republicans in Budapest.
Zsolt Bayer took the stage at the second day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Hungary, a convention that also featured speeches from Donald Trump, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
The last featured speaker of the conference was Jack Posobiec, a far-right US blogger who has used antisemitic symbols and promoted the fabricated “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory smearing prominent Democrats as pedophiles....
CPAC spoke loudly and in one voice, it wants the end of democracy in the USA and wants to deceive the American people in the same way Viktor Orban deceives the people of Hungary. That is not even remotely American, it is out of an ideology that kills relentlessly and without apology.
The Republican leadership that heils to Trump is not based in the best outcomes for the USA nor is it a new spiritual reality lead by shaman and demons, this ideology is as old as the modern era and it is taking place where people measure their words and deny self-expression.
The ideology of Trump is simply bad. Period. No discussion. Those that see Trump as a new kind of leadership have invested heavily in the idea of having a man in the White House that bows to their desires and not that of a democratically lead country where every person has a voice in their votes through fair and open elections.
The dangers are real as demonstrated by Orban. Those that saw the end of Trump's reign need to be careful of those that are his minions with unproven ability to govern benevolently and uphold the Rule of Law with deep and unwavering loyalty to the USA Constitution. This is not simply flag waving, this is knowing the history of the demon and being willing to end it's power and influence.
The elections in the USA going forward will require special attention to detail to insure the best outcomes for the people as they are oppressed by those that would control ethnicity and destroy diversity.
The people of Hungary are not free. They ingest the propaganda for smiles and approval that will carry out still yet another election of the king of Hungary who embraces killing in any country. The GOP is following the methodology of Orban in his disintegration of democratic authority.
By Zack Beauchamp
On Sunday evening, (click here) Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán won reelection for the fourth time — emerging with control of over two-thirds of the country’s parliamentary seats in defiance of close pre-election polls. This fourth consecutive victory means he will remain the third-longest-serving current leader in Europe at nearly 16 years in power, behind only Belarus’s Aleksandr Lukashenko (28 years as president) and Russia’s Vladimir Putin (23 years as president or prime minister).
That Orbán’s peers in longevity are outright dictators is appropriate, as Sunday’s election was anything but free and fair. For the past 12 years, Orbán has systematically worked to turn Hungarian democracy into a sham: one where elections seem fair, but take place on uneven playing ground. Through tactics ranging from extreme gerrymandering to media control to unfair campaign finance rules, he has made it unthinkably difficult for the opposition to defeat his Fidesz party at the ballot box....
Putin wants to end NATO. With Trump, he nearly did. This will continue until the Kings of Putin realize they will never succeed. The American people have a responsibility to carry out their own aggression in the face of fascism. What did our fathers and grandfathers die for? The rule of Putin's kings?
