How anti-intellectualism and chauvinism blend well

‘Is almost half the US electorate dim-witted, ignorant or psychotic?’ A very pertinent and timely poser indeed, considering the worrying situation that has arisen in the US after the recent presidential poll result which clearly points to an end to four years of eccentric and volatile rule by President Donald Trump.

As some commentators have pointed out, the development that liberal and democratic opinion in the US cannot easily come to terms with is the fact that, going by the vote count, despite four years of ‘buffoonery’, some 74 million Americans are continuing to repose their trust in Trump.

A feature article titled ‘Trumping the voters’ by Kurt Jacobsen and Sayeed Hasan Khan, contributed to ‘The Dawn’ and ANN and reproduced in this newspaper yesterday, raises scores of issues on the recent US presidential election and its aftermath that need to be addressed by the thinking sections of any public but for us in the ‘former Third World’, the continuing appeal of political and military strongmen among credulous sections of opinion is nothing new.

Personality cults die hard among some sections of the global South but the phenomenon is not receiving adequate attention among those who are seen to matter among us, such as, the academia and progressive think tanks. May be, the issue is seen as too sensitive to research, since it could reveal the prevalence of unflattering mind sets among the ‘intelligentsia’.

However, the ‘intelligentsias’ of the South need not be excessively embarrassed over this question because they are not alone in this uncomfortable situation and have never been alone. They have some elements among the present day US ‘intelligentsia’ for company, for example. Besides, to go by the more conspicuous examples in modern history, German dictator Adolf Hitler was adored by sections of the intellectual elite of the time in Germany. Many in Hitler’s inner circle were considered first rate ‘intellectuals’; for instance, propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels. They collaborated with him willingly and happily in his inhuman efforts to liquidate the Jews. Some of these collaborators were renowned artistes and ‘humanists’.

A prime worry for the world from these disclosures is the coexistence in the same individual consciousness of ‘high culture’ and the drive for murderous violence. Considering these revelations from history, the fascination among sections of the US public for President Donald Trump could perhaps be excused somewhat because Trump is no mass murderer.

A matter of the first importance that arises from these disclosures is the value that could be placed by the world on formal educational qualifications. Considering that not all those conspicuous ‘intellectuals’ and ‘educated’ persons in history have been wise and enlightened, we are left to wonder whether even the seeming foremost educational qualifications necessarily denote maturity of mind and heart. Therefore, wherein resides a sound learning? This question is crying out for an answer.

However, in the context of democratic politics, political strongmen and ‘leaders’ come to power on the basis of the popular vote. Fortunately, for the US, it would hopefully see the back of Trump in a few weeks. But this is not the case in many Southern democracies that blissfully and complacently hand over to some of their political leaders landslide polls victories, sometimes over and over again, despite serious allegations levelled at them by their civilian publics in particular. Some of these leaders adopt devious means to come to power and remain in these plum positions but the fact is that their publics tolerate their presence for inordinately lengthy periods of time.

Once again, some of these strongmen are backed by the cream of their ‘intelligentsias’. Here’s where the rub is. How account for this fatal tendency to willingly opt for servitude on the part of collectivities? Needless to say, this has been a recurring tendency in Sri Lankan politics, particularly since 1977.

However, some of the clues to unravelling our conundrum already reside in Hitlerian Germany and in the presidential tenure of Donald Trump. One secret of Hitler’s success was to effectively din into the consciousness of the majority of the then Germans that they were cruelly victimized by the West. Hitler made out that the Germans were treated unjustly on the basis of the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War 1. The conditions that were imposed on Germany by the Treaty were cogently shown as harsh and punishing.

By this means, the Nazi administration created a sense of collective grievance among the German public. This enabled the regime to win the support of the more credulous sections of Germans. The latter felt grievously slighted by the Allies and the corrective to their collective agony was seen as residing in Hitler’s ideology of nationalistic chauvinism. The effectiveness of the ideological onslaught by the Nazis was such that some Germans suspended rational considerations when making their political choices.

Trump too tried out nationalism of the most chauvinistic kind to win the more credible sections of the US public onto his side. Some migrants to the US were made out to be inimical to US white interests, as is well known. Moslem hard line opinion was singled out as particularly harmful. On the international plane, it was China that was the adversary to watch most. The US-China trade war, for instance, was the key instrument through which white nationalism in the US was stirred. Trump too created a sense of collective grievance among sections of the US public. The latter constituted his main power base and it included ‘educated’ sections.

The main ploy of the chauvinistic leader, then, is to create a sense of collective grievance among his following. Sometimes this propaganda thrust could be so effective as to cow the listener into suspending and even doing away with his sense of rationality and discretion. Accordingly, sound, enlightened intellectuality becomes a prime enemy of the authoritarian ruler.