Corruption and authoritarianism go hand-in-hand. While you can have corruption without authoritarianism, just as Bob Menendez, you can’t have authoritarianism without corruption. As sure as Adam begat Seth, authoritarians spawn corruption. We may not like it, but we cannot deny it. When you rely on one person’s decision making rather than on laws being enforced equally without fear or favor, you’re going to get both fear and favor in service of the decision maker. Even benevolent autocrats are usually benevolent after they get their cut.
The recent Texas Republican Senate primary runoff election between John Cornyn and Ken Paxton betrays where Republicans come down on the issues of corruption and authoritarianism. They are for it. If they weren’t, there would’ve been widespread support for Cornyn who looks like a shabbier older and flabbier James Talarico when compared to Ken Paxton.
As feckless as Cornyn is as a senator, he is not the destructive wrecking ball that Paxton is. As attorney general of Texas, Paxton established his self-dealing corruption bona fides. Just like in Trump’s re-election there isn’t a voter who doesn’t know how either of them will behave once in office. Paxton and Trump are both well known shenaners, so we all know they will shenan again. They can’t help themselves.
In that case, Paxton’s extra marital affairs, his eleven homes on a state bureaucrat’s salary, letting a child molester off easy, and all of the other crap are features not bugs. They are viewed as desirable. They want people to behave that way. They don’t want to be constrained by the law or social conventions unless that the law is self-dealing and the social convention is white supremacy.
So, if Texas Republicans didn’t support the anti-democratic single-party minority-rule that both Paxton and Trump stand for, then they wouldn’t’ve voted for either one. It is as simple as that. If Texas Republicans weren’t at least okay with Paxton being in elected office, they wouldn’t’ve stayed home in the runoff. They would’ve gone out and voted for Cornyn. That so many stayed home strongly suggests they find Paxton acceptable at a minimum and preferable at most.
What’s the alternative? They’re okay with Paxton as long as they don’t have to actively do anything (diffusion of responsibility? Plausible deniability? I didn’t vote for him! They were playing elebity-gajillion dimensional chest when they stayed home and didn’t vote for him — I really wanted Talarico all along and this was the best way to get him into office?
If we accept that people build their social circles by considering all of the identity characteristics of the people in them and finding even one characteristic objectionable is grounds for exclusion from the social circle, then we have to think our vote is heavily influenced by similar calculations. We’ll hold our noses and vote for the scalliwag — we’re looking at you Graham Platner — when we have to. The operative phrase is when we have to, though, and no one had to vote for Paxton here. Ergo, MAGA loves them some corrupt authoritarians as long as the corruption and the authoritarianism hurts Black folks first and worst and by Black folks we mean Blacks, Browns, women, liberals, progressives, Muslims, Mormons (allegedly), Hindus, Asians, and their children, and anyone else the authoritarian thinks belongs there. And, the operative term here is first and worst. It is okay if poor white men get hurt as long as the Other is hurt worser and before thm.
If you needed any other reason to get out and vote Blue no matter who, here you have it. Republicans and MAGA have gone full authoritarian racist misogynist corruption on us.
What do you think? Is this a fair interpretation of the Texas Republican Senate primary runoff? Is this a fair characterization of what the Republican Party stands for? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
Image Attribution
This image was found on WSJ and has a Creative Commons license.
Share this:
Discover more from The Psy of Life
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think there is another factor: “I want to be able to get away with stuff too.”
Someone like Paxton, or Trump, communicates a standard of “Bad Boy” behavior and permission, saying, “If you follow me and empower me, you can be a proud sleaze ball too in you own little life.” Anybody with a minimal level of Dark Triad urges is bound to fall for that promise that in some ways they can be their worst self (especially toward all those Others).
Nothing like living vicariously: some of the fun, none of the risk, all of the hate.
Not only do personality traits tend to cluster in individuals, people with compatible personality traits tend to cluster, too. It only follows that as Trump pushed out all of the non dark tetrad personalities from the Republican Party, he attracted candidates who shared his personality and voters who liked those traits. And, we’re back to identity traits forming your social circles. If you don’t like the identity traits of your candidates, you’re less likely to vote for them, but if you do, then you’re more likely. Representation, after all, matters, even if it is the dark tetrad personality traits that are being represented.
Blog On, Sibling!
Jack
People,including politicians and their minions do tend to self select and cluster.
The vicarious rewards are amply illustrated by the blood sport spectacle at the WH this evening (which may have been rained out).