Michael Brenner
THE BANALITY OF AUTOCRACY
Every large, organized society is marked by lines of contention. The
basis for that differentiation can be ethnic, religious, economic class,
ascriptive status (caste), or ideological. Today, in America, we are
observing a new modality. It takes the form of
a line of contention between those who hold positions of
power/authority and those subject to its application. So stated, there
is nothing novel about this. The peculiar feature is a broad if loose
sense of identification, and therefore, of empathy and support
that cross all boundaries of organization: public or private,
function/mandate, location in society. Simply put, there exists an
implicit bond among those who exercise institutionalized power despite
the absence of any designation, or even recognition of its
existence.
This is a generalized phenomenon that has become pervasive throughout
American society. Individual manifestations of growing resort to
arbitrary action by persons in leadership positions have not gone
unrecognized by discerning observers. The scope and depth
of this trend, however, eluded us. Now, shaken by the ruthless display
of institutionalized force on the part of those suppressing dissent at
our country’s complicity in a state’s mass murder, the scales are
dropping. Reaction is still at the foghorn stage:
something dangerous is out there. We need to focus the searchlight to
get a fix on its qualities and meaning. Two features immediately stand
out: the uniformity in diverse places of the reactions to a surprising,
bold type event; and the spontaneity of those
reactions. They are not scripted or orchestrated by some superior
person or authority. While the tone may be set by political elites,
there is no centrally designed plan being implemented. Nor do these
institutional leaders constitute a community in any conventional
sense.
So, what is the common denominator among university authorities at
different levels, politicos, media honchos, think tank commentators,
Evangelical churches, police departments, and business moguls? That is a
tricky question to answer. The heteroclite persons
and groups noted share little – or anything - in the way of ideology,
political program, ascriptive features, financial interests or partisan
allegiance. In specific regard to the student demonstrations, most don’t
even have pronounced views on the controversial
matters at hand. Whatever identifications or sympathies individual
actors might have, they are less than compelling. We have no evidence of
their being personally absorbed with Israel’s ambitions or the status
of Jews in American society. As for the plight
of Palestinians: “That’s no concern of mine.” The irreparable damage
done to the United States’ standing in the world? “That’s a complex
issue, above my pay grade.”
As for alleged anti-Semitism, it is the reddest of red herrings. Apart
from the few predictable creeps, it hardly exists in today’s America.
Jews integration into all spheres of American life is the cardinal
truth. To speak of anti-Semitism at universities
like Harvard or Columbia or NYU is the ultimate absurdity. To put it
crudely, they are as “Jew-friendly” as you can imagine – outside of
Brandeis and Yeshiva universities. Anyone who has had association with
one of the aforementioned institutions is fully
aware of that. Harvard, for its part, has had three (and a half) recent
Jewish Presidents (including the current hardline interim President)
along with Jewish Provosts and Deans. At Columbia, it is estimated that
roughly 40% of the student protestors were
Jewish – engaging in actions that a majority of the House of
Representatives among other of our elites, nonetheless, officially have
denounced as anti-Semitic.
[The issue of anti-Semitism has been grossly distorted by the
successful campaign of Israel and its blind backers to instill the idea
that criticism of Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism. The ancillary
proposition that all true Jews are unwaveringly loyal
to the Israeli state reinforces that canard. Unsurprisingly under these
circumstance, there is an increase in the incidents of vulgar
_expression_ of antipathy toward one or another.]
The inescapable conclusion is that the wielders of institutional power
are moved by a deep need to protect their personal position of authority
per se. Everything else is secondary. Whatever the matter at
issue, whatever their individual traits, they are driven to secure that
status – all else is contingent. Even the oaths of office taken by those
holding governmental positions are subordinate.
Free Speech and Free Assembly may be rights engraved in the
Constitution they are sworn to uphold, but those are abstract principles
eclipsed by what they feel strongly is the imperative to conserve the
discretionary power to act arbitrarily – a prerogative
that is at the heart of their sense of worth.
To reiterate: in aggregate, these persons have no common cause, no
common interest, no sense of community. They do serve as models for each
other – wittingly or not, they do emulate each other, they encourage
each other, they facilitate the acceptance of each
other’s arbitrary behavior every time one of them “gets away with it.”
However, their actions are individual. In short, the narcissistic
behavior of a nihilistic society.
These persons know neither guilt nor shame; in this sense, they
acknowledge no social norms whatsoever. What they do recognize is the
power of others (e.g. Boards of Trustees/Regents, big donors,
legislators) to inflict pain on them. They yield to external
pressure as subordinates to dominants. But not to inner conscience or
out of concern for whether they are respected by wider society. Hence,
formal condemnation by a majority of faculty is brushed off like
dandruff. Hence, a university President can be rebuked
to his face at a commencement ceremony by mass walkouts, by the
vociferous condemnation of a student speaker, without blinking an eye.
Indeed, proceeding according to the sterile script as if nothing is
happening.* Oblivious to their public demeaning; for
the only thing that counts is maintaining their grip on authority
without countenancing dissent – dissent that by definition is
illegitimate and lacking intrinsic meaning.
It follows that persons in authority distance themselves from criticism
directed at other authoritative figures – except, of course, where there
is a direct competition as among politicos. Appeals to conscience fall
on deaf ears; an ethic of responsibility
to the public good exists only in the vapid rhetoric of hortatory
speeches to alumni or to potential sources of financial largesse.
University Presidents refrain from pronouncing on judgments on anyone or
anything, with the exception of DEI issues. Leaders of the American
Medical Association speak not a word about how the abusive practices of
our for-profit medical system are denying access
to or degrading health care. Leaders of the American Bar Association
(and its strong state associations) are silent as the federal and states
courts engage in grossly unprofessional and/or unconstitutional
behavior. Mainline religious denominations ignore
compelling ethical questions raised by private or public actors at home
and abroad (except for a select number of hobby horse issues). For all
of these holders of positions of authority, leaving their comfortable
institutional cocoons where self-regarding
behavior rules and is certified is no longer a natural action.
This trend will be accentuated and accelerated. It already is receiving
powerful impetus from illicit doings at the highest political levels.
There, audacious actions that know no limits or restraints are
unravelling the fabric of our constitutional republic.
Large segments of the Republican Party now reject the core precept that
we abide by the outcome of elections. They declare themselves as bound
only by their subjective judgments as to whether the process conforms
with their biased view of ‘fairness’. Senior
judges arrogate to themselves wide powers to tip the scales of justice
in favor of their preferred parties.** States pass a myriad of
legislation that is unconstitutional on the face of it but manage to
enforce it as the law of the land while the burden falls
on plaintiffs to challenge it. The owners of social media forge a
comprehensive apparatus that censors messaging – stigmatizing or banning
outright even distinguished public figures who happen to violate the
strict algorithm set boundaries of permissible speech,
as set with the clandestine guidance of Washington security agencies.
This self-granted mandate is accepted passively by our enfeebled civic
community.
These practices in the abuse of authority, in the arbitrary application
of institutional power, reverberate throughout society. Habituation to
them works upwards as well as downwards. That is to say, persons whose
life experience and observation are dominated
by small bore instances of these abuses will find it normal to do the
same when they attain high positions. At the moment, a generation of
students’ encounter with the abusive use of arbitrary power is affecting
how they will conduct themselves years from
now – admittedly, some for the better; many for the worse.
[**The harsh reality is that some judges, from the Supreme Court
downwards, are starting to resemble the stereotypical Southern
magistrates of yesteryear who used the law as a tool for suppression and
for entitlement].
The most consequential effects will not be structural - all the forms
must appear to be the same so that the serious changes are veiled (to
paraphrase
The Leopard). Rather, it is the political culture that is
undergoing radical transformation in the direction of unconstrained
actions taken with impunity in a setting where accountability becomes
more and more problematic. The software of our constitutional
democracy is being hacked.
P.S. * Here is a video of that dramatic moment at the Harvard
Commencement when the impressively articulate Valedictorian tore to
shreds the interim President and other university dignitaries. While she
herself cuts a very impressive figure, the most revealing
feature of the video is the reaction of those very people seated a few
feet behind her. Inert and unperturbed, they were numb. The only sign of
animation is one of the worthies fiddling with the pages of the ring
binder holding his speech - perhaps checking
to make sure that it contains nothing that might be used against him by
a Congressional Committee or the Corporation Governors. That picture of
the vibrant young student juxtaposed to the uncomprehending visages of
the Dead Souls says it all.
|
|
Harvard student Shruthi Kumar goes off script to address Gaza and other
civil rights issues in her 2024 commencement speech! #palestine #gaza
#harvard
|