Of all the theories put forward in the 1930s to explain the rise of fascism, I have to say that the psychoanalytic one always struck me as the least plausible. Most of the Freudian theses have not held up well over the decades, after all. But I have to say, after Tucker Carlson's bizarre pivot into a rant about "spanking," during a Trump rally yesterday—I'm going to have to give those theories a second look.
Carlson's rant—as reported in the New York Times—is, it must be said, a masterpiece of its kind in the insane fulminations of the authoritarian personality. In one go, it managed to combine election denialism, a vague call to stage a putsch if Trump loses the vote on November 5, Southern "lost cause" Neo-Confederatism—and, most prominently, Tucker's own bizarre sado-masochistic incest fantasy.
I had to finally get around to opening Wilhelm Reich's Mass Psychology of Fascism to make sense of this. Now, Reich is, it must be said, a bit of a crank. A lot of a crank, actually. But he was less of a crank early in his career, and his book about political psychology (especially in its first edition) is one of the least cranky of his works. There's not so much here about "bioelectricity" or "orgone accumulators," thankfully.
And, no matter how much Reich's later increasingly delusional pseudo-scientific writings may now strike us as bizarre, his early study of the Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933) rings eerily true—when read against the experience of the Trump era. Reich's basic idea is that fascism represents a kind of substitute sexuality—an outlet for submerged libidinous drives that people are inhibited from expressing overtly.
Reich analyzes, under this heading, Hitler's obsession with syphilis and so-called "blood poisoning" (shades of Trump's sexualized ramblings about immigrants "poisoning the blood" of America). He also examines the fascist parties' obsession with large families, their notion that women's "natural" role is primarily as child-bearers—even their opposition to birth control and abortion (shades of Dobbs).
One cannot help but be reminded of J.D. Vance, with his obsession with "childless cat ladies"; his constant invocation of the specter of declining birthrates; his apparent agreement in interviews with the idea that women's chief role in society is rearing children, and on...
And then, here comes Tucker, giving the game away even more overtly. Of course, Tucker has recently made his affinity with the Nazis more text than subtext (he hosted an interview on his show, after all, in which he promoted Hitler apologism and Holocaust denialism). And then, in keeping with the same tendencies, he now plays directly into Dr. Reich's diagnosis of what underlies the fascist psyche.
Reich traces the origin of the fascist mentality to the structure of the "authoritarian, patriarchal family." And it is clear, from Tucker's comments, that he believes the "natural" organization of the family and society is hierarchical—with women occupying a subordinate role. In his speech, he analogized U.S. society to a disobedient teenage daughter, and fantasized about Daddy Trump "spanking" her.
Tucker made no effort to hide his own sexual gratification at the prospect. "[I]t’s not going to hurt me more than it hurts you. No, it’s not. I’m not going to lie. This is going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You’re getting a vigorous spanking because you’ve been a bad girl." Tucker wrapped up by urging Trump to deliver this "spanking" even if he loses the election.
Reich understands the fascist's worship of the "führer" as a projection of their own infantile fear and dependence onto an authoritarian father figure. And Tucker, in his remarks, is obviously making the Freudian and psychoanalytic implications of this explicit. Tucker's concentration on anality is also a sure giveaway in Freudian terms—we are in the realm of a frustrated and displaced sexuality here.
The relationship of Trump to his followers at this point is plainly proceeding along these same Führerprinzip lines.
Reich talks about how, when he would try to point out to Hitler's followers some obvious contradiction in the Nazi program, they would revert to a state of childish dependence. "The führer understands all those things better than we do." How many of us have not had exactly the same conversation, talking to Trump's supporters— asking them, say, exactly how a 20% universal tariff on imports would help the economy?
Carlson was just making the subtext of this relationship explicit. Trump's followers worship him as a punishing "daddy" figure—someone who will whip this country into shape, if you will. The fantasy is charged with Freudian eroticism—and yet, it is a strangely blocked and strangled sexual impulse. It is displaced libido—morphed into a fantasy of violence, incest, and sado-masochistic anal punishment.
Of course, as I say, Tucker at this point won't mind the comparison of his rhetoric with the ideology of Hitler that Reich analyzed so thoroughly. Maybe he'll even be flattered by it. He has made his own Nazi-sympathizing convictions overt at this point.
But maybe there's still a chance in this election for a handful of remaining swing voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania to feel differently? Maybe there's still a chance they might take another look at Trump and Tucker and Vance and Musk, and realize that their plans for this country mean a descent into patriarchal tyranny—all because of the warped and miserable sadism of a few pathetically frustrated men?
No comments:
Post a Comment