“I WON THE ELECTION!” Donald Trump tweeted within the early hours of 16 November 2020, 10 days after he misplaced the election. On the similar time, Atlantic mag introduced an interview with Barack Obama, during which he warns that america is “getting into into an epistemological disaster” – a disaster of realizing. “If we wouldn’t have the capability to tell apart what’s true from what’s false,” Obama explains, “via definition our democracy doesn’t paintings.” I noticed the 2 assertions juxtaposed on Twitter as I used to be completing scripting this essay, and in combination they show its proposition: that American democracy is going through now not simply a disaster in consider, however in wisdom itself, in large part as a result of language has change into an increasing number of untethered from truth, as we discover ourselves in a swirling maelstrom of lies, disinformation, paranoia and conspiracy theories.
The issue is exemplified via Trump’s utterance, which bears most effective probably the most tenuous relation to truth: Trump participated in an election, giving his declaration some contextual drive, however he had now not received the election, rendering the declare farcical to those that reject it. The capital letters make it even funnier, a failed tyrant seeking to exert mastery via typography. However it stops being humorous once we recognize that tens of millions of folks settle for this lie as a decree. Their sheer quantity creates a disaster in realizing, as a result of truth-claims in large part rely on consensual settlement. That is why the debates about america’s alarming political scenario have orbited so magnetically round language itself. For months, American political and historic commentators have disputed whether or not the Trump management can also be correctly referred to as “fascist”, whether or not in refusing to concede he is attempting to impact a “coup”. Are those the proper phrases to make use of to explain truth? Now not realizing displays a disaster of information, which derives partly from a disaster in authority.
On the other hand, the actual fact that we wish to ask this query is helping resolution it – for mendacity, paranoia and conspiracy also are defining options of the totalitarian societies that American society is being so hotly in comparison to. As Federico Finchelstein maintained in his fresh A Temporary Historical past of Fascist Lies: “As details are offered as ‘pretend information’ and concepts originating amongst those that deny the details change into govt coverage, we should needless to say present speak about ‘post-truth’ has a political and highbrow lineage: the historical past of fascist mendacity.” Each George Orwell and Hannah Arendt, two of historical past’s maximum acute observers of totalitarianism, positioned mendacity squarely on the center of the totalitarian undertaking. Now not simply the Hitlerian large lie of propaganda, however a tradition of pervasive mendacity, what Arendt referred to as “mendacity as an approach to life” and “mendacity on theory”, systematic dishonesty that destroys the collective area of historical-factual truth. Orwell in a similar way insisted that mendacity is “integral to totalitarianism”: certainly, for Orwell, totalitarianism almost certainly “calls for a disbelief within the very lifestyles of purpose fact”. And as Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism, each the Nazis and the Soviets created markedly paranoid societies, during which the capillary motion of conspiratorial fictions did as a lot paintings as ideological infrastructure.
“A society turns into totalitarian,” Orwell warned in his 1946 essay “The Prevention of Literature”, “when its construction turns into flagrantly synthetic: this is, when its ruling elegance has misplaced its serve as however succeeds in clinging to energy via drive or fraud.” The flagrancy is a part of the purpose. At this time, that flagrantly synthetic energy in america depends upon a president who refuses to concede, an management that repudiates the result of an election that was once transparently honest (as corroborated via impartial global election observers), the Republican management complicitly silent or actively encouraging those falsehoods and surrogates who flatly lie concerning the election end result. The result’s that some 70% of Republican electorate recently imagine that Biden’s win was once “rigged” – despite the fact that they don’t give an explanation for how a Republican Senate was once returned on this similar “rigged” election. The Republican celebration, funded via massively rich donors, has grew to become itself into The united states’s ruling elegance, clinging to fraudulent energy via refusing to recognize the legitimacy of its fighters, withholding the consent of the loser this is important for democracy to serve as.
There’s a easy explanation why for this: minority rule. As Fintan O’Toole lately argued within the New York Assessment of Books: “The good judgment isn’t that a completely minority celebration might transfer towards authoritarianism however that it should. Retaining energy towards the desires of maximum voters is an innately despotic act.” Abraham Lincoln identified the similar factor in his first inaugural deal with in 1861, a month sooner than The united states plunged right into a civil conflict: “A majority held in restraint via constitutional tests and boundaries, and at all times converting simply with planned adjustments of widespread evaluations and sentiments, is the one true sovereign of a unfastened folks. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is unattainable. The rule of thumb of a minority, as an enduring association, is wholly inadmissible; in order that, rejecting the bulk theory, anarchy or despotism in some shape is all this is left.” The Republicans wish to determine the guideline of a minority as an enduring association, or they should concede now not Trump’s inevitable defeat via the bulk, however their very own. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator who was once re-elected ultimate week in an election whose effects he disputes in self-cancelling phrases, put it obviously: “If we don’t problem and alter america election device, there’ll by no means be some other Republican president elected once more. President Trump must now not concede.”
This isn’t information to the Republican management. It’s why for many years they have got engaged in wholesale repudiation of details and truth, changing proof and historical past with lies and paranoia. A part of what upholds a flagrantly synthetic energy construction is fraudulent historical past: “From the totalitarian standpoint,” as Orwell famous, “historical past is one thing to be created quite than realized.” We’re staring at the Republican celebration create this kind of fraudulent historical past in actual time. This isn’t simply doctrinal, despite the fact that partly it displays a management coterie that has spent a long time development deep partisan loyalty to itself consistent with se, quite than to any particular insurance policies or values it will uphold. Republicanism in The united states lately has change into its personal ideology. However as Arendt seen, it was once now not ideological “indoctrination” that outlined totalitarian lies, however quite “the disability or unwillingness to tell apart altogether between reality and opinion”. The similar night time that Trump tweeted he had received the election, Fox Information host Jesse Watters advised a visitor he believed “that Joe Biden was once put in … I will be able to’t end up this allegation. It’s a intestine feeling.” The massive lie supplies an alternative to unsatisfactory truth, a collective fantasy that fills within the gaps between energy and comprehension. It’s not content material with attacking particular person details, however seeks to create another social delusion that placates its believers whilst empowering the liars. As historian Robert Paxton seen: “Emotions propel fascism greater than idea does.”
Conspiracy claims are the authoritarian resolution to paranoia; the entirety is imaginable, however an expert stays in keep an eye on
Those fraudulent histories and distorted conspiracies depend on incorrect information and “intestine feeling”. In a up to date interview, Tommy Tuberville, the incoming Republican senator from Alabama, declared that a Biden presidency fearful him as a result of his father, a soldier, fought in the second one global conflict to “free Europe of socialism”. Meanwhile incoming Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene subscribes to QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory claiming that a cabal of Satan-worshiping, paedophiliac sex-trafficking Democrats has been plotting against Trump. As the New York Times reported last year: “At Christian nationalist gatherings and strategy meetings, the Democratic party and its supporters are routinely described as ‘demonic’ and associated with ‘rulers of the darkness’.” Republicans no longer oppose Democrats politically: they are opposing them existentially.
As Arendt understood, in its attempt to change the record, lying “is a form of action”. In this sense, lies are what the linguist JL Austin called “performative” utterances, statements that can transform social reality instead of merely describing it – but only under rigidly defined circumstances. When a judge says “guilty as charged”, the defendant’s life changes, but only if they’re both in a courtroom under the ritualised conditions of “due process”. If a judge says it at home watching a legal drama, the statement has no effect. This is why it was so absurd when Trump tweeted during the election, “I hereby claim Massachusetts” – because none of the conditions that would give that statement performative force had been met. He was just an old man shouting at clouds. But when he pronounces “I WON THE ELECTION!” he is trying to imbue his claim performatively with the symbolic authority of his office. That authority depends entirely on collective recognition. It matters that most world leaders have now “recognised” Joe Biden as America’s president-elect: society’s acceptance is what gives language performative power.
In 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter identified what he called the “paranoid style in American politics”, a perspective that shaped the stories Americans too often told themselves. Paranoia offers a master trope for interpreting “the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy” in American political narratives, from 18th-century Illuminati paranoia to the Papist conspiracies of 19th-century nativism, to the enduring anti-communist hysterias of the 20th century. Hofstadter predicted that paranoid energies would periodically be released in America when “historical catastrophes or frustrations” exacerbated the religious traditions and social structures that fostered those energies, catalysing them into “mass movements or political parties”.
Half a century later America produced a president who embodies the paranoid style, proclaiming at every turn that investigations into his allegedly criminal activity are “witch-hunts”, that elections are “rigged” against him, while spinning false conspiracy theories as camouflage, so that none of them seem real, or all of them do. As Arendt observed, in an unstable, incomprehensible world, people arrive at the point “where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true”.
Conspiracy theories are the authoritarian answer to paranoia; everything is equally possible, but an authority remains in control. This makes conspiracy more comforting than contingency, especially if you find authority reassuring. Conspiracy and paranoia insist there is always a plot, and every plot has an author: someone is always in charge, even if it’s a person you don’t like. Especially if it’s a person you don’t like, because then you have someone to blame.
Paranoid narratives are inherently narcissistic as well as authoritarian. Paranoia rejects the proportionality of pluralism, in which the world’s indifference to you is a sign of its multiplicity, and interprets that indifference as malice. The world is not unmoved by your existence, but upholds your central importance: even your refrigerator is spying on you. A paranoid system confirms that your powerlessness is only because the game is rigged against you– and that the world cares enough to bother disempowering you.
Some of the “religious traditions” Hofstadter identified feed into this paranoia. Orwell detected a strong family resemblance between totalitarianism and theocracy: “A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible.” Paintings of Trump in the hands of Jesus that circulated during his presidency struck non-believers as absurd, not least because of the profanely immoral life he leads, but were admired in all seriousness by the devout. Mike Pence is hailed by rightwing Christian leaders as the “model” of an “evangelical politician”, a label that controverts the constitution’s establishing separation of church and state. Trump’s attorney general William Barr is a crusading religious zealot, avowing the centrality Christian nationalism to American life. He has said the “moral order” of the United States can only be based on “a transcendent Supreme Being”, a belief that leads naturally to an authoritarian politics.
Trump has spent four years exerting political power to make reality conform to his every assertion. This is both a theocratic performance, and a totalitarian one. The more deranged the assertion, the better it served his purpose: the statements had to be wildly detached from reality, so as to make clear his power to bend reality toward his word. Godlike Trump pronounced, and people scrambled to make it real – or to appear real. That was the essence of “Sharpiegate”, for example, when a weather map did not conform to Trump’s description of Hurricane Dorian’s path. Having crudely altered the map with a Sharpie pen, Trump insisted that official records be altered to conform to his claims. As philosophers of language have pointed out, the crudity was not an error, it was the point. Trump was not aiming to deceive, he was performing divine fiat: make it so. This is precisely the process of “rectifying” official records that Orwell describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four; in “The Prevention of Literature” two years earlier he’d noted that “totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past”.
For Elias Canetti, paranoid and totalitarian systems created conspiratorial fictions reflecting “a disease of power”, a narcissistic, compulsive need to destroy the world as proof of that power: “To be the last man to remain alive is the deepest urge of every seeker after power … Once he feels himself threatened his passionate desire to see everyone lying dead before him can scarcely be mastered by his reason.” “Mastery” here is critical: the strongman has to perform his strength not merely over his opponents, but over language and narrative, so that he can alter reality at will.
Canetti was writing about a German judge named Daniel Schreber, who became Freud’s most famous case study for paranoia. In his 1997 study of Schreber, My Own Private Germany, Eric Santner argued that paranoia derives from a symbolic crisis in authority, and described the ways in which Schreber’s paranoia seemed to anticipate the paranoid culture of Nazi Germany. “Where there is a culture of paranoia,” Santner concluded, “fascism of one kind or another may not be far behind.”
Over the last four years, many have acknowledged, however reluctantly, the ways in which Trump’s presidency is symptomatic of entrenched maladies in the American body politic: his divisiveness, rage, dishonesty, greed, double-dealing, dishonour, puerility, truculence, fragility, narcissism and paranoia, all characterise American society today. Trump’s exceptionalism is also American: the rules apply to everyone but him. Trump is all of America’s worst qualities, the nation’s id come to roaring life.
If Trump is symptomatic of America’s diseases of power, then his compulsive dishonesty might be the most revealing pathology of all. The US is a chronically untruthful country, deceit written into its very framework. The constitution contains explicit protections of slavery but never uses the word “slavery”, a deeply mendacious deception that eventually became a collective self-deception. The declaration “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” was written by a man who enslaved men he did not consider his equal, and became the foundation of a country that incessantly declared its belief in truth and justice while enslaving and oppressing much of its population.
Like many Americans, I have spent four years struggling against a pathological liar in the White House, only to realise, belatedly, that American culture fetishises the truth for a reason. “We hold these truths”, “truth, justice, and the American way”, the fable of the boy George Washington insisting he cannot tell a lie, “Honest Abe” Lincoln: this is a society protesting too much. American history is riddled with lies: that we talk about truth so much is just a tell.
After the civil war freed the slaves, the white south immediately passed laws to disenfranchise black Americans, and then wrote stories – historical fiction and “histories” that were fiction – to justify its betrayals of the laws it had ostensibly passed. That fiction even had a title – “The Lost Cause” – which it acquired from the novels of Sir Walter Scott. The Lost Cause was perhaps the most powerful conspiracy theory of all, spinning a consoling, coherent romance out of a brutally incoherent historical reality. The Lost Cause was designed to offer a way for the white south to save face after its humiliating defeat, maintaining that the north was to blame for the civil war, which wasn’t really fought to defend slavery. This self-serving myth has had profound consequences, deepening the divisions over which the war was fought, rather than healing them.
Now the US appears set to repeat exactly the same mistake, enabling Trump voters – and Trump himself – to create a fiction claiming they didn’t actually lose the 2020 election. “The legal operation is designed for Trump to save face,” a White House source reportedly said: “It’s meant to give him an avenue to leave in the best possible way.”
It has often been said that America had to imagine itself into existence; less often remarked is the corollary, that America is, in a very real sense, merely a story the nation tells itself. That makes the US singularly subject to the meanings of words, to the fetishised language of the founding documents. But now it is a country arguing that a constitutional amendment beginning with the words “well-regulated” prohibits regulation, one whose supreme court ruled that a corporation is the same as an individual. This is Humpty Dumpty through the looking glass, proclaiming that words mean whatever he says they mean. “The question,” as Humpty tells Alice, is “which is to be master – that’s all.”
When we lose track of whose version of a story to trust, paranoia ensues. It seems no coincidence that we find ourselves in an epistemological crisis several years into what is frequently described as a “crisis in the humanities”, the very subjects that devote themselves to epistemological systems: language, literature, history, philosophy. The destruction of epistemological foundations creates the crisis in knowledge.
For Arendt, imagination is where politics lives: the capacity to imagine ourselves as other than we are is the predicate both for lying and for political action. Democracy is the politics of the possible, rather than of the inevitable or coercive. Political and cultural rhetoric creates the conditions for its own realisation: thus we can only save ourselves if we tell the truth. Democracy relies on foundations of shared truths, because the social contract depends on mutual trust. “This is not who we are,” Joe Biden repeated throughout his campaign. To a certain extent we are what we do, not who we say we are (“action is character,” as F Scott Fitzgerald once observed). But performative language complicates that distinction. In insisting “This is not who we are”, Biden also creates the conditions to change who we are, to become who we say we wish to be.