Racism and Right-Wing Authoritarianism Have Common Conceptual and Historical Roots

President Biden found himself in hot water at the end of last month when he referred to extreme MAGA Republicans as “semi-fascists” in a speech at a fundraiser in Maryland. That’s certainly not a benign label, so unsurprisingly many people did not take it lightly or kindly. Putting social propriety aside, however, was there a kernel of truth to Biden’s assessment of MAGA extremists?

Although fascism is a term embedded in a historically specific context—coming out of the rise of the ultranationalist Fascisti regime and the demagogue Benito Mussolini in Italy during World War I—over time, it has come to refer to any authoritarian regime characterized by nationalistic fervor and ethnocentric or racist ideologies.

But is “fascism” an outdated and offensive term that should have died by the mid-20th century, or does it continue to have contemporary relevance? Are there elements of fascism in the beliefs that characterize today’s far right and the recent upsurge in racist sentiments and actions?

Let’s take a closer look at contemporary fascism and authoritarianism, where they come from, and whether and/or how they’re related to racism.

The psychological roots of fascism

Take a look at the following four statements and decide how much you agree, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much):

1. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the sinfulness and radical new ways that are ruining us.

2. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.

3. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.

4. There is no “one right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.

If your agreement with the first and third statements is high (say, 6 or above for each statement) and your agreement with the second and fourth statements is low (below 6), then you may be high on a construct referred to as right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). RWA is characterized by a strong desire for social order; a reverence for autocratic, “legitimate” authority; an affinity for traditional values; and the endorsement of moral absolutism, or the belief that there is a clear right and wrong way to live.

RWA was first investigated as an explanation for the rise of fascism and anti-Semitism in Europe in the 1930s. In fact, the RWA scale, developed by psychologist Bob Altemayer in 1981, is a more modern derivation of survey instruments once used to measure fascist tendencies in the mid-20th century.

Here is the critical question: If people see fascism and authoritarianism as negative and “offensive”—not to mention immoral and undemocratic—then why would these political movements continue to exist in today’s enlightened society?

Fear increases the desire for control and certainty

Furthermore, since individual rights are suppressed under fascism, why would individuals want it?

The simple answer is fear. (Albeit subconscious fear in many cases, often masked by false bravado, anger, or aggression.)

In times of uncertainty, ideologies that provide an antidote to chaos by supplying a sense of control and meaning can be appealing, even comforting. Under such circumstances, a “strong” leader who promises to crush evil, return to traditional values, and restore order can be seen as a godsend. This is particularly true for authoritarians, or people who score high on the RWA scale.

Studies have shown that authoritarians are much more likely to believe that the world is a dangerous place. For example, those who score high on the RWA scale are quicker than low-scorers to identify threatening words such as snake or cancer on a computer screen. However, they are not quicker to identify non-threatening words such as tree or telescope. These studies, and others, suggest that authoritarians see danger everywhere, even when it is absent. They live in a heightened state of perceived threat and peril and, therefore, endorse policies and practices that they perceive as bringing more certainty and security to the world. They tend to be “tough on crime,” for example. They also tend to favor policies that keep unfamiliar people (e.g., immigrants from non-Western nations) from coming in and creating havoc, as they see it. What’s familiar is safe. What’s unfamiliar is risky.

It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that decades of research have additionally shown that authoritarians are more likely to support leaders who emphasize security and structure, who promise order and stability, and who vow to return the country to its former glory (i.e., the tried and true “old-fashioned” way of life that existed in the “good old days” when life was “simple”). The leaders that they support often thrive (and campaign) on fear, and are most likely to emerge in times of economic and/or cultural uncertainty.

Contemporary politicians’ authoritarian tactics

Rhetoric supporting these notions has been used in no small amount by contemporary politicians. Multiple times this year, in speaking about the war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has asserted that Russia ought to commence a “self-cleansing of society” to “spit out” the “bastards and traitors” who’ve fled the country or who side, in his view, with the West. “I am certain that this necessary and natural self-cleansing of society will only strengthen our country, our solidarity, togetherness, and our readiness to answer any calls to action,” he said.

Donald Trump, too, relied heavily on fear-mongering and authoritarian language throughout his presidency and campaigns. In his July 2020 speech at Mount Rushmore, he claimed, “[The] radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice. But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society. It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.”

Sowing the seeds of ethnocentric discontent is also a central page in the playbook of these two leaders. The same can be said of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro who has repeatedly targeted the country’s indigenous populations. In one speech, he declared: “These red criminals will be banished from our homeland,” asserting that there would be a “cleansing never seen in the history of Brazil.”

All three of these authoritarian leaders position themselves as the solution to the problems that stoke fear and anxiety among their citizens. One problem with this arrangement—which we have seen throughout history, both recently and in the distant past—is that it requires the frightened citizens to relinquish certain rights and freedoms to enable the authoritarian leader to “clean up” the situation (note the common use of the word “cleansing” in the quotes above). Make me all powerful and I will keep you safe and bring society back to its former glory. That is the precarious contract between authoritarian leaders and their supporters.

Another problem is that the arrangement leaves little room for dissent or diversity. What would normally be viewed as healthy debate or disagreement comes to be viewed as sedition, treason, and troublemaking. Conformity is the name of the game.

I once saw a bumper sticker that read “Kindness is Everything.” Not necessarily true for authoritarians. For them, kindness may be a virtue, but control is a necessity. To gain that sense of order, and vanquish any chaos, threat, or “impurity,” they are more than willing to be unkind. The recent busing of hundreds of migrant families and children to parts unknown may be viewed by some as an example of the priority placed on order over kindness. The Trump-era policy of separating migrant children from their parents (and warehousing them in steel enclosures) in order to discourage border crossings is yet another example.

So, where does the proclivity for authoritarianism come from?

The psychological origins of authoritarianism seem to be at least partially grounded in early childhood trauma and abuse. Researchers hypothesize that rigid, harsh parenting styles lead children to internalize the idea that there is a clear “right” and “wrong” way to do things. Such a strict upbringing may teach children from an early age to both fear and revere authority, which leads to resentment, anxiety, and insecurity on the one hand, while producing a certain level of acceptance, comfort, and respect for rigid authority figures on the other. Interestingly, adults who remember their parents as being particularly harsh, angry, and punitive tend to have higher RWA scores.

In many respects, authoritarians are analogous to frightened children who are desperately searching for a sense of safety and control amid the mayhem. They also experience anger and frustration when things aren’t in perfect order—similar to the emotions that were directed toward them during childhood when parental figures encountered disorder, disobedience, or any form of “deviant” behavior.

The link between authoritarianism and racism

At this point, you may be asking yourself what any of this has to do with racism, particularly because none of the RWA survey statements explicitly mention race. It might surprise you that over five decades of research have found RWA to be one of the most reliable predictors of racism in the social sciences. In fact, the American Psychological Association describes RWA as a “refinement of the theory of the authoritarian personality that identifies political conservatism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism as key predictors of prejudice, racism, and right-wing extremism” (emphasis mine).

This robust relationship between RWA and racism is due to a couple of factors:

1. Minorities are considered outside the “norm.”

As stated in the previous section, authoritarians believe in the sanctity of “legitimate” authority and have a strong affinity for what they perceive as “normal” or familiar. People outside of the mainstream are viewed with suspicion or contempt.

Because White people are viewed as the “normal,” standard, default human beings in the United States and most Western nations, based on their numerical majority and cultural dominance, ethnic minorities are viewed by authoritarians as not just different but also deviant—especially if they do not assimilate to mainstream norms. Simply stated, authoritarians do not elevate or celebrate diversity. As a result, RWA is strongly associated not only with racism, but also with xenophobia, heterosexism, and other forms of bias.

2. The “right” path does not permit deviation.

A strong component of right-wing authoritarianism is the notion that there is only one “right” way to live, which is decided by traditional authority. Therefore, authoritarians tend to be self-righteous, moralistic, and judgmental. They endorse ostracism, punishment, and aggression (rather than inclusion or compassion) toward anyone who deviates from this narrow, righteous path.

Are all conservatives racist (and all liberals anti-racist)?

Absolutely not. Although conservatism is statistically correlated with all of these factors, one can most certainly be conservative without being fascist, authoritarian, or racist. People all too often make the mistake of assuming that the vast majority of conservatives are racist and, conversely, that the vast majority of political progressives are anti-racist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One must think of racial attitudes as a continuum, with a wide variability among both liberals and conservatives. In fact, liberals, and even progressives, can sometimes demonstrate equal, or higher, evidence of racism than conservatives. Classic research by Jack Dovidio and colleagues found that, compared to conservatives, liberals were quicker to hang up on a Black person asking for help over the phone. (However, if they did stay on the line to listen to why the person needed help, liberals were more likely than conservatives to actually help.)

Other research has found that Democratic political candidates use different words when addressing White audiences compared with audiences of color. Specifically, liberal politicians were more likely to “dumb down” their speeches when talking to audiences of racial minorities compared to Whites. However, Republican politicians tended to use the same caliber of speech with both White and non-White audiences. This finding also held true for non-politicians. Liberals used simpler language than did conservatives when interacting with a Black person compared to when they were interacting with a White person.

Even in academia—the crucible of enlightenment and progressive liberalism—racism can be found. Researchers sent out identical meeting requests to over 6,500 professors from dozens of disciplines across hundreds of colleges and universities. The meeting requests ostensibly came from students interested in discussing research opportunities and possible doctoral work. The researchers varied the names of the interested students to sound White or non-White, and female or male. They found that professors were significantly more responsive to requests coming from White male students than to requests from women or people of color. Assuming that most of those professors were liberals, as are the majority of academics, this study shows that liberals are certainly not immune to racial bias.

As someone who has worked in both highly liberal and highly conservative workspaces, I can personally confirm that racism occurs in each of them. And I’ve observed some of the most egregious transgressions from die-hard White progressives. (In fact, there is a whole book about this by Robin DiAngelo called Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm.)

Finally, research on “moral credentials” by Daniel Effron, and others, suggests that activities such as voting for Obama, volunteering for the Peace Corps, or dating and/or marrying interracially can all but convince liberals that they are immune to racism—which, ironically, licenses them to be even bolder in their racial transgressions.

Is fascism irrelevant and outdated? Hardly.

Talking about the extremist views in our country and how they relate to “mainstream” political ideology and racial attitudes requires a high level of complexity and nuance. But let’s look back at my opening question:

Was there legitimate cause for offense when Biden categorized extreme MAGA Republicans as semi-fascists?

Many scholars—who have engaged in a fierce debate for years about whether Trump can be called a fascist—would say that “fascist,” or even “semi-fascist,” is not accurate to describe Trump and his supporters because fascism is historically tied to full-scale revolutions, which we technically have not seen yet in modern times. Colloquially, however, as I’ve explored in this newsletter, the term authoritarianism, which can be viewed as a contemporary manifestation of fascism, proves to have relevance even in our modern context—and may unfortunately prove to be even more relevant in the years ahead.

Whether we’re discussing authoritarianism or fascism, the underpinnings of the ideologies are similar. They both have racism in their foundations. They both stem from fear. They are both bad for democracy and diversity.

***

For more information, please refer to…

• Chapter 5 of my book, The Conversation: How Seeking and Speaking the Truth about Racism Can Radically Transform Individuals and Organizations

• The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno

• Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism by Bob Altemeyer

*****

Later this week, I’ll be publishing a special edition of UpCurrent featuring Sharon Hurley Hall and her anti-racist activism and research. Stay tuned.