They’re Eating the Cats!
How Social Dominators' Self-Serving Bullshit Foments Authoritarianism
Fear is the mind-killer.
~Frank Herbert
Among many sane Americans, particularly those successfully avoiding the sorry political discourse on social media, heads were scratched curiously Tuesday when Trump accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio of eating cats and other pets.
Does this issue truly deserve time at a Presidential debate? What is Trump talking about?
Rationally, the idea makes little sense, being factually dubious and obviously inflammatory. Serious people interested in policy proposals based in reasonable arguments surely dismiss this as bonkers AF. Maybe a cynical distraction from real issues, one might label it a shiny object to capture attention of people who like shiny objects. This is true in a sense.
But it is more than distraction, also, a sinister message with intended effects. Not a rational argument, this weird, angry appeal to fear and disgust demonstrates Trump’s savant in irrational communication, particularly to do with dominance dynamics. It is bully-speak. The tirade means to provoke reactions that divide and define groups, intimidate and incite.
This strange episode also neatly conforms to a psychological model developed decades ago: the dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. While that may sound nerdy (and it definitely is) the model also delivers. Understanding these ugly messaging tactics is the first step to counter them and expose them as weird, social-climbing power plays based in some of humanity’s darkest impulses.
Modelling the Psychology of Atrocity
Gobs of theorizing and research followed the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust in attempts to understand how such horrors came to pass, and rightfully so. The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice, first proposed in 2001, builds on decades of such research. The “dual” refers to two earlier-developed concepts and how they interact to create social conditions fostering in-group prejudices and motivating associated violence against out-groups.
One of these concepts, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) evolved from efforts starting in the ‘50s to understand tendency towards fascism, originally dubbed “authoritarian personality” measured on an “F-scale.” (for fascist.) Refined and validated over decades of empirical research, RWA today measures desire for social conformity, submission to authority and group defense motivation.
Now considered broader than personality, an ideological attitude, RWA correlates with the dangerous worldview, the core belief that the “social world is an inherently unstable, unpredictable and threatening place.” This makes logical sense — if one truly believes the social order might imminently crumble, but wants to keep it, one might take steps to bolster security by submitting to authority, hemming to tradition and so on. In context of legitimate social threats and a fair social order, these impulses seem reasonable and adaptive.
The problematic part is that more extreme RWA also motivates towards aggressively and uncritically punishing norm violators, non-conformists, and out-groups. This serves to explain why foot soldiers carry out violent atrocities in extreme conditions like Nazi Germany, but also, the motivations behind more mundane forms of aggressive behaviors towards the socially marginalized. All these behaviors are fundamentally driven by fear and threats, as RWAs desperately want to remain accepted within their in-group and for their traditional social order to be preserved.
(Btw, left-wing authoritarianism also exists as a separate psychological measure but that’s a topic for another time.)
The other key concept in the model is social dominance orientation. SDO correlates strongly with the competitive worldview, the core belief that “the social world is a dangerous jungle where the strong win and the weak lose” aka social Darwinism. The more SDO, the more preference for inequality and tendency towards dominating others. Fittingly, SDO also correlates with the dark triad of problematic personality: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism, all of which psychologically justify domination, dishonesty and abuse.
Important to note neither SDO nor RWA exist as binary measures where “you’ve got it or you don’t,” but rather universal scales with unhealthy extremes. Everyone’s got at least a touch of RWA and SDO — but of course, some people go nuts with this shit.
Similar to personality, SDO and RWA are stable but not set in stone. These attitudes respond to environmental factors and context and therefore can be coaxed. Threats, real or imagined, drive authoritarianism while competition drives social dominance behaviors, both of which contribute to prejudice.
Analyzing Trump’s Preternatural Bullying
All that nerdy, theoretical shit covered, let’s dive into how Trump manipulates these dynamics so astutely.
Trump embodies extreme social dominance orientation with his next-level narcissism. Meanwhile, the MAGA base squarely exhibits right-wing authoritarianism. Research confirms that support for Trump strongly correlates with RWA consistently over multiple studies, particularly measures of authoritarian aggression. That is, according to the data, MAGA nation badly wants other groups punished.
. . . when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you’ll have a [laughs], you know, you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be great.
~Donald Trump, 2014
Fundamentally, RWAs want to submit to authority for the benefit of the in-group, while SDOs want to become the authority for personal gain. Aw, they are perfect for each other. Trump knows it about his RWA base and plays them like a fiddle.
Trump knows so long as MAGA believes that he champions their social safety, they will eat out of his hand without question. And this immigrants-eating-pets story, absurd as it is, serves this purpose. To uncritical, authoritarian MAGA types, the message promotes a sense that Trump is protecting them, the “real Americans” threatened by disgusting, desperate behavior of “the bad people.” Conversely, Democrats advocate for “the bad people” and caused this dire threat to “real American” society in the first place.
I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters
~Donald Trump, 2016
Because extreme RWAs are so fearful of social collapse and rejection, they fully submit to authority, uncritically accepting what their group tells them, caring little about dishonesty or bad behavior within the group and especially its leaders. Extreme RWAs sort of don’t care they’re being lied to, too scared of personal consequences and social collapse to protest. “The champion of our social security must not be undermined despite whatever flaws,” or so the thinking goes.
Again, Trump understands this and so lies with abandon, as dark personality SDOs often do, just sure to consistently press the fear button. This seems important regarding the pet-eating nonsense. The truth of the narrative matters far less than the fear surrounding it.
Trump is not alone here of course. Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones all come to mind for their similar abilities to overwhelm rationality with threats and fear, and make hay doing so. Decades of escalating conditioning in right-wing media has gotten America to this ugly moment, where much of the Republican base’s fear button triggers with the slightest brush.
Crucially, the bullying rage and disgust evident in Trump’s delivery intends to promote fear of humiliation and rejection. This is double-edged, to troll and humiliate the out-groups, but more importantly, to threaten and herd the in-group. MAGA nation must nod and agree, maybe laugh. But do not criticize or question it. Maybe even find reasons to justify it. Or else, one is just like Trump’s detractors, not really a member of the MAGA in-group and so therefore may face rejection and humiliation themselves.
Do not question the scapegoating lest ye be scapegoated. Meanwhile, most everyone else sees through the absurdity, making the message an effective wedge, dividing groups by their starkly different emotional reactions.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
~Voltaire
Of course, this model predicts violence and atrocity in the most extreme cases. And, “They’re eating the cats!” seems pretty damn extreme if you ask me. This rhetoric has become terribly reminiscent of blood libel and ritual murder narratives typical of antisemitic propaganda in Nazi Germany. Indeed, the internet memes surrounding Haitian immigrants eating pets originated on-line in neo-Nazi circles. This is ugly as can be, but that is reason to speak up, not shy away.
The events of January 6, 2021 should leave America no tolerance for incitement from Donald Trump. Yet, here we are. Barred from operating a charity or business in NY State, found liable for sexual assault, convicted of multiple felonies, awaiting sentencing and several other criminal trials, Donald Trump is still the Republican nominee for POTUS. This is the reality and Trump intends to turn up the temperature with this rhetoric, backed into a corner. Trump intends for his extreme supporters to carry out violence and intimidation on his behalf. Again. It is already working, with multiple bomb threats and episodes of harassment in the few days since the debate.
I suggest preparing for political unrest and protecting the vulnerable in our communities wherever possible. The next few months will be bumpy.
Acting scared and intimidated, however, is the intended effect on us non-extremists, so better to avoid that. Crying racism is also not helpful, only furthering tribal divisions. Humiliation and social rejection is what RWAs fear, so playing to those in countering this messaging seems more strategic.
Let’s not let them get away with this creepy, weird-ass, unAmerican bullshit.
