Authoritarianism vs. Democratic Leadership: Why People Choose

Because politics is a social expression, it is natural for philosophers and political scientists to examine the sociology of a group of people regarding their choices of leaders whom they choose to support. In terms of choosing to support a democratic or non-democratic leader, the Frankfurt School of philosophers (Arendt, Adorno, Fromm, Nevitt et al.) show that society can be manipulated into choosing as the powerful elite, who control the media and the manner in which the public masses think, prefer them to choose. In other words, there is an art of deception and manipulation exercised by the purveyors of mass media. On the other hand, there is also a willingness on the part of the public to ascribe to the views of a demagogue, who projects himself vividly, with force, conviction and articulation. Such a leader can attract masses to supporting a vision, even if it is totalitarian and authoritarian. If the leader convinces the people that the vision is not only good but also necessary, the mass of people can be moved to support it, disregarding implications that may appear obviously evil to those less easily manipulated and/or swayed by the rhetoric of the leader or by the manipulations of the purveyors of mass media. Arendt focuses on anti-Semitism as the root of the problem for those who choose to support authoritarian leaders, as occurred in Germany between the wars (Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism 10). This paper will discuss the psychological orientations...
...

Adorno for instance identifies the culture industry as to blame for the shift in social thinking from what should have been a natural uprising among the proletariat to, what he judges to be an unnatural pacification of the working class via subjugation by media (the manufacturers of culture). Horkheimer utilized group and individual studies via survey and interview as well as observation in order to integrate data from which could be culled patterns of thinking and behavior. This methodology allowed the Frankfurt School philosopher to identify patterns that could explain the psychology behind social thought and social submission to totalitarian forms of government (Adorno et al. 12). Arendt, for her part, uses personal experience and a victim narrative in conjunction with the narrative depicting Hitler as evil authoritarian to convey an argument about how nationalist fervor can blind people to sad and tragic realities. Arendt's argument follows thus: the psychology of ordinary Germans following Hitler was supported by the leader's identifying of Jews as the root of all Germany's problems; they served as an easy scapegoat and relieved the German people of taking responsibility for their ills themselves. Why the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem, as Arendt depicts with obvious…