A Dissonant Fantasy: Why Authoritarians on the Left Disengage from Politics

From the United States to France, from Turkey to the Philippines, the rising specter of authoritarianism across the globe has frightened proponents of liberal democracy. Among those invested in the current world order, the discourse now confronts whether democratic norms and institutions will be enough to maintain the status quo. Shocked at discovering the fragility of a system once thought invulnerable, many seek to lay blame with authoritarians, who in their view have exploited political opportunities revealed by increasing inequality, instability, and terror that have gripped the world.

Yet the theoretical underpinnings of authoritarianism are unclear, even on a basic level of whether it should be viewed as a phenomenon of its own or as a constellation of correlated beliefs. Moreover, the causes of authoritarianism and authoritative beliefs require more attention. Thus, new research by authors from the University of Minnesota, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, and University of Wisconsin on the expressed asymmetry of authoritarianism based on ideology is a much-needed addition to the study of authoritarianism.

Previous research demonstrates that there is a correlation between an individual’s identification with the “right” side of the political spectrum (i.e., far-right beliefs) and their reflection of a general preference for deference to authority and social conformity (i.e., belief in authoritarianism). The causal mechanism and direction is not completely clear, but researchers believe the link between far-right beliefs and belief in authoritarianism involves underlying psychological characteristics. Theorists posited that the believers in far-left ideology should demonstrate similar associations, yet findings for this have been mixed at best.

Authors Christopher M. Federico, Emily L. Fisher, and Grace Deason step in with theory—bolstered by statistical analysis—to address the observed lack of “left-authoritarians.” They assert that beliefs in authoritarianism are not isolated within the mind; rather, they interact with other beliefs, particularly ideological beliefs. Thus, when it comes to political engagement, consonant political beliefs lead to satisfaction, whereas dissonant political beliefs lead to dissatisfaction. The theory predicts that satisfied authoritarians will engage while dissatisfied authoritarians will disengage.

Consonance and dissonance are undergirded by prior correlations. For example, leftist beliefs involve openness to experience, tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, and promotion of change to the status quo. These beliefs are largely in conflict with authoritative beliefs, such as preferences for conformity, certainty, security, and uniformity. Theoretically, individuals who exhibit both far-left and authoritative beliefs encounter cognitive dissonance. Such dissonance leads to dissatisfaction with the political process, and, ultimately, disengagement. Yet dissonance is not clearly expressed by those who hold far-right beliefs but not authoritative beliefs. The authors contend that although low-authoritarian conservatives may encounter some cognitive dissonance, the aversion arising from this dissonance may not be strong enough to outweigh their substantive attraction to far-right beliefs.

The process of moving from dissonance to dissatisfaction to disengagement within the political process explains both why left-authoritarians are not as politically involved as right-authoritarians as well as why political parties do not offer agendas that cater to left-authoritarians. After all, why would a party’s leadership choose to pursue a political agenda for a group of voters that are withdrawn from voting?

An ancillary finding suggests that political context may influence whether and in what ways voters will experience dissonance. Using data from the 2008 European Social Survey, the authors note that the prominence of left-wing authoritarians is much greater in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe. They theorize that this has to do with psychological associations and historical integration of the left-right spectrum as a way of understanding politics.

As opposed to Western Europe, whose countries deeply integrated democracy over many generations, Eastern European countries have only adopted democracy within living memory. Therefore, the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise lead to dissatisfaction and disengagement among left-authoritarians in Eastern Europe simply does not occur at as great a level as their Western European neighbors. As a consequence, not only does ideological symmetry exist for authoritarians in Eastern Europe, but also political parties that cater their agendas to a left-authoritarian base exist throughout the region.

As much as this research provides insight into the psychological nature of authoritarianism and political engagement, the authors illuminate additional avenues for exploration. One avenue is crafting experiments to uncover whether the correlation between beliefs and engagement has any causal basis. Another is testing how personality variables beyond a belief in authoritarianism may play key roles in political engagement. But when it comes to authoritarianism, the ideological asymmetry needs more exploration, particularly in differing global contexts.

Article source: Federico, Christopher M., Emily L. Fisher, and Grace Deason. “The Authoritarian Left Withdraws from Politics: Ideological Asymmetry in the Relationship between Authoritarianism and Political Engagement,” The Journal of Politics 79:3, (2017): 1010-1023.

Featured photo: cc/(feixianhu, photo ID: 518550230, from iStock by Getty Images)