In her book called Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, Hannah Arendt wrote the following about Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco:
“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached a point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true….The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting their leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness”.
The minions, time-servers and yes-men who serve the boss, made to repeat the outrageous falsehoods, are bound to the leader by shame and complicity. To make a subordinate repeat a lie in public with a straight face is a display of power, and renders that subordinate powerless. “The essential conviction shared by all ranks,” Arendt concluded, is that politics is a game of cheating, and is as necessary for the conduct of world politics as rules of military discipline are for war”.
The relevance to the current day is obvious. If we are not careful the lie will become so commonplace that no one think a moment about it. Epicurus, a very smart man, instinctively knew this, and inveighed against politics and against war because he could see before him the literal and moral harm both can do in the hands of the unscrupulous.
Part of the problem is that the masses, unlike the elites or indeed demagogues, lack a coherent ideology. Abstract principles such as liberty, the rule of law, or the separation of powers, mean little to them. The masses are primarily concerned with economic security. So they are often willing to place their trust in an authoritarian leader, if that leader can convince them that their current leaders have profited at the people’s expense, and that only the authoritarian leader in question can give to the people what is rightfully theirs.
Epicurus, however unwittingly, created an ideology that is consistently anti-authoritarian. By reducing the process of moral decision-making down to individual circumstance, Epicurus believed that a central authority that imposes morality was wrong. What produces the most happiness (or the least suffering) for the individual must inevitably conflict with the supposed good of the race or nation an authoritarian claims to represent.
I think Arendt perfectly summarised the meaning of ‘post-truth’ politics. The wilful denial of empirical data so as not to challenge the authority of political leadership is a dangerous thing indeed. At this point, the political movement in question effectively becomes a religion. Its adherents are so dedicated to it, they have ceased to engage their critical faculties when evaluating its utility. The doctrine of the leader must be dogmatically obeyed, whatever the cost.
I don’t think Donald Trump is yet a religious guru. But it was certainly interesting (and frightening) to see many American Christians abandon Christian principles of humility and courteousness, as well as the strong belief in human fallibility, to vote for a man who exhibits none of those qualities. According to himself, Trump has never asked God for forgiveness, and his comments on women and sex are in direct contravention to Biblical teaching. If even God is subordinate to the Cult of Trump, American conservatism is doomed.