WHY DO THEY SURRENDER DEFERENCE TO OLIGARCHS?
Some types of followers according to Harvard Business Review
Below, a byproduct of the 1980s.
Welcome to television's unchallenged authority on wealth, prestige, and success. It's another episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Meet the stars of show business and big business. Discover how life's winners live, love, and spend their fortunes. Enter their dazzling world of luxury on privileged tours of the fantasy palaces they call home. Your host is Robin Leach, who circles the globe to uncover the stories America will never stop talking about.
Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous was a long-running American series (1984-96) hosted by Robin Leach, with that showcased the lives of various famous athletes, business moguls (like Donald Trump), and celebrities (like Liberace).
“The rich are the real outcasts of society, so special missions should be organized for them.”
— Norman McLeod
Norman McLeod (17 September 1780 – 14 March 1866), a Presbyterian minister from Scotland, led significant settlements of Highlanders in Nova Scotia and ultimately in Waipu in New Zealand.
What amazes me is that normal non-wealthy Americans are willing to allow their autonomy, their freedoms, and their futures to be turned over to a handful of very wealthy individuals. One cannot assume that they do not know at this point in time of how their voting patterns, actions and inactions perpetuate this surrendering.
Part of Donald Trump’s appeal to millions was of his perceived wealth. This was important not only to the common people who may have shared in his prejudices and grievances but no doubt to the oligarchy American class themselves. They wished to ride a Trump presidency into lower taxes, deregulation, and for the continuation of health of the fossil fuel industry and the firearms industry. Trump certainly is pro-oligarchy, but his actions indicate the desire for much more. That being of a strongman dictatorship. Those oligarchs may be willing to share this vision of an America where even more wealth can be collected and hoarded than is already within their control as the result of past US Supreme Court decisions. According to Thom Hartmann, oligarchy always evolves into dictatorship. Certainly history can teach us this lesson, including recent history in countries such as Russia. The danger of riding the dictatorial tiger seems not to phase the oligarchy at this time. Hubris is rampant, and the realization of what and where their vision will lead to is denied. The oligarchy has it’s supporters for its continued status quo, as well as having non billionaire followers who are certain of advantages of dictatorship. This phenomenon seems rather puzzling to me, but I try to address it here.
It is that they are only followers perhaps. And they are fearful not to adapt individually to the situation they realize they are in, and the change is only possible when done by others.
First I will share some quotes from John Dean from his book of 2006 (pre-Trumpism) on Conservatives Without a Conscience for the general description of many Americans. Those who may share this commonality with many oligarchs who have excessive power today. Then I will share some interesting classifications of followers by a Harvard Business School faculty member Barbara Kellerman. Theses classifications are intended to describe the workers in an organization, the followers of the leaders of the company. She lists the good follower and the bad follower type. I will attempt to extrapolate her description of followers within organizations such as corporations more broadly to the MAGA follower.
“Social conservatism and neoconservatism have revived authoritarian conservatism, and not for the better of conservatism or American democracy. True conservatism is cautious and prudent. Authoritarianism is rash and radical. American democracy has benefited from true conservatism, but authoritarianism offers potentially serious trouble for any democracy.”
― John W. Dean, (b. 1938) Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
“Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds…”
― John W. Dean, (b. 1938) Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
“Conservatives without conscience do not have horns and tails; if they did they would be easier to identify. Many of them can be quite pleasant, but at heart they are tough, cold-blooded, ruthless authoritarians. They are limited in their ability to see the world from any point of view other than their own, and they are narrow in their outlook.”
― John W. Dean, (b. 1938) Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
“how have conservatives succeeded in coalescing as a political force? The simple answer is through the power of negative thinking, and specifically, the ability to find common enemies.”
― John W. Dean, (b. 1938) Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)
The question of what proportion of the categories of followers in Barbra Kellerman’s listing below came to my mind in relation to the MAGA movement. This would be helpful in the casual study I have attempted here. Please make your own estimation of such numbers while reading this. Kellerman inferred that the last three types of followers listed may be less in number than the beginning two in organizations.
From Harvard Business Review, What Every Leader Needs to Know About Followers, by Barbara Kellerman, From the Magazine (December 2007)
The typology I’ve developed after years of study and observation aligns followers on one, all-important metric—level of engagement. I categorize all followers according to where they fall along a continuum that ranges from “feeling and doing absolutely nothing” to “being passionately committed and deeply involved.” I chose level of engagement because, regardless of context, it’s the follower’s degree of involvement that largely determines the nature of the superior-subordinate relationship.
A typology based on a single, simple metric—as opposed to the multiple rating factors used by the creators of previous segmenting tools—offers leaders immediate information on whether and to what degree their followers are buying what they’re selling. I categorize followers as isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards.
Isolates are completely detached.
These followers are scarcely aware of what’s going on around them. Moreover, they do not care about their leaders, know anything about them, or respond to them in any obvious way. Their alienation is, nevertheless, of consequence. By knowing and doing nothing, these types of followers passively support the status quo and further strengthen leaders who already have the upper hand. As a result, isolates can drag down their groups or organizations. Or witness the typical American voter—or, more accurately, nonvoter. In 2004, no fewer than 15 million Americans said they had not gone to the polls because they were “not interested in the election” or were “not involved in politics.”
The non-voter is an Isolate. Certainly there are these type who might skew toward voting for a champion of oligarchs. But if they do not vote, then they do not cause a problem, or least may be less effective in retaining oligarchy. The ideal perhaps is to make more of the MAGA Republicans Isolates, and have less of those who might want American democracy to not be so.
Bystanders observe but do not participate.
These free riders deliberately stand aside and disengage, both from their leaders and from their groups or organizations. They may go along passively when it is in their self-interest to do so, but they are not internally motivated to engage in an active way. Their withdrawal also amounts to tacit support for whoever and whatever constitutes the status quo. Like isolates, bystanders can drag down the rest of the group or organization. But unlike isolates, they are perfectly aware of what is going on around them; they just choose not to take the time, the trouble, or, to be fair, sometimes the risk to get involved. A notorious example from the public sector is people who refuse to intervene when a crime is being committed—commonly referred to as the Genovese syndrome or the bystander effect.
Certainly there are Bystanders within the MAGA followers. Those who may only be a Trump supporter for the entertainment value they somehow acquire from this man, and the feeling of belonging to a group in which their behavior is fully accepted, but may have no working knowledge of politics, or no real ideology.
Participants are engaged in some way.
Regardless of whether these followers clearly support their leaders and organizations or clearly oppose them, they care enough to invest some of what they have (time or money, for example) to try to make an impact. When participants support their leaders and managers, they are highly coveted. They are the fuel that drives the engine. In the workplace, for instance, they can make effective junior partners. When they disapprove of their leaders and managers, however, or when they act as independent agents, the situation gets more complicated. When it comes to participant followers, and to the other engaged follower types described later in this article, leaders need to watch them overall and pay particularly close attention to whether their subordinates are for or against them. (The for-or-against question does not even come up for disengaged isolates and bystanders.)
The Participant has the ability and willingness to judge the competency and integrity of their leader, and will oppose the bad leader. They will work toward change within the group who faced with a bad leader. This classification does not strike me as describing the average MAGA follower.
Activists feel strongly one way or another about their leaders and organizations, and they act accordingly.
These followers are eager, energetic, and engaged. They are heavily invested in people and processes, so they work hard either on behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even unseat them. Those activists who are as loyal as they are competent and committed are frequently in the leader or manager’s inner circle—simply because they can be counted on to dedicate their (usually long) working hours to the mission as their superiors see it. Some activist followers are effectively encouraged by their superiors to take matters into their own hands.
Again, Kellerman describes the Activist as having discernment toward their leader, something which appears absent in the discussion. Certainly there is an ‘activism’ within the MAGA movement. They are heavily invested in one man, who uses them for wealth attainment purposes, and to champion oligarchy in general. But for me they might not be called Activists, although perhaps some high level MAGA individuals might be. I’m not clear on this.
Diehards are prepared to go down for their cause—whether it’s an individual, an idea, or both.
These followers may be deeply devoted to their leaders, or they may be strongly motivated to oust their leaders by any means necessary. They exhibit an all-consuming dedication to someone or something they deem worthy. Diehard followers are rare; their all-encompassing commitment means they emerge only in those situations that are dire or close to it. They can be either a strong asset to their leaders or managers or a dangerous liability. Hitler’s most ardent disciple from the start was, arguably, Nazi propagandist Josef Goebbels. As conditions in Germany began deteriorating, with the Allies closing in, Goebbels remained close to the leader—straight through to the end: Shortly after the führer committed suicide, Goebbels took the most radical diehard-type step when he and his wife took their lives along with those of their six children. Without Hitler, they considered life not worth living.
Kellerman specifically citing Joseph Goebbels as a Diehard would imply that many within the MAGA movement may indeed fall into this category. The description above does include the willingness to discard the leader who is seen as bad. I’m uncertain of this propensity within the average MAGA individual. But certainly in most ways the MAGA people have the do or die mentality, as clearly demonstrated on January 6, 2021.
Good and Bad Followers
Certain character and personality traits are nearly always associated with being a good leader (integrity, intelligence, and wise judgment, for instance), as are particular skills and capacities (effective communication and decision making, for example). But given the different roles played by leaders and followers, what can reasonably be said about what constitutes a good follower?
Followers who do something are nearly always preferred to followers who do nothing. In other words, isolates and bystanders (little or no engagement, little or no action) don’t have much to recommend them. Then again, doing something is not, in and of itself, sufficient, especially in cases of bad leadership.
…it’s the story of isolates and bystanders who were unwilling or unable to stop him from leading so poorly. It’s also a tale of participants and activists who did something; trouble was they supported rather than opposed a leader who did not deserve it.
Good followers will actively support a leader who is good (effective and ethical) and will actively oppose a leader who is bad (ineffective and unethical). Good followers invest time and energy in making informed judgments about who their leaders are and what they espouse.
Conversely, bad followers will do nothing whatsoever to contribute to the group or organization. Or they will actively oppose a leader who is good. Or they will actively support a leader who is bad.
From my point of view, and to the point of view of American democracy, all MAGA followers are bad followers. They may be devoted to their cause, however nebulous it may be, but “they will actively support a leader who is bad,” as Kellerman described above. And their figurehead may be Trump, DeSantis or “X,” but they also support the oligarchy wholeheartedly as well.
“Public sentiment will come to be, that the man who dies rich dies disgraced.”
-- Andrew Carnegie.
Andrew Carnegie (November 25, 1835 – August 11, 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist and philanthropist. Carnegie led the expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century and became one of the richest Americans in history.
39th posting, May 22, 2023