Domestic Assaults on the American Public
Fear, Confusion, Anticipatory Obedience, and Resistance (Vol. 5; Issue 21)
Battered by impulsive orders, shifting tariffs, mass deportations, and unprecedented corruption, American citizens increasingly behave like victims of domestic violence. The cycle of such violence, called the battered woman syndrome*, includes a “tension building” period. Much like the battered spouse fearing another beating, Americans feel frightened and confused. They risk becoming compliant to avoid further punishment.
Readers daring to follow the political news know that, for example, Columbia University made a deal with the Trump administration to avoid losing funding. The university agreed to overhaul its protest policies, its security practices and its Middle Eastern studies department in the hopes Trump would restore $400 million in government support. He did so. However, since making the agreement, Trump has asked for further concessions.
Along these same lines, Trump has similarly threatened major law firms whose partners had participated in prosecutions of him. It was exactly the type of revenge you’d expect from the Mob. The lawyers for these firms need access to federal buildings for research and court appearances. The same month Columbia caved, Trump signed an executive order banning attorneys at these law firms from access to these buildings and courthouses. The order effectively shuts these firm down. In reaction, one of the major firms, Paul Weiss, agreed to provide $40 million in free legal work for causes Trump supports and to eliminate their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Similar to what occurred with Columbia, Trump asks for still further favors from Paul Weiss.
Fortunately for the future of America’s teetering democracy, other universities and law firms are fighting back. They’ve filed lawsuits against Trump, arguing his executive orders violate the constitution. So far, they are preventing Trump from disrupting their instructional and legal work, respectively.
And, as we wait for the litigation to make its way through the courts, many of us experience the emotional distress typical of domestic violence victims. As we are peppered with daily, confusing decrees that create uncertainty and confusion, we prepare to be obedient.
Abuser-abused relationships tend to follow a cycle with four distinct phases:
Tension building, incident, reconciliation, and calm.
During the first phase, the couple (or the ruler interacting with citizens of a country) experience rising tension and conflict. The abuser uses minor arguments, verbal abuse, intimidation, and threats to maintain control. By analogy, the ways that Columbia and Paul Weiss “made deals” with Trump occurred during the tension building period. They hoped to prevent an “incident.”
The second phase features an actual incident, namely some form of abuse. We witness such assaults in the form of attacks on institutions forming the basis of our democracy. Just last week, Trump issued an order blocking Harvard from accepting international students. If enforced— and Harvard has already sued to prevent it from going into effect—thousands of Harvard’s foreign students would have to return to their countries of origin. In abusive relationships, the howl might be “get out;” in America, the mass deportations echo the Germany of the 1930s.
The third phase, also called the honeymoon or false honeymoon period, consists of the abuser apologizing (never from Trump), making promises to change, or denying the abuse occurred. In truth, abusers often use this period to manipulate their victims. We witness this phase in how Trump applauds entities like Columbia and Paul Weiss agreeing to his terms.
The fourth period, known as “calm,” is actually the transition back into tension building. For example, and as noted, Trump prepares for more abuse in the form of more concessions from these institutions—after they have already surrendered.
Eventually, the cycle begins again. With each new cycle, the incidents escalate. The abused person, feeling brief tranquility before tension building begins, again feels frightened, confused, and uncertain. These emotional states, rampant among Americans, weaken the spirit. The surreal state often accompanying them brings Franz Kafka’s (1925/1998) writing to mind. In his novel, The Trial, the protagonist, Joseph K, is arrested, detained, and placed before various judges, never knowing his alleged misconduct. K’s inability to predict his future creates a paralyzing paranoia, a distressing uncertainty.
Aren’t Kafka’s descriptions of K uncannily similar to our own situation? And, do they not also resemble how abused persons feel during their allegedly calm phase of the abuse cycle? Hannah Arendt (1951), an expert on authoritarianism, describes how dictators create similar situations. Authoritarian leaders typically flood citizens with decrees, keeping them confused. They, too, build up tension, abuse, and apologize (or make excuses). The parallels to contemporary America are striking: Whether a legal immigrant to this country, a business owner reliant upon parts from China, a law firm or a university, you have no idea what Trump will do next.
The phases of abuse, from the tension building to the (alleged) calm, also invite Americans into what American historian Timothy Snyder** (2017) calls anticipatory obedience. The various law firms and universities agreeing to Trump’s demands validate the phrase. Snyder, who believes “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” adds:
In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.
Synder calls anticipatory obedience a “political tragedy:”
Perhaps rulers did not initially know that citizens were willing to compromise this value or that principle. Perhaps a new regime did not at first have the direct means of influencing citizens one way or another.
He cites the aftermath of the 1932 German elections (which brought Nazis to power) and of the 1946 Czechoslovak elections (which brought communists to power) as historical examples of anticipatory obedience. Snyder continues:
Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change.
He concludes with a rather menacing sentence:
The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed.
Here we Americans sit, trembling, wondering if the reckless conformity already occurring can ever be reversed. We hope the cadre of universities following Harvard’s lead are successful; we hope law firms like Elias Law Group or Covington & Burling successfully rebel against the obedience the Trump administration insists upon.
The federal courts are the only branch of government yet to completely yield to Trump. Senators and congresspersons have already surrendered to the Trump agenda. Some federal judges are holding a democratic line, issuing injunctions against Trump’s orders. But only time will tell if, when these cases are appealed, the Supreme Court will prevent Trump from assuming full dictatorship. Even if it does, whether Trump heeds their orders remains an open question.
A few months ago, US district judge James Boasberg ordered Trump administration officials to turn planes carrying deportees around. His order was ignored. When a Fox News interviewer asked the Trump official enforcing deportations, Thomas Homan, if he would adhere to court orders limiting forced deportations, Homan replied:
I don’t care what the judges think.
Just yesterday, before Trump gave a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, he first posted:
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL.
(Is a memorial day supposed to be happy?) Later in the post, Trump railed against:
USA HATING JUDGES.
Like disempowered victims of domestic violence, we Americans face a conundrum: Do we surrender our power, passively and obediently awaiting the fate of our increasingly autocratic (abusive) leader? Or do we empower ourselves through protest, through politics, and through whatever personal actions we can take to prevent America’s descent into authoritarianism?
Empowerment seems the obvious choice. But resistance means we must swim against the current of insistent calls for surrender. Resistance requires courage. We have already seen tech giants, law firms, universities, major media firms, and other American institutions demonstrate anticipatory obedience.
Meanwhile, last month Bruce Springsteen opened his show in Manchester, England with this searing condemnation of Trump:
My home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration.
Springsteen’s proclamation raises a question for all Americans:
Who will be the real boss?
___________________________
*The phrase was coined by the American psychologist, Lenore Walker, PhD, known for her work in domestic violence and the psychology of women.
**Snyder just recently transferred from teaching at Yale to lecturing at the University of Toronto because he personally fears where America is headed.
Enjoying this newsletter?
And check out my book, Lover, Exorcist, Critic: Understanding Depth Psychotherapy, available on Amazon.
References
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Mariner.
Kafka, F. (1925, 1998). The Trial. New York: Shocken Books.
Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Random House.
Walker, L.A. (2016). The Battered Woman Syndrome. New York: Springer.
spot on