The excuses for anticipatory obedience

Great column (gift link) from M. Gessen on the rationalizations for anticipatory obedience, which Timothy Snyder has identified as the key dynamic in transforming a liberal democratic society into an autocracy:

First, the responsibility-for-others argument. In 2004, I assigned and edited an article by a man who had protested Putin’s handling of a hostage crisis at a school in which more than 300 people had died. I was fiddling with the headline when one of the people in charge materialized next to my desk. If you publish that, he warned me, the entire staff of the publishing house might lose their jobs. To the best of my knowledge, the Kremlin had never threatened or even criticized the publishing house for editorial content. (The man in question now says he never tried to stop me.)

The great Russian sociologist Yuri Levada coined the term “collective hostage-taking” to describe the phenomenon when individuals cannot be free to act because of a constant, credible threat of collective punishment. Collective hostage-taking is particularly insidious because it pits different sets of values against each other: My boss, for example, was asking me to weigh the value of one article against the livelihoods of hundreds of people. The article wasn’t published.

The second argument is the higher-purpose argument, which is a close cousin of collective hostage-taking. In 2012, during the winter when more than 150,000 Russians protested against rigged elections and Putin’s intention to assume the presidency for a third term, a popular actress, Chulpan Khamatova, broke ranks with the liberal intelligentsia and came out in support of Putin. Khamatova had co-founded an organization that helped children with cancer. She faced some criticism but said, “If it meant that another hospital was built, I would do the same thing again.” Her dignity was, after all, a small price to pay for saving children’s lives.

I suspect that some American hospital administrators who are discontinuing trans care for young people are using similar logic: To serve their patients, they must protect their federal funding — even if this means that they stop serving another group of patients.

Next comes the pragmatic argument. Rational people do not stand on principle for the sake of principle. They pick their battles. Or so this argument goes. Perhaps this was the logic that led the country’s largest private funder of biomedical research to halt a $60 million diversity program, Target to scrap its D.E.I. goals or ABC News to settle Trump’s libel suit. As cynical as this argument sounds, it too is rooted in values and obligations to others — shareholders, business partners, clients.

There’s also the if-I-don’t-do-it-someone-else-will argument. A few years ago, a couple of journalists who had fled Russia in fear for their lives took an assignment to make a video that looked to me and many others like pure Russian propaganda. When I asked them why they did it, they replied that someone would have done it anyway — and they needed the money. Refusing the assignment wouldn’t have changed anything, so why not? Perhaps this is the logic of the top-tier law firms that have scrambled to hire Trump loyalists and otherwise position themselves as allies of the new administration. Perhaps this is also the logic of those Senate Democrats who have voted for Trump’s cabinet nominees: The nominees would get confirmed anyway, so these senators might as well shore up support in their contested states.

Last, we have the zeitgeist argument. “We are in a new era now,” Zuckerberg observed when he announced that Meta would end its fact-checking program. Companies should have more “masculine energy” and have “a culture that celebrates the aggression” more, he added a few days later, speaking on the Joe Rogan podcast. This kind of argument is the very definition of rational. Societies define sanity as conforming to dominant beliefs and culture. In totalitarian societies, cultural and intellectual rebels are often confined to psychiatric institutions. In the Soviet Union, dissidents were often diagnosed as insane — and by the standards of that society, they were.

There are many good reasons to accommodate budding dictators, and only one reason not to: Anticipatory obedience is a key building block of their power. The autocracies of the 20th century relied on mass terror. Those of the 21st often don’t need to; their subjects comply willingly.

Here’s a sad little example from the world of higher ed administration: an ecosystem with an especially high percentage of invertebrate species. A couple of weeks ago, a DEI administrator at Michigan State University decided to cancel a celebration of the Chinese lunar New Year. Here’s the email doing so.

It contains the following masterpiece of prevarication:

This decision comes in response to concerns shared by members of our community regarding the current issuance of Executive Orders related to immigration and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These actions have prompted feelings of uncertainty and hesitation about gathering for events that highlight cultural traditions and communities. We feel it is important to honor those concerns with sensitivity and care.

The last sentence in particular out-Kafka’s Kafka.

This particular bit of anticipatory obedience was so outrageously craven that it generated enough of a backlash to get the decision reversed by the dean of the relevant school at MSU, so there’s that.

Right now we’re seeing a mixture of pre-emptive surrender and preliminary resistance to the Trump autocracy throughout higher education in particular and America in general. The precise percentages of that mixture will prove decisive over the next few years in regard to the possible survival of liberal democracy in this country.