The nature of bullying
When I was young I was bullied. I can’t read minds, but the bullying wasn’t triggered by one specific thing, such as my home life. It was a host of things: I wasn’t already their friend, I was awkward, quiet, thoughtful, ugly and clever. I stood out and for a long time it didn’t even occur to me to try to conform or obey, which made me stand out more. Bullying attacks difference but the motivations don’t form a major part of the bullying. Bullies don’t say
“Hehe, son of an alcoholic, hehe”, or “I feel bad about being stupid so I will try to make you feel bad too”.
They say things like “F*** off, gaylord”, or “Hey loser [teehee], hey loser! Why won’t you answer to your name, Loser?”
But the conventional understanding of bullies is that they feel insecure and try to make themselves feel better by putting others down: they try to establish a hierarchy in which they are not at the bottom. Sometimes they will pick on specific things to help to justify this: being the son of an alcoholic might be evidence of inferiority (although I’m not sure how, and clearly nor were my school peers). But mostly the pecking order is established by the insults; by who gets to be mean to whom, and therefore who respects and fears whom. Bullying establishes dominance… or attempts to. I didn’t understand others’ malice. I resented it and disliked them, but I was very far from respect or fear. I was fortunate enough to be strong enough to defend myself against physical bullying, and so the rest of the year feared me, enough to make a joke out of it. My nickname became ‘Psycho’, an attempt to dismiss the fear.
I did not have tantrums in which I wailed, complained and lashed out ineffectively. If someone hurt me, I hurt them more. Carefully and deliberately. They could not laugh at my agitation; they could only accept the inevitable. Trolling and needling me did not get a fun display; I ignored it until I didn’t, at which point it was too late.
I was called ‘Psycho’ because people found my violence unpredictable. This benefitted me; they were cautious about a lot of the bullying that had previously been prevalent. In fact it was entirely predictable: I had firm boundaries and would not overlook them being crossed. When people were violent or took what was mine I would respond but words I’d just ignore.
Now I look back, I think some of the shock the boys felt was because they were merely posturing, like apes. They were trying to establish dominance, not start a fight. They felt that a punch or a shove was a justified escalation when their words failed to elicit fear or respect; when they failed to confirm their place in a hierarchy.
I did not acknowledge their hierarchy. Yes, the popular children were popular and could rely on social support, being selected for sports teams and so on. But I enforced the rules. No matter how popular, I didn’t let people push in front of me in the lunch queue. They had not earned freedom from queueing by insulting me: quite the opposite! They got a scuffle and, because they were usually so entitled that they didn’t anticipate my response, flung back. If you absolutely must queue with your friends, ask them to join you at the back.
Sometimes a school prefect would demand that the queue be in alphabetical order to make ticking people off easier; and sometimes in reverse alphabetical order. I disapproved, but obeyed legitimate authority. When I lost places, the entitled boys would laugh and celebrate; as far as they were concerned I had been put in my place.
The natural order of things for many is that the dominant rule; they get social privileges that others do not, and are entitled to respect that they do not show. It comes as a shock when they encounter a worldview based more on universal laws such as 'no-one gets to queue-jump in front of me', 'if you attack me, I hurt you [more]', or in the news right now 'the president is not a dictator'.
Bullying in politics
Trump and the political right are bullies at heart. They seek status; winning grants that status, no matter the lies or economic harm. Winning is all the matters. This is why they are less concerned with rule-breaking than they should be: for them rule-breaking is the whole point; status grants dominance and dominance can be exercised however you want.
It is also why they demand unity from opponents. They won, and they now want the status of dominance; they need the fear and respect of those they have conquered. They need the social position that can only be confirmed by agreement. They hate the idea that despite winning the competition for dominance they are not respected by those they triumphed over. The scorn and hatred is fine when it can be seen as the impotent bitterness of losers, which is how it rapidly becomes portrayed. But, like the putrid orange pustule himself, their narcissism is fragile and the ongoing disagreement and disrespect still rankles because modern right-wing politics is driven by the desire for respect and status above all else.
They do not fully understand rules or justice. When rules work in their favour and others accept this, it is a sign of their status; a step up in the hierarchy. When rules are against them, it is the powerful dominating them. At school, prefects who re-ordered the lunch queue were not an external rule to be obeyed, but another tool to be used in the struggle to win. In the modern world, laws, trials and indictments are obstacles that sufficient status can and should overcome. Just like the ultra-wealthy front-men, right-wing supporters will consciously agree with broad, sensible statements such as ‘the law applies to everyone’, but they don’t really believe that this is as important as winning. The law applies to everyone until it doesn’t. Until it matters to them, and then it’s an unjust hindrance.
There are those on the left who are tempted by this approach: who think that we should be merciful, and that firm, impersonal rules are unfeeling, uncaring and unkind. This might be true, but that is why they are good. We are all equal under the law, for good and bad. Bad law can be a problem, but unequal enforcement of the law is not the solution. If we have rules, they should be obeyed and enforced.
Betraying allies
This is why right-wingers feel more comfortable with dictators than with allies. Because we have recently been a somewhat civilised, sensible country, our allies treat us as equals; with civility, in a spirit of co-operation in which we work together and all benefit. Right-wingers do not experience the dominance and fealty that they expect. This sort of respect as partners feels like disrespect; they instinctively feel (not think) in terms of dominance and ranking. One is higher; the other must submit.
Dictators live in that reality too. They deal in fear and power. They can act with deference; give the respect to a man that no self-respecting civilised man would. Neither Donald Trump nor Kemi Badenoch deserve any respect because of who they are or because they are dominant figures. It is their position in a system that has value, and the system itself that has the respect and fealty of thoughtful people. For right-wingers, the system is just a way to achieve dominance, and their leader, and hence they through association, should be given the fealty and dominance. Emperor Putin can do that in a way that a principled man cannot.
Theirs is a crazily unpatriotic attitude. A patriot would value his country’s good characteristics, not one man.
Bullying perpetuates itself through the generations
This search for belonging to a powerful mob – the search for power and status by association with victory – appeals most to those who do not have status. People who are insecure and fearful, the ignorant and the unskilled are the natural target for such politics. People who have little chance in a supposed meritocracy. Thus the right-wing politics of the past, creating undeserving winners at the expense of the poor, has created the constituency of current right-wing politics, which preys on those marginalised poor, bereft of education, support, connections and, above all, respect.
The left has talked about the moral worth of the poor; of helping to lift people out of poverty, but has been too busy bending to the whims of the rich and powerful in an attempt to get a glimpse of power to do anything. The rich and powerful are not friends of progress, and pleasing them was never going to help the left-wing cause. While the rich were happy to indulge demographically minor policies and culture-war campaigning, real redistribution and help for the poor never appeared. So the left appeared even more out of touch, supporting others whilst excluding many of the marginalised poor who were supposed to be its main support.
The demand for unity, the requirement for fealty from their opponents, and the belief in dominance and power unfettered by rules or principles, all lead to the right wing’s shock when they find that they cannot do as they please in power. Even though the rich and powerful are overwhelmingly conservative, the right wing does not feel dominant, and so there must be something more dominant left to conquer.
This is why we hear them chunter about some sort of left-wing blob of power resisting them; a hidden deep state of all those powerful teachers and academics who control the millionaires, bankers, CEOs and media magnates and must be crushed. Because the election is the way to determine who won, and the winner is therefore top of the hierarchy and should get to do what he likes, with the respect and fealty of all. If they do not have these things, then they are not top, as they think they should be.
Structures, systems, checks and balances... these are either not understood or are dismissed as paper walls to confine the weak, Nietzchian-style.
There is no left-wing deep state. The only thing more dominant than the wealthy few are the poorer masses. If the right wingers want to dominate all, they must enslave whole populations.
They will try.
