Fascism is not only an esoteric, uniquely racist ideology. Instead, it can rear its ugly head even in democratic societies. Sometimes below the public radar and sometimes egregiously publicly, politicians have been systematically cracking down on democratic processes to strengthen their executive power — in a way that borders on fascism. Several respected sources have recently written that the voting population is increasingly inclined to support authoritarian leaders worldwide, often voting against their own socio-economic interests. It is critical to understand why individuals have been leaning in this direction. To do so, we must clarify the terms autocratic leader and fascism to better understand how they overlap with the mainstream.

Politics is often interpreted as a legislative expression, yet individuals have recently voted based on personality, redefining politics as an expression of whose “camp” they belong to. As defined by Julius Evola — a prominent right-wing thinker from the early 20th-century writing in Italian — fascism prioritises the power of the single executive — l’uomo differenziato — the man who has become different (Valentini). Evola Saggi sull’idealismo magico (Essays on Magical Realism) further clarifies the role of this ‘different man’ by referencing Meister Eckhart’s Schriften und Predigten (Writings and Sermons):

“If I am to recognize God immediately, then I must become he, and he must become I […] so completely at one, that this he and this I are one, and will become and be one, and exist and act eternally in this way and form of being” (Hakl)

In this passage, Evola essentially references that the essence of fascism surrounds a deified human being. This serves less as a unifying force but instead as a polarizing agent to create a cult of popularity around the deified being — a religion. This polarization results in an ‘us vs. them’ psychology, further contrasting the ‘chosen’ versus the ‘villains.’ Moreover, as put by Erich Fromm — a Jewish social scientist and psychologist who fled Nazi Germany —authoritarians seek to have others submit to them, sadism, while themselves submitting to it: masochism (Alexander). Fromm argues that this sadomasochist is a social characteristic that fuels fascism.

Individuals may support increased power for an authoritarian leader if they perceive this as a ‘win’ for their cause — even if this does not benefit them. A key psychological strategy used by authoritarian leaders is to appeal to “winners” versus “losers,” further exacerbating animosity between opposing social groups (Hirneis). This psychology may parallel sports hooligans, who vilify and attack fans of an opposing side in the name of their team yet are left to face the consequences alone.

In the U.S. 2024 election, the primary reason for voting — on both sides — may have been more about defining their partisan — factional — identity than about economics (Doherty et al.). Individuals who feel economically and socially ostracized may be willing to adopt more radical ideologies — extreme right or extreme left — if they distrust the current status quo. Recently, some have even emphasised that “America is a Republic, not a Democracy” (Dobski). With this rhetoric, individuals may be able to rationalize fringe philosophies — which may be dangerous — because they are ‘fairer’ to them.

In summary, rational individuals worldwide appear to be voting on concepts of identity rather than just socioeconomic issues. This parallels the rise of leaders who exhibit certain traits of fascism — including the deification of the leader, a cult of personality, and vilification of opponents. Understanding the psychology of this global trend may be just as important as policy strategy to prevent the curbing of democratic rights and liberties.