A Psychological Perspective on the Capitol Attackers

Americans will have to decide what to do and be courageous enough to respond effectively to the attack on the Capitol. Social psychologists, including Milgram and Kelman, have given us some important clues.

Humans have an evolutionary tendency to follow charismatic leaders, including those that foster tribal identification and genocide, delusions of persecution, ingroup/outgroup distinctions, and ingroup superiority. Indeed, in a time when social media has learned that anger keeps our attention, humans may be more likely to follow leaders who stoke our capacity not only for outrage but for rage. This human weakness, a capacity and even tendency, to follow leaders mindlessly, can likely be ameliorated by cognitive training, including rigorous education in critical thinking, and especially by teaching and fostering personal responsibility.

In their landmark book, Crimes of Obedience[1] Herbert Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton reviewed such incidents as the My Lai massacre and the long list of experiments in the tradition of Milgram’s obedience studies. They conclude, with strong evidence, that high degrees of empathy are not reliably effective in stopping people from following orders to harm others. Personal responsibility is. In taking personal responsibility, people affirm the Nuremberg Principles, declaring that obedience is not a defensible excuse for doing harm.

In times of great fear and upheaval, most people look to leaders and look for comrades. This is easy to understand in evolutionary terms. It’s a result of evolution for the survival of the fittest, or at least the best adapted. Thousands of years ago, a person who was isolated from family and/or community was highly unlikely to survive long at all. In light of this, a simple playbook for someone who wants to acquire power over others might include instilling fear and confusion, attributing troubles to a third party or parties, inciting “justifiable” hatred of the third party or parties, and then promising to be the best (or only) source of safety and clarity, as well as being the only one who can help defeat the terrible third parties. For those whose sense of personal responsibility is impaired or weak, following the leader — even if that leader suggests actions that violate one’s usual moral sense — is likely to ensue.

Terrorist recruiters follow this playbook. So do fascist and genocidal political leaders. It helps if the recruiters and/or leaders have skills and/or charisma that help them draw people into their orbit. It helps if they convince recruits that they respect and care about them, even though they most likely see them only as literal or figurative cannon fodder. It helps if they simplify their message. The more people they draw into their orbit, the more dangerous the situation. And when they have a significant number in their orbit, they can expand the enemy list to include everyone else, invoking the cliché that if you are not with us, you are against us. Full stop.

What to do when much of the world can see that a charismatic leader is drawing people into their orbit, sowing confusion and hatred, and, in coded as well as direct language, inciting violence? It seems obvious that the fascistic leader has to be stopped. But how do you stop them, and what do you do with their loyal base? These are the questions that are facing many in the U.S. and many European countries who have seen this before; some remember fascism and the Nazi party, and some have learned enough about it from their families, in school, and in their communities to recognize that they are seeing the evolution of a fascist leader and followers, many of whom are weak in personal responsibility, and who become part of a cult-like groupthink community.

Waiting him out is not an option; history tells us that bystanders are, by definition, complicit. Fascist leaders thrive when those who are not part of the movement stand by. Instead, those not part of the movement must demand that the leader be understood to be bent on destroying democracy, and its institutions, and crushing hard-won accomplishments in human rights, and that he should never again be allowed to hold office.

One cannot just call the leader out. The leader makes it part of the narrative. Standing up to the leader and followers is a necessity. One must intervene, and the earlier the better. It is no longer early. And no one should fool themselves into thinking that intervening, even with the best intentions of de-escalation, is likely to remain peaceful, bloodless, or simple. The leader and his followers have tasted power — for the followers, vicariously — and they will not give it up easily. The longer that it goes on, the harder to intervene, and there is a risk that many who are not involved will commit to a cowardly bystander stance.

Psychology suggests that those who raided the Capitol must be held accountable, while also being given the opportunity for off-ramp — perhaps something like the Disarm, Demobilize, and Reintegrate programs that are provided for young soldiers, including those who become part of organizations using terrorist tactics, but with a rigorous educational component. This may be provided simultaneously with detention, should some who are incarcerated for their actions decide to participate. The education might include critical thinking, personal responsibility, civics, and a deep dive into the history of democracy and its alternatives — featuring historical facts, rather than hearsay, rumor, conspiracy theory, or alternative facts.

Psychologists can be instrumental in the effort to address the attacks on the Capitol.

Copyright, Alice LoCicero, 2021