This is going to be a (partly) political post, so for those who don’t like it, move along. I recently finished re-reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm. While it includes specific allusions to the Russian revolution, Stalin & Hitler’s backroom dealing, and so forth, it also provides an excellent case study for any slide into authoritarianism. Stalin & Hitler were theoretically on different sides of the political spectrum, yet, they both ruled as dictators, breaking the same norms and eliminating all checks on their power.

For those who need a refresher on this novel, which used to be a high school staple, but don’t color me surprised when it’s on the banned books list, here are the steps Napoleon and his enabler Squealer use (primarily through propaganda and rhetoric) to maintain control over the the other animals on the farm:

  • Justifying Leadership and Control – Squealer constantly uses propaganda to defend Napoleon’s decisions, convincing the animals that everything he does is for their benefit, even when it clearly isn’t.
  • Rewriting History – The pigs alter past events, such as the role of Snowball in the Battle of the Cowshed, to shape perceptions and erase inconvenient truths.
  • Using Fear to Maintain Power – The threat of Mr. Jones returning or the fear of external enemies is frequently invoked to justify Napoleon’s increasingly oppressive rule.
  • Altering Language and Truth – Slogans like “Four legs good, two legs bad” and “Napoleon is always right” simplify complex ideas and discourage critical thinking.
  • Glorifying the Leader – Napoleon is portrayed as a flawless and benevolent ruler, with propaganda elevating him to near-mythical status.
  • Suppressing Dissent – Any questioning of Napoleon’s rule is countered with lies, manipulation, and public executions, ensuring that resistance is crushed before it can grow.

Obviously I couldn’t help but notice the parallels with Trump, but the parallels exist for all authoritarian leaders. The parallels exist in Church leadership as well, particularly in the recent purges that have happened at BYU that have been discussed in the SLTrib, here, and elsewhere.

Napoleon as a character is specifically based on Stalin. The problem with comparisons to Stalin, Hitler, Franco and other authoritarian dictators is that we are living in the present moment, not looking back with the benefit of hindsight. We judge Hitler by the Holocaust. We judge Stalin by the Stalinist purges and the gulags. But those are not the things that made them authoritarians. Those are evil deeds they personally did while in power.

Not everyone in power does evil things. They also can do things that are positive for society (or part of it). They can build roads or give awards or advance science. But they are motivated by their own power and aggrandizement, and the benefits to others are incidental; what matters to them is the benefit to themselves. It’s one way to run a country, but it’s not my preferred way. Apparently I’m in the slight minority right now.

Why do they do it? Well, they share certain personality traits that Napoleon in Animal Farm exemplifies:

  • Ambitious and Power-Hungry – Napoleon is obsessed with gaining and maintaining power, eliminating rivals like Snowball to establish himself as the unquestioned leader.
  • Cunning and Manipulative – He uses deception, propaganda (through Squealer), and fear to control the other animals.
  • Authoritarian and Tyrannical – Over time, Napoleon becomes a dictator, enforcing strict control and ruling through intimidation.
  • Selfish and Corrupt – He prioritizes his own luxury and well-being over the welfare of the other animals, indulging in privileges like drinking alcohol and living in the farmhouse.
  • Deceptive and Dishonest – He frequently alters the truth, rewrites history, and changes the rules (e.g., modifying the Seven Commandments to suit his actions).
  • Cruel and Violent – He uses his loyal attack dogs to eliminate enemies, stage purges, and instill fear among the animals.
  • Hypocritical – Though he initially supports the idea of equality, he ultimately behaves just like the humans the animals overthrew.

We know he has these traits because of his actions in the novel:

  • Expels Snowball – He uses force (his trained dogs) to drive out Snowball and seize control of the farm.
  • Establishes a Cult of Personality – He has Squealer spread propaganda, praising him as the farm’s savior.
  • Exploits the Animals – He works the animals to exhaustion while he and the other pigs enjoy privileges.
  • Engages in Political Repression – He holds purges and public executions to eliminate potential threats.
  • Changes the Commandments – He alters the farm’s rules to justify his actions (e.g., “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”).
  • Forms Alliances with Humans – Despite originally opposing humans, he eventually collaborates with them for personal gain.
  • Betrays Boxer – Despite Boxer’s loyalty, Napoleon sells him to a glue factory when he becomes too weak to work.

Power corrupts leaders, even when they were originally trying to accomplish something good (like the revolution). They become the oppressors they previously opposed. Why does Napoleon rise to the top in the novel? Because he is a narcissist, and he has serious personality flaws that turn Animal Farm from a utopian vision to a dystopia:

  • Grandiosity and Self-Importance – He builds a cult of personality, ensuring that all successes are attributed to him. The animals are taught to chant, “Napoleon is always right.”
  • Lack of Empathy – He shows no concern for the suffering of others, as seen in how he overworks and betrays Boxer.
  • Need for Total Control – Napoleon cannot tolerate dissent, using propaganda and violence to ensure absolute obedience.
  • Exploitation of Others – He manipulates the animals for labor while enjoying luxuries himself, like drinking alcohol and living in the farmhouse.
  • Hypocrisy and Deception – He constantly lies and rewrites history to suit his image, refusing to take responsibility for failures.

In the novel, the animals think they notice some of the changes that are happening, like the Seven Commandments being rewritten, but since they are poorly educated and mostly can’t read, they believe they must have remembered it wrong. The changes happen gradually enough that they believe the reasons they are given through propaganda. They also rely on the false hope and promises they are given that things will be better after these changes. False enemies are created as well as whipping up fears of things that aren’t going to happen to keep the animals from questioning Napoleon’s information, and he also uses attack dogs to silence critics. Every negative action he takes that harms the animals is justified by Squealer’s reality-distorting propaganda, blamed on false enemies, or altered by rewriting history.

Bishop Bill’s recent post about unlearning got me thinking about some of these same tendencies in the Church. One of Trump’s recent changes is to state that all history being taught has to promote the idea that the US has been on a constant trajectory of improvement, what he calls “patriotic history” as a counter to teaching actual history that is much more messy; this is ironic given the current efforts to blame everything on racial minorities and women. The state of Florida has made it illegal for teachers to express any opinion about things like slavery or Civil Rights when they teach history.

What does any of this have to do with the Church? Well, two main things: 1) the overwhelming majority of Church members voted for Trump and support what he’s doing, including Utah’s AG joining all Republican AGs in supporting his effort to eliminate birthright citizenship which is in the 14th amendment, and 2) we’ve been trained from childhood not to question or criticize what Church leaders do. Their power is unchecked. Criticizing them only marginalizes the critic. We don’t believe in common consent (haven’t really in my entire lifetime). Sustaining only counts if you sustain, not if you oppose, just like how consent to polygamy only counted if you agreed to it, not if you didn’t. I once had a teacher at church who said that as Church members, we didn’t believe democracy was the ideal form of government; he claimed that theocracy was. Growing up with the Ayatollah’s threats toward Americans and even a cursory understanding of how Brigham Young ran Utah, I always thought that guy was out of his damn mind. Still do. But then again, history is written by the victors.

  • Do you think Church members are more OK with authoritarian leadership because of how the Church is run?
  • Have you heard people at Church claim that theocracy was the ideal form of government?
  • Do you find any of these parallels troubling or is authoritarianism only an issue if bad deeds are done by the leader, not merely the act of consolidating power and undermining checks on authority? Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

Discuss.