It’s a tiny little thing, smaller than the fire ant whose body it has just sabotaged. The Phorid fly, often called “the decapitating fly,” has just injected its eggs into the ant’s thorax. Upon hatching, the minuscule fly larvae will migrate towards the fire ant’s brain, and the ant will stop behaving like a normal fire ant. It will lose its sociability and wonder off alone (perhaps as far as 50 yards away from its nest) and then stop moving. The growing Phorid larvae will devour what’s left of the ant’s brain, the head will fall off, and a new brood of decapitating flies will pupate and emerge from it about two weeks later.

The Emerald Cockroach wasp stings its host twice. Venom is first injected into the cockroach’s thoracic region immobilizing its front legs, enabling the wasp to deliver a second more difficult sting directly into the roach’s brain. The second sting is not fatal either, but the cockroach begins grooming itself excessively and then lapses into a state of hypokinesia. While still quite alive, it has lost its “will” to resist manipulation and docilely follows along as the wasp guides it into a burrow where one or two eggs will be deposited into the cockroach’s living body. The eggs hatch, and over the course of about six weeks, the body is devoured by the wasp larvae that will soon become adult Emerald Cockroach wasps.

Insects aren’t unique in displaying zombie characteristics after a parasitic attack. Others in the animal kingdom, including mammals, provide similar examples of behavioral alteration. The self-destructive aggressive tendency of raccoons infected with the rabies virus (Lyssavirus) is well known. Less documented, but perhaps more interesting, is the change in behavior of rodents infected with Toxoplasma gondii. When ingested, the protozoan attaches itself to the hypothalamus portion of the host’s brain. It’s believed that dopamine levels are then raised, thereby substantially decreasing (perhaps even reversing) the rodent’s innate aversion to cat odor. Needless to say, the lifespan of a mouse that stops fearing cats will likely be shortened. Rodents aren’t the only mammals falling prey to Toxoplasma gondii; as much as half the human population appears to host the protozoan! No, its presence in our bodies doesn’t necessarily account for the human proclivity of having cat pets (we make pets of so many living things). However, that it so visibly affects the behavior of rodents does justify speculation that it might also induce behavioral modification in human beings. Indeed, studies have pointed to a higher incidence of schizophrenia in those hosting Toxoplasma gondii as well as a greater degree of dangerous risk-taking behavior.

As human beings, we like to think our hold on “free will” is stronger and more secure than that of other animals. We find it discomfiting to ascribe our thoughts and motivations to anything other than our own free will. Surely, it’s of my own volition that I write these words, just as it’s your own decision to read them. But what brought us to this particular exercise of free will? Could an outside factor or “infection” have moved me to express myself, or you to pause and listen? Is our free will always pure and innate, or might we be like that mouse infected with Toxoplasma gondii, exercising a “free will” that has been unknowingly compromised? So, perhaps there’s more (or less) to our thoughts and action than we care to suppose. Could some of our motivations (and even the muses we credit for inspiration) possibly emanate from tiny worms or organisms residing in our brains?

Worms in our brains? Banish the thought, right? Like infected mice, we humans do often act in self-destructive ways, but we needn’t use a microscope or confine our search to within when seeking a cause. There’s no need to dwell on embedded micro-organisms that may (or not) influence our conduct when there is a larger and more obvious parasite directly sabotaging our expression of free will. The parasite that most blatantly subverts human behavior and self-interest is in no way tiny; it’s another human being.

It’s what leaders do; they prompt and direct our behavior. If deemed good, we call it motivation. If deemed bad, we see it as manipulation. Good or bad may be a matter of perspective, but when under the influence of an esteemed leader, we always see ourselves as being motivated rather than manipulated. This perspective will likely hold even when inspired to acts of self-destruction. Human history (particularly that of war) shows we are often convinced to behave in ways that are beneficial to a ruler while being detrimental (even fatal) to ourselves. Under their influence, we surrender free will and bodies to our leaders and their needs supplant our own. In this way, we resemble the cockroach that compliantly allows itself to be guided into the burrow of a wasp.

Under authoritarian, totalitarian, theocratic, or fascist regimes, free will has already lost relevancy. The means of meaningful resistance was previously usurped. Our powerless bodies offer scant resistance; we can be “dragged into the burrow” at a leader’s whim. But what of the various forms of democracy where the capacity to assert ourselves and affect leadership is still present? How do we come to lose it? Why do we sometimes seem to invite the sting that will surrender our freedom to parasitic leadership?

By definition and design, true democracies have a built-in component of discontinuity; leadership is meant to be transient and is chosen by a country’s oscillating populace. Their command may be term-limited, but elected leaders do hold the reins of true power and do sometimes use it to expand upon their tenuous hold. If successful, constraints (judicial, legislative, and electoral) to executive power are diminished or eliminated and the governed democracy slip-slides towards some form of authoritarianism. Several democracies around the world are bending in that direction. Hungary under Viktor Orban, India under Narendra Modi, Turkey under Recep Erdogan, Poland under Andrzej Duda, and Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu are some of the prominent countries where the light of democracy appears to be dimming.

And then there’s the United States. If the authoritarian direction was unclear at the beginning of Donald Trump’s first term in office, it was certainly clear at the end. He was nearly successful in hijacking democracy in the 2020 election by circumventing the will of the country’s majority. He barely failed, but he is not yet out of the picture. Trump has positioned himself for a return to power in 2024, and flagrantly threatens the safeguards of democracy as part of his appeal. Yes, that’s right; he and his party are openly seeking to undermine the electorate’s ability to resist autocracy, and much of the electorate appears willing (perhaps even eager) to allow it. How can that be? How has Trump convinced so much of the populace to surrender their hold on democracy?

A budding authoritarian picks a vulnerable target and nurtures fear and resentment against it. Be it ethnic, cultural, political, or other, the target is depicted as a despicable threat that the righteous must oppose. The aspiring leader portrays himself as not just one of the righteous, but as the righteous one who is powerful enough to lead them into battle. He becomes their exemplar and robust champion. His motives are seen as reflective of their own; he will take them where they want to go (where we go one, we go all). They are his means to obtain power and he is their means to feel as if they’ve obtained power; he is their avatar. It’s as if they’ve been stung. The “righteous” offer no resistance to the pull of a “wasp” because they’ve come to feel they are the wasp. Their collective body compliantly enters the burrow where it will feed the progeny of a parasite’s ambition.

Trump tapped into and nurtured ethnic (white) resentment with his claim that the nation’s first black president was a non-citizen and held no legitimate claim to office. He referred to Mexicans as rapists and drug pushers. He widened his potential base and stoked religious resentment when he inferred that Obama was a non-Christian Muslim. While still a presidential candidate, Trump further championed the Christian/Evangelical community through adoption of a Pro-Life stance that advocated severe punishment for abortive procedures. Throughout his presidency, Trump allied himself with the NRA and its supporters, villainizing the efforts of citizens who proposed gun-control measures. He broadened his sphere of influence still further with a war against the “elites” (virtually anyone not in his camp). His efforts have been fruitful; Trump has successfully divided the nation into two groups: his allies and his enemies.

War has a way of justifying egregious behavior. Religion has a way of glorifying it. Taken together, all is permissible (for the survival of country) or even demanded (for the glory of God). Trump, with significant Christian support, has declared war on half of the nation’s populace. It’s a “glorious” war that justifies dismantling the guardrails of a country’s democracy in order to “save” it. His first term ended with an unsuccessful attempt to bypass the American electorate. He convinced his followers that the attempt was permissible and necessary. While failing at the national level, disenfranchisement at the state level continues unabated. Several states with Republican (and Trump aligned) legislatures are actively seeking to suppress the electoral process. With his core of fervent supporters still intact, and an opposition that may effectively be disenfranchised, Trump has the means for a return to power in 2024.

In 2016, Trump nurtured resentment and presented himself as the sole means to address it: “I am your voice; I alone can fix it.” Upon the failure of his 2020 presidential bid, Trump declared himself and his followers to be victims of an elite conspiracy: “They got away with something big and it’s leading to our country’s destruction.” For 2024, he promises vengeance for himself and on behalf of his army: “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” He’s not just running for office; Trump has declared war on the American political system that enables his own participation; he’s declared war on the very system that gives voice to his followers. He’s using democracy as a means of attaining the power that will enable him to destroy it.

It appears not to be merely the meek or the reticent that give themselves to Trump. Indeed, it seems the opposite: It’s the proud “Don’t Tread on Me” brand of patriot that readily avail themselves. Thousands of them swarmed the Capital Building on January 6th, 2021 and hundreds violently stormed into it. The bold and the brave shouldn’t be so easily manipulated, but they are. They loudly proclaim allegiance to a politician who is willing to eviscerate the electorate in his bid for power. A Proud Boy member (and part of the electorate) defiantly raised a fist and shouted “Trump won!” on his way to jail for his participation in the Trump supportive Capital riot. A member of Congress proudly affirmed her unwavering support for the former president: “I will still vote for Trump, even if he’s in jail.” These are not atypical examples; they typify his fervent followers who are unwavering in their support.

Have they been stung? Is his army aware that it is being pulled into the burrow of an aspiring autocrat? Are his followers aware that as Trump’s power is enhanced, their own will be diminished? Are they aware that while they live (currently) under a democracy that still gives them voice, their children will live under an autocracy that takes it away?

No one knows what an ant feels upon the sting that directs its journey away from the nest. Why does it walk straight away, rather than in little circles nearby? Does it feel something new that compels it to stray from its community, or like a zombie, does it feel nothing at all? When a mouse’s brain is infected by a protozoan, does it feel something that it didn’t feel before, or has it just ignorantly lost its fear? How about a human being, a citizen under the sway of a politician; does a human being feel something special through the transaction taking place? Are they consciously motivated, or are they unwittingly manipulated? Or, might it be both?

They certainly appear conscious and enthusiastic. The millions of boosters that promote Trump and his party can hardly be seen as listless zombies. But, are they really aware of what they are giving up, and actually okay with it, or are they being manipulated? Is the exchange taking place an equitable one, or is the author of “The Art of the Deal” taking his followers for a ride.

The exchange is rarely equitable. In nature and in politics, the parasite usually wins. If one is elected president in 2024, he will extend and accelerate the erosion of democracy that is already occurring at state level. An authoritarian dealmaker can easily be voted into office, but not so easily voted out. The electorate will have given away its sole discretionary power, and it won’t be given back. For that brief feeling of power dealt its way, the electorate will have effectively gutted itself and our nation’s leader will then enjoy unbridled authority. Once lost, if democracy ever finds a way back, it will likely be through the distant efforts of another generation and it will likely not be through the ballot box.

Oh, children forgive us, for we know not what we do! Or, maybe we do, but it just feels too good to stop.

---