09/06/2026
Recently, while visiting relatives in the UK, I found myself standing inside a house that had been standing since the 1600s. Walking through its low doorways and uneven floors, I felt as if I had stepped backward into the world of the early Stuart kings. As I traveled from site to site, I kept thinking about one monarch in particular—the famously autocratic King Charles I (reign 1625–1649), son of King James I/VI of Bible‑translation fame.
*
Charles believed, with unwavering certainty, in the divine right of kings. He acted as he pleased, resisted compromise, and insisted that his authority flowed directly from God. That rigid conviction eventually helped ignite the English Civil War, splitting the nation between his supporters and the Parliamentarians who opposed his absolutism.
*
Standing in those centuries‑old spaces, it struck me how deeply this history shaped later political instincts. It is little wonder that many British colonists in America—descendants of people who lived through civil war, religious restriction, and royal overreach—would resist any government that concentrated power in one ruler or enforced only the king’s religion as lawful. Their skepticism toward authoritarian leadership was not abstract; it was inherited from lived experience.
*
In this article I explore the psychological appeal of authoritarian leaders, the social contexts that amplify their influence, and the dual pathways—authoritarianism and social dominance—that shape how followers respond to them.
