The analysis of 2016 election results, and especially of the tendency of particular groups - women for instance, and working people - to vote for Trump in spite of his clearly demonstrated contempt for them, is in line with Wilhelm Reich's analysis of the rise of Fascism in Germany in the 1930s - which he witnessed first hand ("The Mass Psychology of Fascism" written in Germany and Scandinavia in the early 1930s, and published in the US in translation in 1946).

Fascism isn't a "political" movement in the traditional sense. It has no political agenda. It doesn't believe in "pay-as-you-go" economics, nor in "borrow-and-spend." It's neither "conservative" nor "liberal." It usually vacillates between contradictory "ideologies" without much discrimination, depending on what seems most expeditious to achieve its immediate goals. It's purely self-interested and will do anything that is perceived as benefittng the elites that control the government. It is unprincipled and amoral.

For its power it relies on enlisting the poorly-educated, easily-influenced masses (soi-disant "populism") through a direct appeal  to the "shadow" in the collective sub-conscious, the selfishness, the fear and anxiety, the free-floating hostility, all those impulses on which civilization forbids us to act.

It's an emotional/psychological appeal, not a logical or intellectual one. It is conveyed through "myths" - like the recent one of the "invasion" of the US by a caravan of foreign murderers and criminals, or the one about "liberal elites" enlisting millions of non-citizens to vote and undermine the "rights" of "real Americans."

We have seen how Hitler and Goebbels used the pseudo-scientific myth of the "master race" to confuse and mislead the German masses, tapping into their insecurities, their sense of shame, their greed and their desire for a scapegoat, to encourage what eventually amounted to a mass "psychotic break" with reality and enabled the acceptance of incredible levels of cruelty and anti-social behavior. And they were working from a much more primitive understanding of the psychological mechanics of the process, and with far more limited tools to promote their plan.

What progressives need to do is understand what is happening, and respond accordingly. We need to express our political positions not only in logical and reasonable terms, but also to generate the same kinds of myths that have been so successful among Fascists and other demagogues.

We need to express our points of view not only as sensible plans for the future, but also as "stories," "parables," anecdotes that emphasize the emotional and psychological satisfaction those policies may embody, to reach through and talk directly to the "shadow," to propose an alternative vision to soothe those fears, appeal to that selfishness in a creative and co-operative way, find creative outlets and sublimations for that anger.

We must create compelling narratives that can present a direct, emotional appeal to the same unacknowledged aspects of the collective psyche into which the demagogues are currently tapping. We must create an alternative story-line that leads away from fear and anger, towards co-operation, trust, altruism and brotherhood. We must make our points as the demagogues make theirs, by telling simple, compelling stories that reach past the rational faculties and touch the unconscious prejudices and genuine feelings, and elevate, rather than amplify and pervert them.

Psychotherapy - particularly that of Reich, R.D. Laing and Richard Lindner - gives us clues as to how to get inside these dangerous realms, and help those trapped there to find their way out. But to do this on a national and international basis is a new undertaking.

Consciously seeking to reshape the myths that underlie our societal dysfunction in a more positive direction, through alternative story-telling, is a new approach. We have the tools and the understanding - the same tools and analysis that advertising and the demagogues use - to influence behavior. We have to grasp that understanding and begin experimenting with it to produce the outcomes we desire.

Looking at how to re-frame the "myth" of Colin Kaepernick might be instructive. Telling the story of  the talented, thoughtful and accomplished athlete who rose from poverty and risked (and actually sacrificed) his privileged position out of personal moral principle, and telling it in a way that is emotionally satisfying, that shows the groundlessness of the fears of the isolation of "standing up to authority" and the power of the solidarity he has generated, could lead people to see the circumstances in a new way.

Of course this would be resisted by those who have already internalized the mythology as propounded by the current administration (just as that version has been resisted by those who already see Kaepernick in this heroic light). But the point is not to change minds so much as to disseminate and popularize another version of the story.

The mythology of the underdog who succeeds against great odds, of the individual who sacrifices for others, of the man of courage standing up to oppression, are central archetypes of the American imago, repeated again and again in films and books. We need to shift the focus from Kaepernick the individual to the actions he and those who have supported and advised him have taken, as examples of these deeply rooted ideals.

We need to tell the story in terms of those noble archetypes, and we need to tell and re-tell it. The universal psychological processes will do the rest. While it has been shown that the "big lie" repeated over and over, can become accepted as the truth, presenting an alternative (an incidentally, more accurate) version of a story equally forcefully and persistently can counteract that tendency and create a different context.

With the Kaepernick story we are currently playing catch-up. The reactionary media, the administration and its supporters jumped on this story hard, and used their system of lies and repetition to establish the currently prevailing view. Although that's difficult to overcome, it gives us a playbook for future situations. We have to start creating our own myths, publicizing and communicating them with the same degree of intensity and repetition that has been used successfully by others.

Demagogues work to promote the myth of a society ruined by the laziness and moral turpitude of the lower classes, especially people of color, immigrants - "the others."  We must work equally hard to promote - mythologically - the truth that it is the selfishness of the 1% and those who pander to them, who buy our elections and politicians (and now our Judges and Justices as well); who enforce their will by force and threat of force; who sacrifice America's commitment to human rights and equality, - of opportunity and under the law - to their own insatiable greed, who are doing the damage.

Showing the contagiousness of courage, the moral satisfaction of doing the right thing, the strength of solidarity, the power of ordinary people united, these are all themes that resonate with the best qualities in our unconscious, and can counteract the messages of fear, helplessness, selfishness and divisiveness that our "leadership" is continuously broadcasting. These are the stories we must tell again and again and convince those in the media to repeat again and again, in compelling variations.

In the end it will not be logic and good sense, but rather metaphor that will solve this problem. Our challenge as artists is to reframe the "political discourse," not in terms of ever more convincing and well-documented logical arguments, but rather as compelling, soul-stirring myth.