Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Evidence Establishes, Without Question, That Republican Rule Is Dangerous
Why It Is High Time to Fix This Situation, for the Good of the Nation
Occasionally, during the past eight years of writing this column, I have addressed the remarkably dangerous manner in which Republican Party officials rule the nation when they control one or more of the three branches of the federal government. Over the same period, I've also made this argument, even more directly and loudly, in three books on the subject.
In this column, I will be more pointed on this subject than I have ever been, while also repeating a few key facts that I have raised earlier -- because Election Day 2008 now provides the only clear remedy for the ills of Republican rule.
The Republican Approach to Government: Authoritarian Rule
Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.
Republicans' authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which it to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.
Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however -- and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves.
In my book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, I set forth the facts regarding the consequences of the Republicans' controlling government for too many years. No Republican -- nor anyone else, for that matter -- has refuted these facts, and for good reason: They are irrefutable.
The McCain/Palin Ticket Perfectly Fits the Authoritarian Conservative Mold
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican candidates, have shown themselves to be unapologetic and archetypical authoritarian conservatives. Indeed, their campaign has warmed the hearts of fellow authoritarians, who applaud them for their negativity, nastiness, and dishonest ploys and only criticize them for not offering more of the same.
The McCain/Palin campaign has assumed a typical authoritarian posture: The candidates provide no true, specific proposals to address America's needs. Rather, they simply ask voters to "trust us" and suggest that their opponents - Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden - are not "real Americans" like McCain, Palin, and the voters they are seeking to court. Accordingly, McCain and Plain have called Obama "a socialist," "a redistributionist," "a Marxist," and "a communist" - without a shred of evidence to support their name-calling, for these terms are pejorative, rather than in any manner descriptive. This is the way authoritarian leaders operate.
In my book Conservatives Without Conscience, I set forth the traits of authoritarian leaders and followers, which have been distilled from a half-century of empirical research, during which thousands of people have voluntarily been interviewed by social scientists. The touch points in these somewhat-overlapping lists of character traits provide a clear picture of the characters of both John McCain and Sarah Palin.
McCain, especially, fits perfectly as an authoritarian leader. Such leaders possess most, if not all, of these traits:
- dominating
- opposes equality
- desirous of personal power
- amoral
- intimidating and bullying
- faintly hedonistic
- vengeful
- pitiless
- exploitive
- manipulative
- dishonest
- cheats to win
- highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic)
- mean-spirited
- militant
- nationalistic
- tells others what they want to hear
- takes advantage of "suckers"
- specializes in creating false images to sell self
- may or may not be religious
- usually politically and economically conservative/Republican
Incidentally, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney also can be described by these well-defined and typical traits -- which is why a McCain presidency is so likely to be nearly identical to a Bush presidency.
Clearly, Sarah Palin also has some qualities typical of authoritarian leaders, not to mention almost all of the traits found among authoritarian followers. Specifically, such followers can be described as follows:
- submissive to authority
- aggressive on behalf of authority
- highly conventional in their behavior
- highly religious
- possessing moderate to little education
- trusting of untrustworthy authorities
- prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals and followers of religions other than their own)
- mean-spirited
- narrow-minded
- intolerant
- bullying
- zealous
- dogmatic
- uncritical toward chosen authority
- hypocritical
- inconsistent and contradictory
- prone to panic easily
- highly self-righteous
- moralistic
- strict disciplinarians
- severely punitive
- demanding loyalty and returning it
- possessing little self-awareness
- usually politically and economically conservative/Republican
The leading authority on right-wing authoritarianism, a man who devoted his career to developing hard empirical data about these people and their beliefs, is Robert Altemeyer. Altemeyer, a social scientist based in Canada, flushed out these typical character traits in decades of testing.
Altemeyer believes about 25 percent of the adult population in the United States is solidly authoritarian (with that group mostly composed of followers, and a small percentage of potential leaders). It is in these ranks of some 70 million that we find the core of the McCain/Palin supporters. They are people who are, in Altemeyer's words, are "so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds."
The Problem with Electing Authoritarian Conservatives
What is wrong with being an authoritarian conservative? Well, if you want to take the country where they do, nothing. "They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result," Altemeyer told me. "The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of 'old-time religion' on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going to go away."
I would nominate McCain's "Joe the Plumber" as a new poster-boy of the authoritarian followers. He is a believer, and he has signed on. On November 4, 2008, we will learn how many more Americans will join the ranks of the authoritarians.
Frankly, the fact that the pre-election polls are close - after eight years of authoritarian leadership from Bush and Cheney, and given its disastrous results -- shows that many Americans either do not realize where a McCain/Palin presidency might take us, or they are happy to go there. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, for there is only one way to deal with these conservative zealots: Keep them out of power.
This election should be a slam dunk for Barack Obama, who has run a masterful campaign. It was no small undertaking winning the nomination from Hillary Clinton, and in doing so, he has shown without any doubt (in my mind anyway) that he is not only qualified to be president, but that he might be a once-in-a-lifetime leader who can forever change the nation and the world for the better.
If Obama is rejected on November 4th for another authoritarian conservative like McCain, I must ask if Americans are sufficiently intelligent to competently govern themselves. I can understand authoritarian conservatives voting for McCain, for they know no better. It is well-understood that most everyone votes with his or her heart, not his or her head. Polls show that 81 percent of Americans "feel" (in their hearts and their heads) that our country is going the wrong way. How could anyone with such thoughts and feelings vote for more authoritarian conservatism, which has done so much to take the nation in the wrong direction?
We will all find out on (or about) November 5th.
79 Comments so far
Show AllI can't agree with this article, and especially its headline, more.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
So.
Should it come to pass (as the early evidence is showing it will) that McCain becomes President, and shortly after that Palin, what should the former USA be known as?
Walk in peace.
what evidence?
In Bush's America, viciousness is perceived as strength. Add God to the mix and you' ve got a true believer. I once told a German friend of mine that I believed that 20 percent of Germans in Hitler's Germany were full-on gungho behind the evil dictator. This was simply a light conversational supposition. Dean says 25 percent of Americans are solidly authoritarian. Probably holds true in every country. Time to expose this fringe group for what it is: pure evil and in no way strong. With strength there must also be virtue. Time to put the mean people at the back of the line.
Right Wing Authoritarians are the ultimate sheeple. There is an online book by Robert Altemeyer http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ called "The Authoritarians. It is a book on the study cited by Mr. Dean in the above article and is excellent reading.
No, unfortunately, you are wrong. After the Nazis came to power and enacted a lot of social legislation (National Socialist German Workers' Party, after all) and had created millions of jobs AND had brought all the media under their control, they had a following in Germany of probably up to 70-80%, it is assumed. People generally thought that their lives had improved dramatically, considering the widespread poverty and unemployment due to the Great Depression before the Nazis came to power. The goodies people received from the government were to quite an extent paid for by seizing the assets of the Jewish population.
This pro-Nazi percentage dropped dramatically the moment they started the war, though.
How can you improve dramatically the lives of the population by taking the assets of one group? Does this mean the group was very large or that it had a disproprtionate amount of money or is your statement false?lizard
Hitler did some of the same things our Roosevelt administration did: The autobahn, public works, funding the VW Beetle..., but he also built the largest and most modern MIC in the world in the face of the treaty ending WWI, giving the treaty enforcers the finger and getting away with it.
The "Jewish Question" simply exploited ethnic prejudice, and class prejudices going back to the diaspora thousands of years ago, when exiled Jews brought "modern" finance from the middle east to Europe and prospered, and resisted conversion to Catholicism.
Eisenhower gave us the interstate highway system. Roosevelt diverted the auto factories into production of war machines; he never "did" anything like the VW Beetle. Hitler's largest most modern MIC in the world preceded Roosevelt's--which was originally created out of necessity to deal with the Japanese and German Axis allies.
I should have written "same sort of things". Public works projects, the CCC, etc. Projects to get a depressed economy going again. They REALLY got things going again in 1939!
According to establishment polls at the time, U.S. public approval of Bush's presidency was at fully 70% at the height of the jingoism leading up to the Iraq occuvasion. People who took contractor jobs related to the occupation and many who got increased combat pay generally thought their lives had improved dramatically and the housing bubble was still inflating rapidly--a false economic front for Bush's policies that made him look good at the time. This time we're doing it in reverse: Massive war expenditures followed by economic collapse with too many of the war production jobs offshored and Halliburton HQ'd in Dubai.
I think it is very interesting the number of republicans that have abandoned the neo con ship. Although Obama is not perfect I support voting for him along with many other progressives including the likes of Chomsky, Zinn, and Michael Moore. Check out the interview on Democracynow.org today with Mr. Moore.
Oh I'm sure Obama will be calling Chomsky, Zinn, and Moore up before he makes any decisions.
Heh.
Sigh,
I can't wait for Nov. 5th........
You are wrong!
Howard Zinn is voting for Ralph Nader.
from Ralph's website, 10/29/08:
"Howard Zinn now says he's voting for Nader.
The famous historian lives in Massachusetts, where Obama is ahead by 20 points.
Zinn created a stir earlier when he said he was voting for Obama.
He legitimately took some heat for supporting the corporate Obama.
But late last night, Zinn admitted in an e-mail to our campaign that he made a mistake and now says he will vote for Nader.
And Zinn urges all people of conscience to vote for the true progressive in slam dunk states."
http://www.votenader.org/blog/
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Wrong, Zinn is voting Obama. He was going for Nader but just changed his mind. Smart man. Surprised you didn't know this, but then again, Republicans aren't into the knowledge thing.
Changed his mind from 3 days ago?!
When I hear Zinn say it on DemocracyNow, or read it in one of Howard Zinn's articles, I'll believe it.
I saw Michael Moore on "Democracy Now" today, and as usual he was wonderful and spot on. If only we could get someone like him for president.
The evidence also shows that Democrat rule is dangerous, too. Both bring us endless wars, corporatism, and in the case of Obama: "clean coal", off-shore drilling, nuclear power - the list is really endless. Another great article: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3943.shtml
You are, of course, correct.
And let's add that the Democrats deregulated the market, bringing on the current crisis. (And prior to that Clinton deregulated energy and telecommunications and Carter deregulated airlines and trucking...)
You want depravity: Bill Clinton had sanctions on Iraq leading to the deaths of 500,000 and then when Democrat Madeline Albright was asked on 60 Minutes about it, she said the price is worth it.
Now that is obscene.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
I don't have a lot of good things to say about the Democratic party or neo-liberalism.
But if you watched any of the RNC this year, it was basically a fascist rally.
I have bigger dreams for humanity than the democratic party or Barack Obama, but we really need to stave off fascism first.
Excellent! And if you get a chance, read Mr. Dean's books. Very well written. What I appreciate most is that someone with his stature is finally calling it like it is. We've been trained to "be nice" and "tolerate differences". Both noble endeavors. But at some point evil needs to be called out. Authoritarians I believe count on the rest of us not speaking up.
Yes, away from authoritarian conservatism and back to Slick Wille conservatism! I am just so so excited!
Dean should use the f-word---as in fascism...
In Dean's defense, he has, on numerous occasions.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I suspect that Obama will reignite the militia movements, and probably face some serious attempt on his life from one of those nuts.
What is really scary is that if the economy continues as it is
that some rightwing Hitler-like politician will come along in 2012.
Although I think americans are fatter and less energetic than Germans probably were around 1930, especially the right wingers who detest buying arugula.
so maybe they will just watch tv instead of going to NeoNazi rallies.
In such an event, most likely there would be a connection to government operatives. The Oklahoma City bombing and the distinct possibility of Timothy McVeigh being an operative patsy to discredit all the various militia groups active at the time is one example. There are any number of instances of cointelpro-type methods, including assassination and the use of "patsies"--JFK, RFK, MLK, 911, etc.
John Dean reviews the obvious. He does not take the logical next step. If the Republican protofascist mentality is dangerous, so is the mentality that enables it, that works hand-in-hand with it, that "gets something done" in bipartisan cooperation with it.
Woah, serious Prof. you've jumped the gun a bit.
Whether or not Democratic policies are good for the country (they're not) or good for the world (which they certainly are not), we cannot call them proto-fascists for working with the Republicans within the limited confines of the legislature. The question Dean reviews here is less about law making and more about political cultures and the symbolic value of the presidency for our society.
To clarify, my intent was to describe the Republicans as protofascist, the Dems merely as willing partners.
Yeah...willing to set up the stage and prime the pumps so the Reps could do their magic. You keep a low profile while I rape the livin snot out of the US economy for 8 years. You can then have it back, which will placate most all of the riot-prone patriots and lull them back into a false sense of security with the minor meaningless gains that we will let them have, only to come back at a later date and do it all over again.
I think Dean is a good person, and means well. Unfortunately, he is a product of 50 or so years of working inside the corrupt duopoly that is entrenched in this country and the minds of its people that he sees Obama as an alternative instead of part and parcel of the very real danger he highlights.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
"They are people who are, in Altemeyer's words, are 'so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds.'"
This is the fatal flaw in the thinking of the DLC crowd. They keep trying to win these people over by sliding to the right. But they will NEVER win them over. Their attempts to do so only lead Democrats to abandon - if not actively renounce - traditionally Democratic principles. At the end of the day, they have no core values. Voters sense this and, correctly, mistrust them. This is why Republicans have found it so easy to control the dialogue the past few decades; their values may be corrupt but they are passionate about them. Passion will defeat ambivalence nine times out of ten.
Obama will likely prevail on Tuesday but I believe its due more to the collapse of the Bush catastrophe and the ineptitude of McCain than the inspirational value of his message. Most Obama supporters have no idea what he stands for besides "change." Quite frankly, his "reach across the aisle" rhetoric makes me wonder whether he really understands the fundamental nature of these true believers Dean describes. If not, he will be too "pragmatic" to accomplish anything of real value.
Don't get me wrong: I'll take Obama over McCain any day because it will be less damaging to our nation. But my expectations for an Obama Presidency are decidedly guarded.
The DLC is not misguided . . . they know exactly what work they are doing
and who they are doing it for --!!!
The DLC is -- check their website -- intended to move the Democratic Party
to the right.
They are the corporate-wing of the Democratic Party and basically about
defeating and destroying the Democratic Party and ideals of economic
democracy by CO-OPTING the party.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
You're right about the DLC. They are horrible! Obama has denounced them too.
Actually, Dean is right on, but the people here just don't want to admit the obvious (to free-thinking, intelligent people anyway): Republicans are anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-individual, and a lot more antis I don't have to time add. It's time to think for ourselves instead of being dragged around by the nose of a dictatorship in every way but coming right out and declaring it.
Are the Democrats any better? No - they must give up many of their own beliefs (and yes, they do have them, contrary to opinion shared here) and actually work for their country vs. just giving everything away and going away satisfied. There won't be a place in the Obama administration for typical Pelosi/Reid dogma; they will have to be pulled kicking and screaming into 21st century democracy. My firm belief is that, if Obama sees he can't make changes pretty quickly, he's going to go to the people. That's why the size of these crowds he pulls and the vast grassroots effort he's generated will guarantee that Congress will have to bend to his will. And his will will not be Democratic or Republican but progressive, again contrary to anything said here.
Mark my words: it will happen, because it has to happen, or this country will be no more. And if he's assassinated, this country will come apart at the seems. This is a once-in-our-lifetime moments, people. Don't screw it up just because you can't admit when you're wrong and would rather fall back on labeling and hate.
Common dreams means just that - think about what you want for this country, not what you think it'll turn into if you can't get your way. Stop behaving like a bunch of spoiled cynical children (which is what most of the rest of the world thinks of you as) and actually work to make this dream a reality again. I'm begging you, before it's too late.
And, no, I am a registered independent who usually votes for anyone but Democrats/Republicans. I've always voted for the person, and have already done so again.
"Don't fall back on labeling and hate. You're all a bunch of spoiled children."
Is this the technique you feel is most effective when you're trying to persuade others? Or was your post just meant as a complaint?
There have been very well articulated posts all over Common Dreams by those who believe a vote for Obama is a huge mistake. I won't argue the case here.
To dismiss them as you have is nothing more than empty rhetoric. Engage the arguments; make your case.
What you've done here is a nothing but name-calling.
Just to get you started, why not respond to some of the points in this article. It raises some very legitimate concerns about your comment that this is one of those "once-in-our-lifetime moments."
Unrelated note: You can watch yesterday's third party debate at this link (copy and paste the link below):
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/archive/c08/debates/c08_103108_thirdparty.rm
Are dems better?, no
Acutally yes, I am so sick of listening to people talk about shit they have no clue about. How many of you read legislation, study the political economy, or evaluate policies among comparative nation-states.
The democrats are much better for the united states than repuks on a number of levels. They lack of power in the party over the last 30 years is a reflection of the weak knee support. Repuks are strong because the supporters are loyal, so leaders can go out on a limb without fear of losing their seat. If you read anything about the civil rights movement, the party was aware that the legislation would put them in the political wilderness for a couple generations. They signed it anyway, unfortunately, some had to trade votes on the war, including LBJ. One party drafts legislation like the great society, new deal, social security. The other gives us trickle down economics, privatization, war on drugs, and war on terror. But, you know, one is no better than the other. Pass what you are smoking because it is good shit.
If you analyze GSS or Census data, findings reveal the economy and middle class do better under dems than repubs, this is not a time order finding but a policy ordered finding. That is to say, if you look at legislation that originates from the party platforms, who it is intended to benefit and who will be harmed, dem economic policy is quite effective. However, they are nerds and have a hard time communicating their message. The elderly, before social security, used to be the most impoverished age population in the united states. Now it is children, but slowly turning around because of progressive child health care policies. Affirmative action is a very successful program that has resulted in increased opportunity and income for minorities. Welfare programs, especially subsidized birth control, are also extremely effective. Their policies are pragmatic, they dont sound all nice like the repuks, but they work. Its all fine and dandy to say people should be responsible for themselves but the reality is that people wont be, especially when the population is high and diverse. Its all find and dandy to get tough on crime, however, it only increases crime and cost lots of money. Its all find a dandy to say people should not receive handouts, but Americans love handouts. Most middle and upper middle class people don't earn what they get, they manipulate social networks for jobs, get hook ups for material goods, and have a wide support structure of friends and family to fall back on when the fuck up. Social class is a birth right, it is the fragmented royalty system emergent in yearly capitalism. We love the lottery and game shows, and the notion that we can "get rich" at any minute. Instant wealth is a uniquely American obsession. Repuks say things that make a lot of sense if you dont think about it. Like bs about family values. How are you going to make a population of 300 million have family values? How do you enforce that? Because, you know people really take well to others pushing values on them, right. Repuks are the party of big government, if you really think about it. Telling me who to sleep with, what values to have, what drugs to use, what religion to be. Programs that provide services to the population is what a functioning government is supposed to do, not big government. Government is supposed provide services to the population, thats why we pay taxes! I don't pay taxes so that I can hear some shit about how I am supposed to live my life, my parents do that for free. If you lurking, pretending independent wingers disagree, then I will be happy to take our money and tell you how to live. First piece of advice is free, take a long walk of a short pier. You assholes have really fucked up this country good, and you are going to hear about for the rest of your life. And its not the first time either, this is the same shit you pulled in the 20's, right down to the legislation and fear tactics. Every 30 yrs, society tries you out again, only to be reminded, shit conservatism is a bankrupt ideology because we cant stagnate or go back time. The function of time is change. To say the same is unhealthy, individually, and for society as a whole.
"Repuks are strong because the supporters are loyal, so leaders can go out on a limb without fear of losing their seat."
While this may have been the case in the past, I have just recd a flyer from the RNC in Oregon which may be a "turning of the tide" event. You might have heard about Rep Sen Gordon Smith of Oregon up for re-election. He has a Dem going against him of course, but what is even MORE interesting is that his mail-flyer today is bashing, NOT the Dem candidate, but the Constitution Party Candidate, Dave Brownlow. So you got to ask the question...why is he spending money this way? Why worry about a 3rd party? I have NEVER seen anything like this before here. Any guesses on this?
Every six years, like clockwork, Gordon Smith takes a screaming turn to the left. Indeed, it's possible he and Obama crossed paths like ships passing in night back in June or so.
Attacking the candidate to his right is how Smith convinces Oregonians he's a good, centrist fellow just looking out for the citizenry. "Bush/Cheney? Why, never heard of them. And I could NEVER countenance these policies you ascribe to them!"
This process usually wraps up in mid-autumn of the sixth year, and by the following January he can be found staggering back to his appointed place like an alkie to his tenement basement after being booted from the tavern at closing time.
I'd like to hear this poster elaborate on his statement that, "Its all fine and dandy to say people should be responsible for themselves but the reality is that people wont be, especially when the population is high and diverse." He is one of the very few posters on this site honest enough to admit the over-population component of our present troubles. In addition, seldom do I hear mentioned the fact that Amurka now produces less jobs than the numbers of people entering the workforce every year. Does anyone know how many years this has been going on? I'm guessing at least three. Real unemployment is at around 15- to 16% and rising. Real unemployment for blacks is well into double digits. Too many Amurkans also still have too many children out of ignorance and short-term selfishness in a country where birth control is readily available.
The economic crisis that Amurka helped spread to the over-populated Third World is going to raise the annual numbers of deaths from inadequate or contaminated water resources, preventable diseases (excluding AIDS as a holocaust long underway) and malnutrition from several millions to tens of millions in the next few years. Climate change impacts will raise those figures into hundreds of millions four or five decades out. The neo-liberal global economic paradigm encourages over-populations (both as mass markets and vast cheap labor pools as in India) and ignores--past a certain point--population crashes of the portions of those over-populations too poor to participate in markets as low end consumers of manufactured, processed goods and too uneducated to be skilled labor. But energy and natural resource consumption overall are soaring under this paradigm at a time when the human species needs to conserve both and restore as much of the natural world's healthy habitats as possible.
While the these teeming throngs of billions of human beings deserve better, the best remedy for the above-described situation is legally mandated human population control--a more scientific and integrated form of family planning than the world has yet seen. The alternative--here and abroad--is more conflicts over dwindling resources--the population control of the rat pit.
Some people when it comes time of crisis they want their Mommy or Daddy to take care of them.
So funny you should mention that. I recently got done studying Social Dominance Orientation and Ring Wing Authoritarian personalities relationship with support for war. They are two subset scales of authoritarian measures. As it turns out, people who are extremely authoritarian or who defer to authoritarian leaders experienced attachment issues with parents and significant others early in life. Suffering from isolation or rejection as a child, they have a heightened need for security. As adults they tend to feel threatened by differences in others and extremely uncomfortable in new situations. Authoritarian leaders who identify reality in black and white terms, pointing out the evil and good people, assuring them of devoted protection, fulfill this internal need for security and aid them in making since of a "chaotic" society. It is very hard for authoritarians to live in the United States because diversity is scary to them. Internally they are "all mixed up" because they suffer from emotional and personality disorders. Authoritarian leaders provide them with an out let for anger and fear as well as assurance that "everything is going to be ok". So actually, according to the findings of this research, right wingers did not get enough love and affection as a child. For those curious about how these results are generated, people are asked to respond to shocking or threatening images, sounds, or scenario's. A comprehensive questionnaire ask them questions about childhood experiences as well as measuring personality traits. Findings conclude that conservative, right wingers, are more likely to have isolation as children and have extreme reactions to threatening situations compared to those of more liberal persuasions. Additionally, the theoretical continuum is supported such that the more significant the childhood trauma the more significant the insecurity and subsequent need for extreme reactions to threats usually including violent retaliation. Poor right winger, mommy didnt give you enough hugs?
I think that there are a relatively consistent number of people in any decent statistical sample over a thousand who have a genetic predisposition to authoritarianism that is internally consolidated after they have also been exposed to the adverse experiences of early childhood described above. People with other mindsets--whether predisposed to them or not--react to similar early experiences in other ways. Some people on the far Left are just as subjective, reactionary and intransigent as those on the far Right. I do not think those on the far Left are as prone to herd-think as those on the far Right but seem to be so anti-group that they are routinely described as being as difficult to organize as herding a bunch of cats.
Sioux Rose
Hi Scott: My boyfriend's name is Scott and he fits this description. His parents are right wing Christians and I get the sense, that he and his brother (neither has had a healthy relationship with a woman) were punished and yelled at by Mommie dearest, rather than loved and nurtured. Of course Lakoff spoke of an analogy between the strict father-parent model and conservative political beliefs, versus the nurturing model and progressive beliefs. The funny thing is that I do readings (astrology) for clients and on my last trip to the Keys, a new client was telling me how overpowering and domineering her brother Scott was. I said the guy I dated reminded me of that description, and we both felt there IS something to a name. Perhaps you study this to identify the tendencies (to dominate?) in yourself? If not, there are exceptions to EVERY "rule." Thanks for posting.
Hi Sioux Rose:why does Mommie always get the blame? (Why not daddy,too?) Or ???? I think sometimes that people live "into" their names, but I don't think of it as you say, but as names that are descriptive.
Sioux Rose
NY Cartist: Are you projecting? I see both parents as equal shaping forces, but in the case of my guy, the father and he get along. He has mother issues...
And who rules the Republicans? The same interests who rule the Democrats.
Aloha, salud, lechiem,
- Tobias
http://www.youtube.com/user/tobiasaurusrex
tobiasetc.:lechiem is French word,but not the word you want. And I'm not going to help you.
.AWWWW NYC, dont toy with the goyem......L'-----, well, you know, health!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin