6) PARANOIA

Dyer believes that authoritarians' basic distrust of themselves tends to make them suspicious about every human encounter. Because they find it so difficult to admit that they, themselves, are responsible (at least in part) for creating many of the problems they complain about, they feel compelled to blame someone else. As Dyer notes - "even to [be able to] support the relatively mild paranoia of the majority of authoritarians it is necessary for them to imagine a multitude of enemies out there. (Yet these same individuals seldom allow themselves to be moved to greater sympathy or support for others who really are being persecuted). Their paranoid picture of the world [usually] simply leads such people to withdraw into ever-tightening spirals of paranoia."

7) ANTI-WEAKNESS

Authoritarians tend not to support help for the weak because they equate weakness with evil; so, the outcasts of society are responsible for their own situations. It is their own fault if they did not "make it to the center of the herd." Another implication of this view is that "winning" is all that really matters: if you are weak, or part of a "weak team" you should be feel ashamed.

8) POWER WORSHIP

The other side of the anti-weakness coin is the authoritarian's typical worship of power, no matter how the power is being used. This trait also speaks to authoritarians' habit of compulsively looking outside of themselves for measures and validation of their worth.

9) ETHNOCENTRISM

This trait has been considered both one of the most common and most dangerous of all the typical authoritarian qualities, because it is most capable of leading to violence. Ethnocentrism in general, and racism in particular are, in turn, connected with the phenomenon of anti-minority thinking and behavior. Dyer points out that such a set of attitudes promotes alienation between all kinds of "minorities" and "majorities." He goes on to argue that, more recently, focus on being part of a "great majority" has replaced allegiance to a specific ethnic group; this trait, he notes, fits with the "authoritarian knack for covering up the fact that they are not flawless."

10) CONFORMITY and SUBMISSIVENESS

Authoritarian people tend to be governed by opinions and social forces outside of themselves; generally, they are quite weak when it comes to relying on their own judgments, instincts, independent sets of values, etc. They find it much easier and more comforting to adjust to imposed standards than to look inward for the keys to guiding their own lives. As Adorno has said, "Conformity is one of the major expressions of lack of an internal focus."

So, it seems natural for such people to be submissive to established authority and conventional modes of behavior. And we can see here, the way in which a person with a strong authoritarian inclination will inevitably be quite suggestible and gullible, particularly to propaganda and hype.

This vulnerability can be contrasted with the relative resiliency of more autonomous individuals who are willing to challenge authority, and "who see no reason to accept things as they are - simply because an authority figure or institution decrees it should be so."

The double standard which is implicit in the authoritarian stance is particularly evident in the way such people think of the parent /child relationship (which can be considered as a model for their approach to all relationships). The concept of the parent as absolute authority is sacrosanct. The authority of the parent is seen as a one-way street, in which the parent deserves respect, simply for being an authority figure.

Embedded within this conceptualization is the idea that authority itself must be unchallengeable - because a challenge to any authority is seen as a threat to all order, and authority. So, as might be expected, parents who act in an authoritarian fashion toward their children will feel strongly motivated to act in a submissive fashion toward their own parents.

*************************************************

Thinking for onesself is not required. It is fair to say, that for such people the "game" they are most comfortable playing in life is that of "follow the leader."

Maslow described the authoritarian character structure as the exact antithesis of the person who is self-actualizing, open-minded, creative, and contemplative: ie, just the folks we so desperately need in abundance at this time.

IMHO: the basis of the Rethuglican/Regressive problem is the authoritarian/dominator paradigm.

Abe Maslow, Wayne Dyer, William Slater, and Riane Eisler have all contributed a great deal to our understanding of this societal/personality structure.

The main characteristics that one can expect to find in a person whose basic orientation can be characterized as "authoritarian." Attributes of TAPs include: intolerance of ambiguity, dichotomous thinking, rigidity of thought, punitiveness, anti-intellectualism, militaristic patriotism, conformity, and ethnocentrism.

1) INTOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY:

The typical authoritarian experiences a strong need to have things spelled out specifically. Unless there is a yes or no answer to every question, no matter how complex, they show signs of anxiety. As a result the authoritarian has little tolerance for people who are working in intrinsically ambiguous areas - philosophers, artists, social or political leaders. It might be said that authoritarians feel compelled to insist that every piece of language they hear or read "mean just one thing," which is clear and readily identifiable.

2) DICHOTOMOUS THINKING:

Authoritarians exhibit a compulsion to divide everything and everyone into mutually exclusive groups - good/bad, right/wrong, friend/enemy - without taking into account the subtleties, qualifications or even downright mistakes that may be involved. "Dichotomous thinking" can be considered an outgrowth of intolerance of ambiguity; it is a sort of "rush to judgment" which serves to provide an immediate (but illusory, and generally false) sense of certainty.

3) RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT:

The rigidity in the way an authoritarian perceives the world and himself is often exhibited as a generalized unwillingness to consider perspectives that conflict with his (or her) own preconceived ideas. Dyer notes, that faced with such a situation, "the last thing [such a person] will do is to listen, evaluate, and be prepared to change his position if it seems warranted. It is virtually impossible for him ever to [sincerely] admit having been wrong or having learned anything from anyone [with views different from himself]. You will never hear [him or her] say [and mean]: 'Well, you have a point there.'" Dyer goes on to say that - with true, "dyed-in the wool" authoritarians - rational discussion [regarding emotionally laden issues] "is never a cooperative effort to reach agreement, beginning with mutual respect on each side. The most frustrating thing about authoritarians is their inaccessibility: most of the time, there is literally no way to reach them."

4) ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM:

Dyer states that authoritarians often display a mistrust of "intellectuals," particularly people who make their living as thinkers, but he adds this caveat: "Today of course, there is no lack of authoritarians in academic fields; however these people tend to be devoted followers of some 'school of thought,' and more often than not are notable only for blindly following what some 'great man' has taught."

5) ANTI-INTROSPECTION

Authoritarians tend to resist looking into their own motivations. Dyer observes that one of the things such a person seems most afraid of - is admitting (to others or to themselves) that they have not always been "right." Dyer speculates that authoritarians reject looking inward because they have come to rely so strongly on external support systems to convince themselves of their own value.

The right-wing of the U.S. Business Party goes down kicking and screaming! I wouldn't be too ecstatic about the democratic wing of the Business Party just yet though. There was alot of hoopla when Bill Clinton was elected and little change took place. Until the tyrannies of private power (corporations) are democratized from the bottom up and workers control their own destinies there is little to be hopeful for.

The more stupid that people are, the more likely they are to be on the "right" side of the political spectrum . . . where things are dumbed-down enough for them to feel comfortable.

Trying to be a smart "right" wing leader is self-defeating.

Me right wing nut, me no like think.

Interesting thing about die-hard Republicans, they are stubborn, more stubborn than Mules, but they do have the memory of an Elephant. None of them have given up the GOP playbook mantra and they are still insisting that if we don't kill the terrorists over there they will kill us here, Iraq started the war, we are not occupying Iraq, we were invited (Condi Rice,) giving money to the rich creates jobs, the recession was started by Clinton, and etc.etc. There is no way to have a rational discussion or debate with this mindset which is a direct meltdown of Archie Bunker mentality.

"Jabba the Hut of the airwaves"!!! Jabba takes offense to the comparison; while Jabba is a bit dirty, he isn't filthy; while Jabba drools when he sleeps with pretty girls, he doesn't cover his guests with slobber and spit! While Jabba has much to say on matters of his expertise; he doesn't talk so loud that the "forces of darkness" know he's an idiot without a clue. While Jabba the Hut deals in illegal substances, he doesn't denigrade his customers; not good for business. A criminal drug user dissing another criminal druggies! Now that is novel. Jabba also knows that bad mouthing the elected and installed officials is not the way to get what you want; killing them with kindness is much more effective and long lasting - and you may never know when you will need a favor from a government official to help you out. Jabba also know that "messing with family" is a no no; if you do, you do so at your own peril.

Master Jedi Rockerbabe*

That thing about brevity being the soul of wit is something Green should look into.

"Progressives should count their blessings, after decades in the wilderness."

We are! GObama!

Orwell's book 1984 (published in 1948) painted a very interesting picture:

Doublethink is a form of trained, willful intellectual blindness to contradictions in a belief system. Doublethink differs from ordinary hypocrisy in that the "doublethinking" person deliberately had to forget the contradiction between his two opposing beliefs — and then deliberately forget that he had forgotten the contradiction. He then had to forget the forgetting of the forgetting, and so on; this intentional forgetting, once begun, continues indefinitely. In the novel's notes, Orwell describes it as "controlled insanity".

...Moreover, doublethink's self-deception allows the Party to maintain huge goals and realistic expectations: If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes.

Newspeak words ---

Equal: Only in the sense of physically equal, like equal height/size, etc. It does not mean politically equal, since there is no such concept in Ingsoc.

Free: Meaning Negative freedom (without) in a physical sense, only in statements like "This dog is free from lice", as the concepts of "political freedom" and "intellectual freedom" do not exist in Newspeak.

Rectify: Used by the Ministry of Truth as a euphemism for the deliberate alteration of the past.

******************************************************************************

The ability to blindly believe anything, regardless of its absurdity, can have different causes: respect for authority, fear, indoctrination, even critical laziness or gullibility. Orwell's blackwhite refers only to that caused by fear, indoctrination, or repression of one's individual critical thinking ("to know black is white"), rather than caused by laziness or gullibility. A true Party member could automatically, and without thought, expunge any "incorrect" information and totally replace it with "true" information from the Party. If properly done, there is no memory or recovery of the "incorrect" information that could cause unhappiness to the Party member by committing thoughtcrime.

From Wikipedia

I am grateful that the author has focused his spotlight on the reality of psychosis in the GOP. The fact that it is so easily accepted as any form of "normal" by the media and public also is a serious concern.

"Certifiably insane" refers to a clinical reality. And what to say of the millions of people who buy GOP behaviors and words as how they, too, see the world...as simply, "the way things are" (or should be)?

A New York State professor, Doctor David, calls the more Southern based GOP certifiable crackers. Wow, what a visionary radical the guy is!

Oregoncharles

Sioux Rose! do you have a webpage?

Underestimating Republican and other conservative troglodytes is dangerous. They own the megaphone and pay shills to spread their lies with the best technology available.

Perhaps out of good fortune, the field notes I use to define progressive affords enough depth that I don’t have to worry about Green being my representative. I judge his actions as a crafty political pawning of sorts. From an unfavorable view, I am reminded of the propaganda Obama’s WH employed by going after the radio personality Rush; an intentionally crude and personalized use of power.

The floodgates open and once again mob appeal begins to roll from the top down to those supportive in media entertainment, down to the politician’s daughter, and to the professor and into the untrained ear of his student, and to the online disciple. A forged indignation brews and bubbles.

With little more than a single wood match, political operatives, arsons of sorts, instigate a symbolic political firestorm. While he may cloak his uniform from the audience as he coldly asserts it is those others who damn our county’s path, there is no doubt his actions are intended to manipulate the wind. Green prepares war.

DMG again disappoints in not distinguishing between separate groups that make up the Republican Party. To me the grouping that makes the most sense is:
(A) those really in control, i.e. the CEOs and Banksters, the ultra-wealthy and the elite corporatists, and other various con-men and crooks of varying degrees of wealth and power;
(B) the hired hands who do the bidding of the bosses, i.e. the politicians and propagandists, including those in the press, the political consultants, and the insincere "Christian" con-men selling "GOD"; and
(C) the hopelessly clueless rubes who actually believe the propaganda.

I think it is important to identify these groups, as the members of (A) and (B) are the enemies of all progressives and the enemies of the human race. The members of (C) are poor confused souls who could potentially move to the left if they can be reprogrammed to think of the political situation in terms of the haves vs. the have-nots.

And I believe DMG shows far too much surprise at the incompetence of the politicians in group (B). What capable self-respecting individual would want to be a Republican politician, who really is not in control of policy but is just following orders (acting as some sort of cipher) from the bosses in (A) and whose job includes lying incessantly in order to fool ignorant people into voting against their own interests? It is a nasty, nasty job, usually only taken by those totally bereft of moral principles or ability.

Also, I will concede that there are many members of group (A) in the Democratic Party and they have been exerting more and more control over the past few decades.

From Pema Chodron's When Things Fall Apart, Chapter: "Growing Up":

There's an interesting transition that occurs naturally and spontaneously. We begin to find that, to the degree that there is bravery in ourselves -- the willingness to look, to point directly at our own hearts -- and to the degree that there is kindness toward ourselves, there is confidence that we can actually forget ourselves and open to the world.

The only reason that we don't open our hearts and minds to other people is that they trigger confusion in us that we don't feel brave enough or sane enough to deal with. To the degree that we look clearly and compassionately at ourselves, we feel confident and fearless about looking into someone else's eyes.

Then this experience of opening to the world begins to benefit ourselves and others simultaneously. The more we relate with others, the more quickly we discover where we are blocked, where we are unkind, afraid, shut down. Seeing this is helpful, but it is also painful. Often the only way we know how to react is to use it as ammunition against ourselves. We aren't kind We aren't honest. We aren't brave, and we might as well give up right now. But when we apply the instruction to be soft and nonjudgmental to whatever we see right at that very moment, then this embarrassing reflection in the mirror becomes our friend. Seeing that reflection becomes motivation to soften further and lighten up more, because we know it's the only way we can continue to work with others and be of any benefit to the world.

That's the beginning of growing up.

This article stinks. Jeering at Republican buffoons is the easy part. The higher stage of Consciousness begins with the realization that despite talking a superficially nicer game, the Democrats are hardly any better.

DMG takes a shot at John Yoo in his article. That would be the same John Yoo that Obama's Justice Dept is now defending. (See for example http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/jyoo-m09.shtml) And though Bush Jr is out of fashion, Obama has embraced his "War on Terror," and is serving the interests of the Wall St banks every bit as much as Bush & Paulson were. // And needless to say, we're not getting anywhere in prosecuting the Bush-era criminals, are we. So it seems rather an empty exercise to gloat & jeer at how awful Republicans are.

The guy (Bush Limpdick) is the ultimate Napoleon or Hitler who got shoved around on the grade school playground and is now seeking revenge on a global scale.

This also describes Karl Rove and nearly every egg sucking neocon closet throatsticker, like Fred Kagan and Douglas Feith.

It certainly is perilous being right. The Democrats will never forgive the Liberals/Progressives for being right (almost presciently right, and for allot longer than the last eight years). So should Progressives count their blessings, after decades in the wilderness? Why? Being ignored by the Democrats is worse than being ignored by the Republicans - you don't really expect Republicans to pay any attention to liberals and Republicans don't expect me to vote for them. We are still in the wilderness and likely to remain there for some time - no one likes being reminded they were wrong, especially when they haven't changed at all.

of course dmg is right about the repubs. now if only he would see that reagan's soul didn't die w/him. by the miracle of metempsychosis, it reappeared as Black Reagan Super Jesus. (that's right: the new liberal hero is Reagan reborn.)

i don't really see how dmg & co. can criticize the repubs for their obeisance to limbaugh et al when they do the exact same thing w/obama. oh sure, they are not trailer park trashy in their hero-worship, they can spell and take a daily bath and some of them even have all their teeth & phd's. but they are even worse, b/c they should know better.

you don't think people like dmg are just as full of illusions and false hope as the limbaughs of the world? try getting them to speak about obama's *actual policies* in something other than platitudinous drivel and watch the enraged fireworks fly.

The left & right are in agreement on one thing: growing the state at all costs. Their debate is over whether to spend $500B for warfare or $500B for welfare. So that's a false paradigm when contrasted with the view that $0 should be taken by force from the people by their government to be spent on either enterprise. Considering most of it's just being printed (Fed) and borrowed anyhow (thanks China!) makes the question not even considered in this article all the more relevant. Unfortunately, without the media or academia asking this question, you can be sure the government will never ask itself "why are we here?"

But as regards to Herbert Hoover, I take it that is an attempt by the author to smear him for "..a government that would do nothing to help..." On the contrary, Hoover intervened into the economy at an incredible pace not seen before. Many of FDRs New Deal programs were extensions of Hoover's programs -- like contemporary actions by Obama in supporting the second half of Bush's bankster bailout.

Off the beaten path:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/
bush-hoover-20-part-2-hoovers-socialism

Hee, hee, hee! We've got 'em on the run now! To paraphrase Grover Norquist, let's drown the GOP in a bathtub!

Good article. I think about these things when Obama talks about bringing us together. Ever tried talking to one of these super patriots?

Their idolatrous concept of patriotism is an elevation of national fervor to what Tillich calls Ultimate Concern. This is a phase all children go through, and when an adult's God is something that has no legitimate claim to Ultimacy, that person's development is frozen at a level where such a claim has legitimacy (about 10 years old).

Even a demonic Ultimate Concern makes a person whole. The behavior, thought processes, preferences, beliefs, everything about this stymied personality participate in the immature choice of a false God.

Consider the terrifying prospect of a ten year old having unlimited power. This precisely what we have seen under Bush/Cheney, and for all conservatives, Republicans, skinheads, this is their de facto goal---as long as it remains an ideal. Once realized, it becomes the horror we have witnessed over the last eight years.

I avoid these people. They have no center, no self, no soul. They are completely amoral.

They make perfect servants, but are dangerous masters.

They can't understand you, and this makes them angry. They call you an elitist. They are incapable of following a line of reasoning, and act on emotion alone.

Bring us together Mr. President, but not with the likes of these certifiable full moon types.