Oleeb,
On another site I commented that there's a lot of Rodney King in the Democratic Party: "Can't we all just get along?". If I had to use a similar description of the current Republican party it would be "You got a problem with that?".

I don't think that most of us on the left truly appreciate how vicious and hateful those on the far right can be. And we're not just talking about political or philosophical differences, but deap seated psychological differences. The authoritarian personality, it seems to me, is filled with guilt and fear. Guilt leads to repression; repression leads to projection. Seeing the world as a constant threat leads to fear and fear leads to attack. It's a miserable way to live. Unfortunately it has real-life consequences for the rest of us who "just want to get along".

Thanks again for a thought provoking post. Now I'm off to read the Prof's book.

A quick scan of headlines today would indicate that we, as a nation, are rumbling, but still groggy having been -- like Rip van Winkle, profoundly asleep at the switch. Understandably perhaps; most of us grew up believing -- however naively -- in "certain inalienable rights" that were a given, not up for grabs by anyone or any group.
In hindsight, of course, we can see that the 2000 election was stolen, that our rights under Bush/Cheney were steamrollered, that corporations have been deified and preferred over the health and welfare of we the people -- all of this happening in subtle and far too obvious ways, for far too long.
How can we hope to fix, in a hurry, what took so many decades for the opposition to put in place? And yet, we need to fix it in a hurry -- now -- because later may be too late.
Thank you, Oleeb, for insistently, thoroughly bringing our attention back to the crux of the matter.

I wish that you would tone down the modifiers. You can't just write "destroy." Not when you can write "utterly destroy." An overabundance of adjectives and adverbs lends an unnecessay bombasity to your message. It further creates redundancy. The act of destroying is in itself utter in nature.

Authoritarian types, be they dominant or submissive, transcend right/left categories. We are an authoritarian nation. We engage in constant hot and cold warfare across the wntire globe. Very few of our citizens vote, and the vote is based primarily on social issues combined with selfishness and a parochial view of world as kulturkampf.

I mean, let's look at it this way. On the left we want universal health care and consider it a right. But our nation's wealth and prestige (that which would make this possible) is created from financial legedermain and plunder. So, even though the left justifies universal health care, the underlying authoritarian mechanisms that power our society are doublethoight away from the diacussion.

The fact is that we are being led and manipulated no matter our political sympathies. Every story is framed by a dialectic which is an artifice-- a duality that ignores truth.

So you can write about the rise of authoritarianism over twelve years. I can rebut by saying that the United States has practiced ddomestic and foreign authoritarianism since its inception. How different is the astroturf health care mobs different from union busting, COINTELPRO, and the hundreds of brute squads and agitation we have spread just this century?

I am tired of beating this dead horse, but I am more tired of partisan disinformation. And you, oleeb, are the biggest culprit of leftist kulturkampf on this site. You define all political discussion in a manner best left to Worker Party newsletters and Larouche pamphlets. All politicians but your favorites are shills. All Dems who display the slightest nuance are spineless. Never mind that the game of politics in this country is fixed so the game itswlf must be changed. You are content with the game because even though you are destined to lose, at least you are correct.

I think there are things that can be done to defuse them, but nothing can be done if we don't understand why they are different than the rest of the population and what motivates them. Fear is a big part but not the only element that animates them. Because the way they look at things is so different from those who are not authoritarians it's incredibly difficult for most people to grasp how amoral they are (especially the leaders)and how and/or why their conscience doesn't kick in and moderate their actions as it does with most other people.

What, you readin Orwell again?

I don’t think it helps to understand “them” as separate from the rest of us but then that is precisely the dilemma of dealing with a moment like this. I see this situation as a confluence of social forces that provokes some to set themselves apart and the effort to understand them simultaneously repulses them and neutralizes the ability to oppose them.

Can we assume that this is part of the dilemma; a black man is President as many white men and women begin to see that they in some sense may be a minority. This is traumatic if they assumed they would always be a majority and being a minority always implied inferiority. And the fear is that they will be treated like the minority that they have despised.

So if Democrats and progressives empathize with that and try to assure them that they will not be treated as inferior minorities then we are perceived by the aggrieved as weak and simultaneously validate their fear. If Democrats condemn the beliefs that arise from these fears it just further polarizes the situation and the situation escalates.

So either we capitulate to that fear or a charismatic conservative leader diffuses it. Or we simply, stubbornly oppose it at every turn.

This post was so utterly over the top that it literally made me laugh out loud.

Science!!!!!

This part cracked me up....

But all that arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that's a fact, not an opinion.

Because it is so dead-on exactly right. In fact, you don't need experiments when you've got real world evidence.

Scientists from Princeton University say...

Conservatives Give More to Charity as a Percentage of Income than Liberals.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

In fact, Science!!! Also Proves that Conservatives Hug Their Kids More Often Than Liberals, and are also Generally Healthier, Less Angry, And More Likely to Donate Blood.

* Seventy-one percent of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46 percent) of liberals.

* Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.

* Liberals are 2½ times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck.

* Liberals are 2 times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve.

* Conservatives are more likely than liberals to hug their children and “significantly more likely” to display positive nurturing emotions.

* Liberals are less trusting of family members and much less likely to stay in touch with their parents.

* Do you get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own? Fifty-five percent of conservatives said yes versus only 20 percent of liberals.

* Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney have given large sums of money to people in need, while Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and Al Gore have not.

* Those who are “very liberal” are 3 times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038551350X/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon

Anywhooo...

The main point here is that you need to calm down a little bit with the overheated rhetoric, especially when it's so easy to show that your central thesis is utterly full of shit.

It does the country no good at all if you cry Fascist Wolf over and over again in a high-pitched hysterical voice when there is almost no evidence at all to support such a bizarre claim.

In fact, this post is the exact mirror image of some of things those Birther, Free Republic lunatics are saying about Obama and Democrats. (My favorite is that he's the second coming of Pol Pot. A post which in tone and content is exactly the same as this one.)

Better to debate ideas and theories in a semi-civil if spirited tone than to try to attempt to demonize and dehumanize ones opponents.

So, to put it bluntly. Obama won. The Democrats won. Your thesis is full of crap. End of Story.

Exactly right.

Throughout history, extremists on both ends of the political spectrum have had blood on their hands.

Which is why we must work to avoid demonizing and dehumanizing our political opponents. Challenge them on their ideas, but don't give into the temptation to go over the top in your condemnation of them as people.

And yes, there is an authoritarian streak in American life, but I would argue that it's actually less than has been experienced elsewhere in the world. (Tom Wolfe's motto, "Fascism is always descending on the United States, but somehow it keeps landing in Europe" is true.)

Reasonable people can disagree about politics without having to resort to heavy-handed and hysterical bullshit, which is what this post represents.

You clearly are not famliar with and don't understand the material that is the subject of this post and thus don't understand the post. Too bad for you.

Come back after you have read Altemeyer and/or Dean. Then, and only then, will it be worth anyone's time reading the stuff you've posted that is not at all apropos of anything in the post.

I don't think it is an either or situation but I do think you have a pretty good grasp of the kinds of things that make them tick. They are not evil people per se, the problem is when their authoritarian impulses and nature become highly organized and focused on politics. The same authoritarian loonies in politics can be really great people in other respects, at least the followers can be. The leaders may be a different matter on that score as they have drives and ambitions the followers do not.

This is correct and very important to note. Not all Republicans are authoritarians. It isn't about being conservative or simply holding political beliefs nonconservatives don't like. And that is why my post specifically is about the impact of authoritarian personalities in Republican politics and not in other areas of life outside politics. In politics, particulary the politics of the past several decades, some unique and decisive conditions have arisen to make the authoritarian Republicans extremely dangerous.

The specifics about this are covered very well in Dean's book and by Altemeyer which is why I'm urging people to read the information. It really is a pretty specific set of personality traits and characteristics that are mixing with the political climate and driving some very dangerous tendencies in our politics. And it is in no way hyterical or unreasonable to point out that it is very, very serious stuff that people would do well to become familiar with if they really hope to understand the minds of the wacko political right and prevent these kinds of folks from doing more damage to our government in the future.

"FASCISM IS DESCENDING UPON AMERICA, I TELL YOU!!!!!!!"

Bullshit.

This sort of hysteria make you look silly, Oleeb, and is indeed worthy of ridicule.

"Say, oleeb, is it possible that some Republicans have valid objections to parts of Obama's Health Care Plan?"

I would be interested in hearing valid objections to health care reform. So far, I've only heard fear mongering types of objections or objections that are based on principles that have already markedly failed.

Isn't it past your bedtime by now?

The temptation of a leader to channel and use the rage of the mob for their own ends must be huge and may be the factor that determines how this political moment is resolved. Is there anyone on the right who has the ability, the inclination and the amorality to ride this shark?

All authortarians may be right wing conservatives but I don't think this is a constant factor in American politics. I think this is just a dangerous political moment.

Regarding any "petty agenda" against you, Oleeb. Nonsense. I disagreed with you on another thread, but I didn't even realize it was you on this one until I had already responded the first time.

As for your contention that I "don't understand" the topic, double nonsense.

Dean is an embittered man who, like you, has seized upon Altemeyer's flawed conclusions. At least Dean's using it to sell some books to the sheeple.

As for Altemeyer's "research", it's simply one more in a long series of tendentious and scientifically silly "studies" that have attempted to define conservatism as a mental illness. All of these studies have been largely debunked, where serious researchers have taken the time to look at them, and all of them have been, or shortly will be, properly consigned to the dustbin of history.

I will restate my previous point.

The reason you're so enamored of Altemeyer's discredited theories, Oleeb, is because they support your own biases and prejudices to the ultimate degree.

You arrive at Altemeyer with a prejudice in hand. You leave wholly satisfied. Your fragile world view has not been shaken.

Altemeyer's theories and those like them relieve you (and others who take them seriously) of the necessity of having to respond intellectually to ideas which challenge your precious orthodoxy. You've wrapped yourself safely in the cocoon of psuedo-scicence and from that redoubt you feel you cannot be assailed.

Bully for you, cacoon-boy!

Finally, the most important reason you like this sort of garbage is because, as I've said before, it delegitimates your political opposition. As in the Soviet Union, those who dissent from your party line can eventually be labeled insane and packed off the Psikhushka, out of sight, out of mind.

So, I repeat, cool it with the unseemly hysteria, it looks silly.

Oleeb... keep it up... you're pointing the right direction.

I repeat, once you have read and understood the material I've posted about you might have something worthy to say on this subject. Till that time you're just having a tantrum and I'm not going to be joining you in that. See?

Now, go to bed like a good boy.

The French Revolution was a left wing affair and quite authoritarian in execution. Camus' The Rebel deals with the authoritarian strains in leftist thought.

If anything I see a tendency in TPM of progressives wishing that Obama was a benevolent monarch who could swat away the neocons like so many flies.

Hell, just look how the thread's author dehumanizes the opposition. Look at Huey Long's populism and the Daley machine. We on the left are not remotely free from the shadows of human nature.

Again, Oleeb, why are you dodging the obvious evidence?

Obama is doing exactly the same authoritarian things that Bush's Insane Authoritarian Clown Possee was doing to cause FASCISM TO DESCEND UPON AMERICA!!!

In fact, Obama is behaving exactly like Bush in regards to unitary executive power.

And yet, from the safety of your ideological cocoon, your eyes hidden behind an opaque silky fabric of your own spinning, you refuse to see this.

Open your eyes, Oleeb. Poke a tiny hole in your self-made prison wall. Peek out at the wider world and see that the corrupting effect of power knows no ideology. See the truth; that the hysteria which has you paralyzed is a condition of your own making, a punishment for believing in the psuedo-science of charlatans and frauds.

Yes, DD and four legs good, two legs bad!

Psychological Projection. Look it up.

Ah little one, you shouldn't use basic terms to show you know something. It doesn't work that way. Don't let the little troll bed bugs bite!

And again, this is why you're so frequently in the wrong, Oleeb, you leap to conclusions without substantial evidence.

You assume that a person who uses an easily understood concept to identify the persistent and obvious neurosis of another, does not know a substantial amount about psychology.

Simplicity does not equal ignorance, Oleeb, despite what your freshman psych teacher told you.

I maintain that you're guilty of psychological projection. And thus far, you've done nothing to disabuse me of that diagnosis.

You are ravingly hysterical about "Authoritarionism", and yet you are desperate to shut down debate when challenged to defend your beliefs with something other than a piece of sketchy psuedo-science. You cite Altemeyer (and Dean's citation of Altemeyer) and and then shout for silence when challenged on it.

What other conclusion can one reach but that you have an authoritarian personality disorder. That you're projecting your own neurosis onto others?

Anytime. Goooooooood rant. hahahahaha

Nasty in his comments? Really? Wow.

Lux, this was a serious ass-whupping you just delivered. I think Dead Eye Dick should come over here and give you some sort of Common Fucking Sense Comment of the Day Award.

hahhahahahaahhaa. Are there rules. I dunno. hahahaha

I worked with a woman named Marie on Capitol Hill a long time ago who had been working on the Hill since FDR was President. I've remembered ever since that one day when we were talking she said to me that "it always takes twenty years for the Democrats to straighten out the mess the Republicans make in four."

Troll

No ruckus DonDi, just a handful of cranks going off on a subject they clearly don't understand of which they know absolutely nothing. I apologize for their static.

You wouldn't know an ass whupping if you got one Jason.

Zipperupus - I'm not an authority on any of these topics except for having read some of The Authoritarians, an article or two by John Jost and "Conservatives Without Conscience". :-)

It is my understanding that so far as the political spectrum goes, the Nazi ideology and the Communist ideology draw from the same personality types. So, it is not so much the ideology itself as the personality traits that are involved, such as 1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society; 2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and 3) a high level of conventionalism. [From The Authoritarians, p.9.]

In this society, all three of those characteristics correlate with the conservative side.

Oleeb.

Perhaps a decent sugestion.

maybe

If these town meetings were only open to constituents, I think the teabaggers (and they are corporate literal teabaggers--sorry--but they are) who are bussed in to disrupt town meetings would be SoL.

How to communicate this?

Thanks Seashell. Very well put. But my oh my how hysterical you must be to understand this! :)

Yes, yes, Oleeb, you're not discussing, not engaging, not debating.

No, no, Oleeb, not at all, no siree.

And yet, there you are, responding like clockwork, still trying to end the debate by ignoring challenges to your thesis, by pretending that the world is exactly as you SAY it is, rather than as it actually is.

You (backed up only Altemeyer's silly book) claim that there's a mythical "Authoritarian" type found only on the right, a wraith-like figure of malice and cunning, armed with a spooky-scary will-to-power.

I (and others, including most authoritative history books) point out that there have been thousands of examples of leftist authoritarians.

Rather than acknowledge that your central thesis has been shown to be full of bullshit, you run around screaming for debate to be curtailed.

Next up, I point out that Obama is acting exactly like Bush with regard to executive power (to include expanding the warrantless wiretapping authority and keeping lists of enemies), thus he is behaving in identifiably authoritarian ways. Your response is to cover your ears and shout "La-la-la-la-la" at intolerable levels.

My comments throughout this discussion have been exactly on topic. Your failure to address my objections to your risible thesis (and your childish resort to name calling) is proof positive that you're full of shit and know it.

Not engaging, no siree Bob. Not engaging at all!

Come off it, Oleeb. You're not engaging because you can't.

You're stymied. You've wrapped yourself so tightly into your comfort-blanket of belief that you cannot engage in reasonable defense of your own crappy thesis.

Are there authoritarians on the left or not?

If you say "Yes". You've shot your own thesis all to hell.

If you say "No" I'll laugh at you for having such an ignorant grasp of history.

Justify your belief structure, Oleeb. Don't just plop it out there like a turd and ask us to admire it's perfume-like smell.

Please, don't confuse Oleeb with History, or Philosphy, or Ethics.

All he knows and all he's got is this one crappy, discredited book by Altemeyer, and John Dean's recapitulation of the more sensational parts of that book.

He doesn't need anything else to construct his edifice of ignorance! He's got a good solid foundation of sand right there.

One last note:

There is something slippery in the F and RWA scale in my opinion. I think it creates the "no real Scotsman" flaw.

No Scotsman would do such a thing!
But, sir, so-and-so was a Scotsman.
Well, no real Scotsman would do such a thing!

The idea is that no matter how liberal you think you are, if you are authoritarian dominant or submissive in technique to achieve your goal, then you are right wing. Because no real liberal would use the guillotine on hundreds of thousands of aristocrats. No real liberal would train a people's army that razes peasant villages. Because liberals are more cognitively developed.

But the threat of the other does the damnedest things to people regardless of ideolology. And what I don't want is the right wing in this nation to assume that shadow aspect because it dissolves their humanity.

A couple of random thoughts:

We have an expression: "seeing is believing". It's much closer to the truth to say that "believing is seeing". We all tend to see the world in ways that conform to our belief of what is true.

There is another thought system that says: "Seek not to change the world. Rather seek to change you mind about the world." One of the most frustrating things in life is attempting to change another's behavior. This is most easily seen within the family unit, as anyone who has tried to change a teenager's behavior can attest. But it also applies to society at large. It seems to me that there are only two techniques available: persuasion (including deception) and force.

Having said that,and admitting my own political bias of left/lib/prog, it does seem that in the last 50 years there has been far more authoritarian behavior in this country on the right side of the spectrum than on the left. And yes, I'm going all the way back to the election of 1960 and the assassination trifecta of that decade.

Maybe the discussion shouldn't be about right v. left or conservative v. liberal, but about authoritarian v., what?, egalitarian. And in my world view, it feels like the will of the egalitarian majority is being frustrated by an authoritarian minority.

Huh?

There it is!

30% to 50% of a party that is 30% of the population as a whole? That would be 10 to 15% of America. A fringe ideology even if your numbers were remotely accurate, which they are not.

The "tea baggers" and people being trucked to these events hardly represent 30% of the republican party. The ones we see on TV are perhaps 10% and perhaps another 10% are sympathetic to their point of view.

People like the guy who killed Tiller are even more rare. This blog is nothing but hyperbole and rage masquerading as legitimate commentary on a supposedly wide-spread problem that is anything but wide-spread.

Banned?

Oh grow up, Oleeb. Quit acting all butt hurt.

I challenged you on your bullshitty ideas, you failed to defend them coherently, indeed, you simply tried to shut down the debate. Very Bush of you, Oleeb, very bush.

End of story.

I'm not a sock puppet or a troll. I'm just someone who took objection to Oleeb's blog, and argued my objection vigorously.

As I've said over and over, I object to this attempt, on both the left and the right, to portray one's political opponents as mentally ill.

It's not only reductive, it does a disservice to democracy, because it allows one to dismiss uncomfortable opposition and uncomfortable ideas out of hand, without having to examine one's own prejudices or the possible truth in an opponent's arguments.

Thank you. You just distilled in a tidy syllogism what I had been gnawing on for hours yesterday. Not merely a left-right axis, but an authoritarian-libertarian axis.

And yes, I agree 100% that right leaning ideology tends towards authoritarianism moreso than left.

You don't know about the topic of this post or the books I've urged people to read and you make it clear over and over despite all your foaming at the mouth. The post is not about authoritarianism in general or your broad claims either about authoritarianism or my viewpoint on the subject. The post is quite specific in referencing and recommending the research and findings that exist about personality traits of a couple of specific groups of people, their values, how they perceive and misperceive events and information and how that accounts for some of the seemingly illogical and, at times, crazed behavior we see from the extreme right. It helps to explain their emotional perceptions and motivations. It sheds light on how they are unable to realistically or accurately assess the things they believe and the things they do. The contradictions that result from how they organize their thoughts, beliefs and emotions, how they process them and how that specifically takes shape when large numbers of similar personality types engage in political activity. It has to do with their ethical standards and often double standards and with how they are disposed to behave in ways that most people would consider unethical. All of these things help to account for their actions both individually and as a group in politics and specifically this information helps to explain many of the factors involved in the authoritarian domination of the Republican Party in recent times. The post is about urging people to focus on understanding how they think as they do, why they think as they do and the difference between their stated values vs their actions. The research done is valid and replicable and very informative. That is why I posted about it. I pointed out that the two authors have real insights on this research and the rise to power of the authoritarians in the Republican Party. All these things are discussed at length in the two books reference and are specific to right wing authoritarian political activity, behavior and beliefs and manifest themselves thusly. The information resulting from the research you are so woefully ignorant of, sheds light on why we see some of the things we see in politics from this faction who have for some time dominated the Republican Party. I think it might shed light on how to deal with and nuetralize the more extreme behaviors of these types of peopple. It sheds light on why these particular personality types are prone to some very troubling, often extreme, and sometimes extraordinarily unethical and unprincipled behavior. I believe this information is very enlightening and helps people to understand Republican Authoritarianism. None of this, not one bit, relates to the points you want to discuss nor to the criticisms you make of what I've written or what John Dean or Bob Altemeyer have written. I happen to agree with them that this element in our political culture at this point in time is a threat to our democracy if allowed to go unchecked and if it is not understood. That's really all my post was about. You would know this if you had any knowledge or understanding of it. Does that mean there aren't other aspects of authoritarianism? Of course not. It just isn't relevant to this particular topic that I've tried to draw people's attention to given the kinds of organized confrontations being generated around the country right now by these very sorts of people. Take it or leave it, it is unimportant to me if you agree with me or not on this subject, but this is the subject of the post. It is different from the arguments you are trying to assert. In fact, what you're concerned with has little to do with the topic of my post or the two books. So please, don't stomp your feet and have a tantrum as you have here on this thread because I don't want to discuss points you are making that simply have nothing to do with this subject.

Yes, I can see why you'd be so perturbed, Oleeb.

This debate didn't stay in that narrow, constricted, foreordained path you hoped it would follow.

But that's life, right? Sometimes one's attempts at authoritarianism are defeated by a plurality of opposing voices.

Please forgive me if I reject the basic premise of your argument, that Altemeyer and Dean are super-smart sages of totalitarianism, and not hackish cranks who start with a set of prejudices and then construct their "findings" to accord with those prejudices.

I know it's inconceivable to you that someone would reject these two as partisan frauds, given how closely their prejudices accord with your own, but there it is.

Apparently, Altemeyer is your sun and Dean your moon. And now that your personal cosmology has been shown to be a shadow play projected onto the rock wall of your dimly-lit mind, you are panicky and angry.

Perfectly understandable, really, this primitive response of yours.

Read a few books, Oleeb. You might find others have important things to say on the matter of the authoritarian mindset from something other than a psuedo-scientific mindset.

The Nazis were initially a small fringe party in Germany -- their willingness to indulge hate and engage in violence and the unwillingness of the conservatives in Germany to call them on it and stop them lead to diaster. It is high time that tactics like the phony riots in Florida over vote counting are exposed, despised and cease to be effective.

Well, I have actually read their books which you apparently have not or you would see how ridiculous this blog is not to mention your continued defense of said blog. Gore Vidal is especially cognizant of (and has written extensively about) the bipartisan nature of American authoritarianism.

That is a pretty apt description of the how many around here would see the country's health care system reformed. They would rather defeat the GOP and install a single payer system that doesn't even work on paper and most certainly won't work in practice.

Last time I looked Medicare was single payer and was working. Check your facts.

Big surprise that you would chime in with nonsense.

Far better to contribute a 15% to 25% surcharge to the insurance companies to gain health care I suppose?

I see absolutely no credible argument made that retaining insurance company parasites will result in less expensive health care as we move toward universal coverage. It's simply counter-intuitive.