2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo authoritarians support Mrs Clinton?
A thought which has been brewing in my deranged mind for awhile. It is said that the GOP is the party of authoritarians, but given that the crazies have driven many of the more moderate Republicans out of the GOP and into the diffident arms of the Democratic Party, I wonder if there is any tendency among authoritarians to support Mrs Clinton (as assuredly they would not support Mr Sanders). Given that the Clinton camp does occasionally utter things that would seem to imply an expectation of gratitude, deference, and proper subordination, I wonder if the authoritarians have, perhaps, measurable influence within the Clinton camp (by which I embrace not just her professional staff, but her supporters). And of course, nothing offends and outrages an authoritarian quite so much as being told to put it where the sun does not shine.
Obviously many, or even most, of Mrs Clinton's supporters are not authoritarians, so the question is whether they have a disproportionate place within the ranks.
-- Mal
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)certainly Hillary.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)supports Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017329850
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Thank you in advance.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)You're welcome.
One expects partisans to be partisan. My question is whether persons of an authoritarian temperament might favor one candidate over another. I have a theory that many of the GOP have fled to the Democrats of late because of how radical the Republicans have become, and that they are most comfortable with Mrs Clinton. That's also based on an underlying thought that more GOP faithful are authoritarian than otherwise. Of course, not all authoritarians support Mrs Clinton, nor are all of Mrs Clinton's supporters authoritarian. One would expect, however, a priori that more anti-authoritarians are attracted to a candidate claiming to be anti-establishment than otherwise. Obviously, this is not true of all supporters of revolution, many of whom are either interested only in tearing down the house, or are outs hoping to become ins. Is it your impression that more authoritarians support Mr Sanders than Mrs Clinton?
-- Mal
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)All I can say is I have never browbeat someone for choosing a different candidate and impugning their motives. Assigning to one's self the ability to know what is best for others is one of the benchmarks of an authoritarian personality, if not its sine qua non.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Agreed, there are some really stupid and frustrated Sanders partisans out there, who are especially frustrated with AA voters for not falling into a line which appears to them self-evident. It is a serious flaw, and one that may well cost Mr Sanders the nomination.
But there are also supporters of Mrs Clinton who exercise extreme discipline, shall we say, on sectors of the population or individuals that might not support her as they wish. Now, it may be instructive to examine why this is so.
In the case of Sanders supporters who browbeat AA voters and impugn their motives, the cause might come from latent racism, misunderstanding of priorities, and general frustration. For example. And by "latent racism," I mean not overt race-hatred, but a tendency to relate to stereotypes and incomplete understanding. Empathy may be present, but mis-directed because the individual really has no idea of what life is like outside the white middle class. (Incidentally, did you see the article in DK about why Sanders is failing with AA voters? Linked at DU here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1410383 I wish all the Sanders crew would read the damned thing) More overt racism may not be discounted in some cases, especially for the people who apparently thing that AA voters should just pull their forelocks and be grateful they're "allowed" to vote at all.
Now, why might Clinton supporters browbeat Sanders supporters or impugn their motives? I think we can agree that "There's a special place in hell for women who don't support women" falls into this category, moreover on counts both of browbeating and impunging. Said, of course, not by Mrs Clinton, but one of her supporters, we're clear on that. My thought is that authoritarianism, a sense of entitlement, might well come into play with such an attitude. It is, of course, one option only, and frustration must play a large part with any impassioned supporter, as with Sanders supporters who browbeat AA voters. Similarly, why does the Clinton camp seem to insult, degrade, and (shall we say) disrespect millennials? I have often seen the argument that Mrs Clinton has labored long, that she is ipso facto entitled to the nomination and the Presidency, as though it were a reward for being a good girl, and not an office earned by garnering the winning vote. This, too, smacks of authoritarianism to me. What is your take?
-- Mal
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I was more focused on the phenomenon of public figures being swarmed when they voice their support for Secretary Clinton. When a public figure endorses Senator Sanders it is usually met with a collective shrug of the shoulders by Clinton supporters.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Most of the big endorsements go to Mrs Clinton. Most of the lesser ones to Mr Sanders. (That is no doubt one reason why Mrs Warren is being attacked so strongly for not coming out for Mr Sanders. They won't give the woman a break) Further, a lot of union executive committees are endorsing Mrs Clinton, while a lot of union members feel they are not being heard or their interests are being betrayed. Fairly classic underdog reaction, I'd say.
Of course, most of the big guns are also members of the soi-disant Establishment that Mr Sanders is supposed to be opposing. Whom else would they support? It demonstrates a real lack of imagination on the parts of Sanders supporters to be surprised by this.
-- Mal
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)As to Senator Warren, it is more likely than not Secretary Clinton will be the nominee, so there is no upside at all for her to endorse him. All it would do is ensure the enmity of Secretary Clinton, and the vast majority of her Senate Democratic colleagues who have all endorsed her. To suggest there isn't a political calculus that goes into these endorsements is the height of naivete.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)And the Clintons are fairly notorious for holding grudges (Mr Sanders not so, but then Mr Sanders has never had any grudges to hold). It would be the height of political stupidity for Mrs Warren to endorse Mr Sanders, and furthermore she is already on record as liking Mrs Clinton a lot. If Mrs Clinton becomes President, Mrs Warren will have to work with her, and that will not be facilitated by offending her. OTOH, Mrs Warren and Mr Sanders are on the same page on many issues, so there is no question of their failing to cooperate. Those who think this reflects poorly on Mrs Warren's integrity (I have seen that argument) really need to grow up. One could reasonably argue that by withholding an endorsement of Mrs Clinton, Mrs Warren is de facto supporting Mr Sanders. (It also suggests that Mrs Clinton is not a complete ogress, or she would be leaning on Mrs Warren to support her. Of course, she may be doing so, or she may not think she needs it (I doubt that, though, my assessment of Mrs Clinton psychologically is that she cannot be secure enough))
I appreciate the compliment. When confronted with an opinion that confuses me on the surface, I try to understand it, not to impose my own interpretation on it. Which often puts me in the quaint position of explaining to others why, for instance, a person might reasonably think it is an unfair imposition on his religious freedom to permit gay marriage. Understanding does not connote agreement, but it does wonders for frustration, IMO. Of course, one will always encounter those who don't wish to understand other viewpoints, and who in fact feel put upon when entreated to do so. And don't they come out at election time, just.
-- Mal