John Dean: "AUTHORITARIANS HAVE TAKEN CONTROL"

[kpete]

Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party: Authoritarians Have Taken Control
Part One in a Three-Part Series
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Wednesday, Sep. 05, 2007

This is the first in a three- part series of columns in which FindLaw columnist John Dean discusses his most recent book, Conservatives Without Conscience. - Ed.

............

Authoritarian Republicans: Understanding the Personality Type

While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. To make the results of my rather lengthy inquiry very short, I found that it was the authoritarians who took control of the conservative movement in the 1980s, and then the Republican Party in the 1990s. Strikingly, these conservative Republicans - though hardly known for their timidity -- have not attempted to refute my report, because that is not possible. It is based on hard historical facts, which I set forth in considerable detail.

Authoritarian control continues to this day, so it is important to understand these people. There are two types of authoritarians: leaders (the few) and followers (the many). Study of these personalities began following World War II, when social psychologists asked how so many people could compliantly follow an authoritarian leader like Adolf Hitler and tolerate the Holocaust. Early research was based at the University of California, Berkeley, and it focused primarily on followers, culminating in the publication of a The Authoritarian Personality (1950) - a work that broadly described authoritarian personalities. The book was quite popular for decades, but as the Cold War ended, it had been on the shelf and ignored for a good while.

Given the strikingly conspicuous authoritarian nature of the contemporary conservative movement, and in turn, of the Republican Party, those familiar with the work of the Berkeley group thought it time to take another look at this work. For example, Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, observed that the fact that "the radical right has transformed itself from a marginal movement to an influential sector of the contemporary Republican Party" called for a reexamination of this work. That is exactly what I did, although I did not discover Dr. Wolfe's call for it until well into my project.

The Authoritarian Personality relied heavily on Freudian psychology, which was not without critics, although neither Dr. Freud's work nor that of the Berkeley scientists has been proven incorrect. The weakness of this early work was the lack of empirical data backing up its conclusions. But in the half-century since its publication, that weakness has been removed, based on others' empirical work. A number of researchers have examined and reexamined the Berkeley Group's conclusions, and no one more thoroughly than Bob Altemeyer, a Yale and Carnegie-Mellon-trained social psychologist based at the University of Manitoba.


much more at:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html

[atommom]

1. K & R. I recommend his book too. nt

[SharonAnn]

15. It's great, but even better is Altmeyer's book, the source of Dean's info. Free on the Internet.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Introduction” link on this page?

Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.

For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?

Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.

[atommom]

16. I've read that too. I just wish we could get more people to read it! nt

[Duppers]

22. yes, I've read that online book too

It nails 'em. It's a great online book...and free!

I kept thinking: he's describing republicans....and my birth family, teh a.h.'s.

Also, there's a lot to read online about narcissistic personality types that describe rethugs. Just google.

[DemReadingDU]

27. Thank you, I will be reading this too!

[eppur_se_muova]

38. Thanks for link. nt

[ComerPerro]

2. I would disagree, and say that authoritarian is a central aspect of conservatism

a supposed appeal for the way things were, which generally includes "respect" for leadership and persons in power.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. "While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are

political conservatives." Bingo!!!



<snip>Altemeyer's findings, explaining that his empirical testing revealed "that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral." To be clear, these are not assessments that Altemeyer makes himself about these people; rather, this is how those he has tested reveal themselves to be, when being anonymously examined.

NOW, WHO DOES THAT REMIND YOU OF?????

Altemeyer has tested literally tens of thousands of first-year college students and their parents, along with others, including some fifteen hundred American state legislators, over the course of some three decades. He has tested in the South and North of the United States. There is no database on authoritarians that even comes close in its scope to that which he has created, and, more importantly, these studies are empirical data, not partisan speculation.<snip>

[HowHasItComeToThis]

6. I REMEMBER THE BREAKDOWN AS...

DEMOCRATIC, AUTHORITARIAN, FASCIST IN A STUDY I READ YEARS AGO.

[Spazito]

4. John Dean's columns are always a learning experience for me

I look forward to each and every one of them. Thanks for posting this.

Recommended.

[alfredo]

5. I recommend this article as a must read and forward worthy.

I recommend his books too.

[Disturbed]

8. I read the book. It made me realize that trying to reason with

Fascists is pointless. They are my enemies. Can I love them as Jesus said I should? Maybe I could pity them but how can I love them? Can common ground be found in order to work with them to make things better? I need to think hard about that.

[alfredo]

12. The best one can do is peel off the non authoritarians from the

authoritarians and see if we can find common ground. Dean said the authoritarians are about 23% of society. They need to be isolated.

[defendandprotect]

20. Much of authoritarianism is transmitted by organized patriarchal religions ---

which have demanded OBEDIENCE . . . .

While members are subservient to the patriarchal religious hierarchy and its demand for obedience to its at times almost legalistic rules and doctrines, this manner of thinking and reasoning is transmitted to members who then behave as they have been taught -- i.e., in the same manner --
authoritarianly.

We now have a large number of Catholics on the Supreme Court, for instance --

Gertrude Stein, the poet, was one of the first into Germany at the end of WWII and she was quite anxious to determine the cause of all this -- her conclusion was that "obedience" was the problem. And, of course, I think it was 90% of Germans considered themselves "Christians" -- ??? 70% Catholic???

[L. Coyote]

7. k&r

[DeSwiss]

9. Dean once said....

..."there's a cancer on the Presidency."

And its still there. K&R!!!

[seafan]

10. Dean: "The glue of the (conservative) movement is in its perceived enemies."

Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party: Authoritarians Have Taken Control

By John Dean
Sep. 05, 2007

.....

Conservatives once looked to the past for what it could teach about the present and the future. Early conservatives were traditionalists or libertarians, or a bit of both. Today, however, there are religious conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, cultural conservatives, neoconservatives, traditional conservatives, and a number of other factions.

Within these factions, there is a good amount of inconsistency and variety, but the movement has long been held together through the power of negative thinking. The glue of the movement is in its perceived enemies. Conservatives once found a common concern with respect to their excessive concern about communism (not that liberals and progressive were not concerned as well, but they were neither paranoid nor willing to mount witch hunts). When communism was no longer a threat, the dysfunctional conservative movement rallied around its members' common opposition to anything they perceived as liberal. (This was, in effect, any point of view that differed from their own, whether it was liberal or not.)

.....

While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. To make the results of my rather lengthy inquiry very short, I found that it was the authoritarians who took control of the conservative movement in the 1980s, and then the Republican Party in the 1990s. Strikingly, these conservative Republicans - though hardly known for their timidity -- have not attempted to refute my report, because that is not possible. It is based on hard historical facts, which I set forth in considerable detail.

Authoritarian control continues to this day, so it is important to understand these people. There are two types of authoritarians: leaders (the few) and followers (the many). Study of these personalities began following World War II, when social psychologists asked how so many people could compliantly follow an authoritarian leader like Adolf Hitler and tolerate the Holocaust.

.....

At the outset of Conservatives Without Conscience, I provided a quick and highly incomplete summary of Altemeyer's findings, explaining that his empirical testing revealed "that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral." To be clear, these are not assessments that Altemeyer makes himself about these people; rather, this is how those he has tested reveal themselves to be, when being anonymously examined.

Altemeyer has tested literally tens of thousands of first-year college students and their parents, along with others, including some fifteen hundred American state legislators, over the course of some three decades. He has tested in the South and North of the United States. There is no database on authoritarians that even comes close in its scope to that which he has created, and, more importantly, these studies are empirical data, not partisan speculation.

.....

[porphyrian]

11. Me: "Duh." - n/t

[backscatter712]

13. K&R! Some other reading for you.

Of course, you'll want to read
Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean and The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer (free on the web!)

Both of them are referenced in Dean's article mentioned in the OP, but these two books should be required reading for anyone here.

[tom_paine]

14. Please read my sigline and click onthe link for more info

[Oilwellian]

17. Thanks for posting

I'll definitely buy Dean's book and read Altemeyer's as well.

[malaise]

18. Bookmarked. Thanks n/t

[defendandprotect]

19. WAIT A MINUTE . . .. !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - !!!

I still admire John Dean for having come forward during Watergate --
Don't know how he managed to stay alive and presume he probably has some pretty good stuff hidden away.

HOWEVER, Nixon, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Howard Hunt, George Bush, Sr., John Mitchell -- and the long list of others who served Nixon also included JOHN DEAN. These men were all neo-cons and whether Dean was or wasn't, he was working with them, aiding and abetting this criminal administration.

Certainly Reagan's was a neo-con regime -- we just couldn't see it all yet-
Beginning with the "October Surprise" which was revealed in Iran-Contra years later.
Bush, Sr., Rumsfeld and Cheney also worked in this criminal administration.

This comment pertains to the idea that John Dean is apart from and is solely an analyst of neo-cons
-- we have to remember that he very well served one of our more obsessed neo-con Nazis -- Nixon.

[backscatter712]

30. It gave him a unique view on those guys.

Also, if you read his books, especially Conservatives Without Conscience, you'll see very quickly that he really did his homework - he cites his sources extensively, including Bob Altemeyer and many others. He is not talking out of his ass.

Personally, I respect him highly. Every time I read his work, or I hear him talking, say on Keith Olbermann or Randi Rhodes, it's clear that Dean cares deeply about the Constitution - that's why he ended up coming forward during Watergate.

Oh, and if you read the preface of Conservatives Without Conscience, Dean talks about some smear attacks made against him by G. Gordon Liddy. The rest of the Watergate bunch hate John Dean's guts now.

[defendandprotect]

32. Dean participated; benefitted . . ..

Yes, it gave him a unique view, but it wasn't an overview; he was part of it.

Let me make clear -- I am also a fan of his in many ways -- but I also feel cautious about him.

I don't really think that, given the extent of corruption in the Nixon White House, the personalities of Nixon, himself, Haldemann, Ehrlichman and the many other corrupt figures who comprised that White House that Dean could have been such an "odd fellow out."

Frankly, I think it became obvious to him that Nixon was going to be on the losing side and that he saw the weight of the problems with blackmail which could bring everything down. Dean was involved in the payoffs and aware of the blackmail by Hunt.

Gordon Liddy is just the kind of individual I am thinking of; possibly outright murderers in Nixon's employ.

And there is the highly questionable Nixon tape in the Oval office where Dean is remarking to Nixon, ". . . wouldn't Ted Kennedy be surprised if he knew the bear trap he will be walking into this weekend?" That was the weekend of Chappaquiddick.

So -- all said, I mostly believe in the conversion but . . .

[Jade Fox]

37. Read the stuff he's written about Bushco......

I don't know what he was like when he worked for Nixon (well, he was young for one thing) but he's great now.

And what did Dean have to do with Reagan?

[defendandprotect]

39. Did Dean know that Ted Kennedy was going to be "walking into a beartrap" the weekend . . . .

of Chappaquiddick?

These are some of the questions you have to consider --

What if Dean hadn't felt threatened by the expanding blackmail threats of Hunt --
might he have continued to participate --- ???

You're making presumptions about history which you're unfamiliar with --
READ first and then consider.

[creeksneakers2]

21. kicked!

[havocmom]

23. Thanks, kpete

[rox63]

24. I haven't yet read Dean's article or Altemeyer's book, but I intend to do so shortly

One question - How do they explain authoritarian regimes that have started on the left? Included here are the former Soviet Union and China, among others. Both of these started as supposed workers' revolutions. But they turned very quickly into authoritarian regimes.

[backscatter712]

31. See my post below - Bob Altemeyer does explain this.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

25. "all ... authoritarian personalities are ... conservatives"?

That seems like a sweeping generalization ...

Are there any Liberals who might be authoritarian?

Lyndon Johnson comes to mind.
And, Hugo Chavez.
Maybe HRC?

[backscatter712]

29. Altemeyer actually did his homework on this claim

See The Authoritarians

While there are a few left-wing authoritarians, such as Marxists and Maoists, they are very rare and hard to find. People with that authoritarian mindset have a very strong tendency to gravitate right.

As for your examples, none of them are examples of true progressives.

Lyndon Johnson was pretty right-wing when it came to foreign policy stuff -- see Vietnam.
Hugo Chavez is a Right Wing Authoritarian by Bob Altemeyer's definition. So was Joseph Stalin, even though both of them were technically part of "left wing" movements, they had the characteristics of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and traditionalism. It's just that the tradition they're traditionalist about happens to be Communism.

Personally, I think Hillary Clinton's not nearly the RWA that the assholes in the GOP camp are. Not that she's my favorite candidate, but I doubt she goes quite so high on the RWA scale as Giuliani, Romney or any of the other Republicans (I'd say that Ron Paul, as messed up as some of his view are, is the only GOP candiddate not high on the RWA/SDO scales, by my amateur observations.)

[PunkPop]

26. This is fascinating and I don't want to nitpick or anything

but I guess I will :-)

Somebody should have proofed this thing! There are typos all over the place. The ideas are valid but it really takes away when you have so many errors in the text.

"And, why do their compliant followers seem to never question or criticism them?"

"In this column, and those that follow, I hope to explain the rather remarkably information"

"They claim that it not an ideology"

"To understanding conservatives thinking"

etc.

You'd think a site called 'FindLaw-Legal News and Commentary' would have higher standards. It's almost like a post from Free Republic - almost.

[Sam Ervin jret]

28. This Authoritarian Personality type is also drawn to Religions with strict, simple interpretations

of whatever doctrine upholds their power. In this case, the conservative "Christians."

They need simple, answers from a "sure" source. It seems to come in times of insecurity and for people most in need of protecting "what they have." If the "powers that be" are strong enough they will even make those who have nothing "to lose" in the sense that they are on the lower economic level. They can formulate dissent among the lower economic groups leaving them confused and what my mother used to call "fighting for the scraps falling for the tables of the well off." Mom was pretty bright, I think.

This group is and groups like it are not willing to give up power.

The next election has already shown that. Watch out for the "you fix it, you broke it," mantra which will be coming. Before we "fix" any thing we need to get the BULL and the BULL%^&*ers out of the shop!

[defendandprotect]

33. See my post #20, above = = = = == =

[warrior1]

34. kick

[RamboLiberal]

35. That's not Dean's latest book - latest one is

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches



From Publishers Weekly
In his latest anti-Republican polemic, ex–Nixon White House counsel and Watergate whistle-blower Dean (Conservatives Without Conscience) moves from policy to process—how necessary government functions are corrupted and hobbled by Republican politicians and their ethos of authoritarianism, secrecy, partisanship and dogmatic contempt for the public sphere. It's a long indictment. The last Republican Congress, Dean contends, rubber-stamped Bush's policies, shut Democrats out of the legislative process, neglected pressing issues and made a shambles of government finances. Meanwhile, the Bush administration—the worst presidency ever—has sought to replace constitutional checks and balances with a unitary executive that brooks no congressional interference and undermines civil rights. All of this is enabled by the swelling ranks of fundamentalists on the federal bench and Supreme Court (some of whom, he insists, committed perjury to get confirmed). The author, a former Republican, bolsters his procedural analysis with insights from political scientists, but doesn't offer procedural reforms; the cure he prescribes is to stop voting Republican. (He hails the new Democratic Congress for repairing much of the damage done by the GOP.) Dean's take on process—mainly a conventional reverence for the Constitution and bipartisanship—isn't acute, but he presents a vigorous critique of the Republican machinery. (Sept. 11)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Book Description
The former White House counsel faults Republican mismanagement for the current state of the government

John Dean has become one of the most trenchant and respected commentators on the current state of American politics and one of the most outspoken and perceptive critics of the administration of George W. Bush in his New York Times bestsellers Conservatives Without Conscience and Worse Than Watergate.

In his eighth book, Dean takes the broadest and deepest view yet of the dysfunctional chaos and institutional damage that the Republican Party and its core conservatives have inflicted on the federal government. He assesses the state of all three branches of government, tracing their decline through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Unlike most political commentary, which is concerned with policy, Dean looks instead at process— making the case that the 2008 presidential race must confront these fundamental problems as well. Finally, he addresses the question that he is so often asked at his speaking engagements: What, if anything, can and should politically moderate citizens do to combat the extremism, authoritarianism, incompetence, and increasing focus on divisive wedge issues of so many of today’s conservative politicians?

With the Democrats now in control of both the House and Senate, the stakes for the 2008 presidential election have never been higher. This is a book for anyone who wants to return government to the spirit of the Constitution.

[broadcaster]

36. I think more importantly: what's wrong with the Democrat mind?

Democrats have laid down and bent over for the GOP for years, and even though
they got a majority in Nov 2006 after a L O T of work by the faithful, Reid,
Pelosi, and others have continued to just let the GOP walk all over the Constitution
without taking ONE serious stand (unless you think 'stern statements' and
endless press releases are a serious stand).

So I'm more interested in for example, what it is about the mind of Pelosi
and Reid that would enable Bush's attack on the country without a fight.

What is it about the mind and beliefs, of Democrats and their supporters that allows the GOP to continue
to own the narrative? What is it about Democrats that is so terribly apologetic,
willing to give the GOP all it wants in Congress, to give Bush all he wants in
terms of FISA, Patriot Act, Habeas Corpus, and billions more for Iraq?

Apparently Democrats love to be victims and to talk endlessly about how bad
it is, but don't ever get up and kick butt.

Can we vote for these people in 2008? Spineless Democrats?

[L. Coyote]

40. The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/
Spring 2003; 5-11-03

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing ....

[Synnical]

41. I am almost done listening to Dean's book

"Conservatives without Conscience."

Thus, I'm giving this a big ole kick.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[bdamomma]

42. kick