Social Dominators, RW Authoritarians, and the 5 Pillars of the Right Wing Movement in the U.S.

Almost two years ago I posted on DU an article titled “The Five Pillars of George W. Bush’s Republican Party”. In that post I identified the “five pillars” as: The Economic Royalists; the militarists; the propagandists and destroyer of our First Amendment rights; the crooks; and the gullible – while noting that there is a great deal of overlap in these categories.

Reading Bob Altermeyer’s book, “The Authoritarians”, has given me a deeper appreciation of the psychology of the characters who comprise this movement and the roles they play in upholding its five pillars. I believe that this is well worth thinking about because these people have the potential to perpetrate unimaginable damage on our country and the world. They’ve already achieved a great deal of that potential. We need to understand them better in order to stop them from achieving more of their potential.

In my 2007 post I described the five pillars and the evidence for them. In this post I emphasize how Altemeyer’s research on authoritarians helps to explain the five pillars. Thank you to Larry Ogg for recommending this very important and interesting book to me.


A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIATARIANS

Bob Altemeyer is a retired psychology professor who spent most of his life researching authoritarianism. More of his book is devoted to the authoritarian followers than the leaders, reflecting the fact that the followers are much more numerous. Individually, they are not nearly as dangerous as the leaders, but when a nation has millions of them (as most large nations do) they can represent a very powerful force.


Followers

Several weeks ago I posted an article about the authoritarian followers. To briefly summarize, Altemeyer defines them as having three core characteristics:

1) High degree of submission to authority
2) Willingness to attack other people in the name of the authority
3) Highly conventional attitudes

Altemeyer provides a 22 question personality survey that measures a person’s right wing authoritarian propensity. He calls it the right wing authoritarian (RWA) scale. That particular scale relates to the authoritarian followers, not the leaders.

Altemeyer notes that not all authoritarians are right wing. Yet he consistently refers to authoritarian followers with the acronym RWA. There are two primary reasons for this. First, he points out that in our country, the vast majority of authoritarian followers are right wingers. Perhaps that’s because their great propensity to submit to authority combines with the fact that in our country our authorities (though not most of our people) lean to the right. In support of that idea, Altemeyer notes that in the former Soviet Union, most authoritarian followers were politically left wing – because their authorities were politically left wing. But in the psychological sense, even in the former Soviet Union the authoritarian followers were right wing.

Please keep in mind three cautionary notes about the RWA scale: As with the traits measured by any other psychological scale, there are gradations in between, people have the capacity to change and grow, and psychological tests don’t accurately characterize everyone.


Leaders

The primary characteristics of the authoritarian leaders, which Altemeyer also refers to as “Social Dominators”, is their great desire for power over other people – not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. To give you a quick idea of what these people are like, Altemeyer notes that there is a very strong correlation between the Social Dominator scale and what he refers to as the “Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty” scale. Here is Altemeyer’s summary of the psychological characteristics of the social dominator – or authoritarian leader:


This description is very similar to what psychologists refer to as the psychopathic personality. In fact, the two are so similar that I was surprised to hear Altemeyer only speculate that they might be the same thing. Perhaps he was worried about a law suit if he came right out and claimed that they are the same thing.


Differences between leaders and followers

As I noted above, authoritarian followers are far more common than authoritarian leaders.

Authoritarian followers have such a deep need to submit to authority that they are willing to use any tortured logic that they can concoct in order to convince themselves that their beloved authority figures are truly great and wonderful people – despite abundant evidence to the contrary. In the service of doing that they allow themselves to be easily fooled and make themselves willfully ignorant in order to avoid confronting uncomfortable facts. Altemeyer says of them:


Authoritarian leaders typically do not have that kind of cognitive problem. They do not have to use psychological tricks to convince themselves that they are moral or “righteous” in the way that the followers do. Rather, they simply have a very different world view. Their philosophy is the “law of the jungle” or “might makes right”. They have less need than authoritarian followers to use mental gymnastics to convince themselves of their worth. For that reason they tend to be formally “religious” much less frequently than authoritarian followers – though they are certainly capable of putting on a show of religiosity in order to convince the followers to follow them.

Thus, Altemeyer summarizes the relationship between authoritarian leaders and their followers like this:


This contrasts markedly with the authoritarian leaders, whom Altemeyer characterizes like this:



THE ROLE OF AUTHORITARIAN FOLLOWERS AND LEADERS IN MAINTAINING THE 5 PILLARS OF THE RW MOVEMENT

The roles that authoritarian leaders and followers play in sustaining the right wing movement in the United States are complementary. The leaders are in charge, but they are too few in number to achieve their goals by themselves. They need the help of a mass base to sustain their power. For that purpose they cultivate the right wing authoritarian followers because they are the ones who are gullible enough for that purpose.

With that in mind, let’s consider the role of authoritarian leaders and followers in maintaining the five pillars of the right wing movement in the United States.


Economic Royalists

As alluded to above, the primary goal of the social dominators, or authoritarian leaders, is to add to their wealth and power. These are ends in themselves, and the most important thing in life to these people. Al Gore, in his book, “The Assault on Reason”, characterizes them like this:


It is the authoritarian leaders, not the followers, who are the “economic royalists”. The political ideology of the leaders happens to coincide with a system that will add to their wealth and power. This system does not benefit the authoritarian followers in any way. But they are gullible enough to allow the leaders to convince them that it does. The authoritarian leaders convince the followers that their political ideology is the only moral political ideology – and it will benefit them economically as well.

Here are some of the statements from Altemeyer’s book, which support the economic royalists, and with which authoritarian leaders tend to “strongly agree”:



The militarists

Both the authoritarian leaders and their followers tend to be militarists – but for different reasons. The authoritarian leaders tend to be those who profit from war, by gaining either wealth or power from it.

The leaders have several levers they can use to convince their followers, not only to passively accept war, but to actually fight in its cause. One lever they use is fear, creating enemies where none exist, or making our enemies out to be a lot more dangerous than they really are. The Bush administration’s painting of Iraq as an actual threat to the United States was a masterstroke of successful propaganda that, hard as it is to believe, actually fooled a large number of Americans – predominantly authoritarian followers.

When the Iraq threat to our country was exposed as being a gigantic fraud, in order to keep the war going they made it out to be a great moral cause (We’re bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqis), and kept the fear alive by claiming that we had to fight al Qaeda in Iraq in order to prevent them from invading our country. The authoritarian followers never wondered very much how transporting our military to Iraq (where al Qaeda didn’t even exist prior to our invasion of Iraq) would serve to prevent al Qaeda from coming here.

And then there is the “patriotism” card. “Patriotism” is defined by them as a belief that our country is superior to all others and therefore has the right to do to other countries whatever they (the authoritarian leaders) say needs to be done – even if that means invading them and killing their people. And anyone who disagrees is “unpatriotic”.

A discussion of militarism would be incomplete without consideration of the widespread abuse and torture of our prisoners. I used to have a very difficult time understanding why the Bush administration went this route. It alienated our allies, motivated our enemies with anti-American hatred, and ruined our international reputation – while seemingly providing no benefits whatsoever. We now know that part of the motivation was to obtain false confessions that could be used as an excuse for war. But when we consider some of the statements with which the authoritarian leaders strongly agree, their involvement in a torture regime becomes far more understandable, if not downright predictable:



The propagandists

The preceding discussion should make it obvious why the authoritarian leaders need to make widespread use of propaganda in order to achieve their goals. What they care most about is their own wealth and power. That is hardly a political agenda on which one would like to wage a campaign. Their only hope for getting themselves or their supporters elected to positions of power is to engage in mass deception.

In the United States today, the biggest purveyor of propaganda is our corporate news media, which I discussed in detail in my last DU post, titled “The Dilemma we Face in an Era of Right Wing Control of our News Media”. Control of our news media has been consolidated during the past several years into the hands of a small number of wealthy and powerful individuals, who have no compunction about slanting the news, or outright lying in order to advance their own political agenda.

Here are some statements from Altemeyer’s book, with which the authoritarian followers tend to strongly agree (when filling out an anonymous survey), which explain how comfortably they fall into their role as propagandists:



The crooks

A lack of conscience and contempt for the law greatly facilitate the quest for wealth and power that characterizes the authoritarian leaders.

The crookedness of the right wing movement in our country was clearly exposed in 2006 by several high profile cases of bribery (or accepting bribes), involving such men as Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney.

The Bush administration’s firing of their federal attorneys for either refusing to investigate non-existent election fraud by Democrats or for pursuing too aggressively cases of election fraud by Republicans is a good example of how these people manipulate our election system in their attempts to maintain their power.

James Galbraith explains in his book, “The Predator State”, how the Bush administration operated more like a criminal syndicate than a government serving in a democracy:


And Altemeyer speculates in his book on how the origins of the social dominator/authoritarian leader contribute to his typical contempt for the law:



The gullible

Despite all their money, the support of most of the corporate news media, and widespread election fraud, the right wing movement nevertheless must still rely on many millions of gullible Americans to push them over the top… They must convince many millions of Americans to buy into the absurdity that their economic policies are not weighted heavily in favor of the rich and powerful; that their tough talk and excessive eagerness to pull their country into war is a manifestation of their courage; and finally, the absurd idea the Republican Party is the party of Christian values. Al Gore describes the situation in his book:


I used to wonder how a political movement that is so gung-ho for war and the death penalty and that is routinely against efforts to ensure that children receive the health care that they need can at the same time call themselves “pro-life” and claim to be so concerned about the life of unborn fetuses that they would criminalize the act of having an abortion. Let me say that I don’t doubt that there are some people who wish to criminalize abortion out of a sincere concern for unborn fetuses. But as part of a political movement that is so anti-life in so many other ways, it makes no sense unless seen as a mindless act of obedience to authority figures – authority figures who profit from war and many other anti-life policies. Such a political movement has to throw in something to make their followers feel self-righteous. The so-called “pro-life” movement is that something, and it costs the leaders of the movement nothing, while supplying them with minions to help them achieve their goals.

Altemeyer explains in his book that the major source of the RWA need for conformity is their inability (or refusal) to think for themselves. If a person lacks the ability or inclination to think independently, then what other choice does s/he have but to accept what s/he’s told by authority figures?

Altemeyer describes an experiment in his book that sheds light on how authoritarian followers helped to perpetuate the Cold War, facilitated by their aversion to independent thought. The experiment involved asking citizens of both the United States and the Soviet Union their thoughts about the Cold War, their own country, and the other country:



THE ULTIMATE IN AUTHORITARIANISM

Altemeyer defines double authoritarians as those rare individuals who have the traits of both authoritarian followers and leaders. Those are the most dangerous people in the world because they combine the immorality of authoritarian leaders with the self-righteous idealism of the authoritarian followers, and also because the followers tend to be more attracted to (and therefore more avid followers of) those whom they are more likely to see as similar to themselves. Altemeyer describes George W. Bush as a double authoritarian.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is perhaps the most anti-authoritarian institution in the world. Prominent authoritarian leaders hate the ICC because it is the international institution that is most responsible for combating international bullies whose actions have the potential to destroy the world. Authoritarian leaders are the international bullies who would like to spread world-wide terror, and the ICC stands against them. Altemeyer comments on how this played out during the Bush administration:


These are the people who will destroy the world if we let them. They didn’t go away when the Bush II administration ended, just as they didn’t go away when the Nixon and Reagan and Bush I administrations ended. They will NEVER go away as long as better intentioned people allow them to do whatever they please.

thought processes. Creepy.

Excellent post, Time. :hi:

especially at family functions. :-(

Especially when Ron Reagan and Michael Reagan are in the same room...

Vicious people that attack with no warning.

I really miss my nieces and nephews. :(

It's hard to know how to talk to them about this kind of stuff. :hi:

do not regret it. Those people cannot be related to me. :crazy:

Sad, but it is what it is...

:hi:

the description of an "authoritarian leader"

There appears to be substantial evidence to support the idea that conservatism is a mental disorder.

American Psychological Association, Inc.
Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/SS_09/workshop%20Jost/Jost%20et%20al_2003.pdf

Green shoots, sun glimmering thru the trees, recovery just around the corner, and all that. Obama and his economic team of Geithner, Summers, Bernanke seem to be always on TV saying that the economy is no longer in a free-fall.

Obama is trying to get the economy stimulated by creating jobs, yet Chrysler is bankrupt and GM most likely will be bankrupt soon. Both of these corporations are closing factories and dealers forcing thousands (millions?) into unemployment this summer. All the jobs that Obama is trying to create, cannot make up for all the jobs being dissolved. So what kind of recovery is this, with jobs lost greater than jobs created?

Then there is the propaganda that the banks can't loan money, unless we taxpayers keep bailing them out. They took our money and paid it out in bankster bonuses. How does this help the small business owner?

Every day news comes out that job losses are getting worse, there are more foreclosures, profits are down in corporations. Yet the stock market is rallying?

So reading your OP, there are still those authoritarian leaders pushing their agenda hoping there are enough gullible people to believe them. I fear things are going to get economically worse and the people are going to wake up and find those green shoots are nothing but weeds.

I think that our politicians should have learned by now that praising the economy based on standard economic indicators when people are losing jobs is a losing policy in the long run. People aren’t going to vote for a president because the economic indicators are doing good – not when they know that their own economic situation is precarious.

What disturbs me the most about Obama’s economic policies is the bankster bailout. In my opinion all the good economists (meaning those who are not tied to or worshippers of Wall Street) strongly recommended against it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5331534

Obama’s choice of economic advisors is very disappointing to me – even though it was evident prior to his election.

I think someone behind the scenes, is 'handling' Obama. Someone who wants to keep the status quo, for the elites. Obama is a great speaker, and has enamored people not only in U.S., but all over the world. So raising our status globally has been great for the U.S., but I worry that people are not paying enough attention to economic matters listening to the fake feel-good propaganda.

Eventually, this huge financial bubble is going to burst, and the people will no longer listen to the propaganda when they are in misery. And those people will not remember that it was the previous presidents who got us in this mess, but instead will turn against Obama, and will not vote him for a 2nd term.

It will be interesting to see if Obama continues to listen to his 'handlers' as our economy slides towards a depression, or if he starts listening to the people who are going to need a strong leader to guide them thru economic turmoil.

I've thought of that myself.

It begs a lot of questions, such as how such deals are made, the motives, and who all is involved. Certainly a lot more goes on than meets our eyes.

Exactly who would have stopped him if he had added Stiglitz or Dean Baker to his transition team or included them amongst his advisors? You're having "cognitive dissonance" now because 1) Pres. Obama has not only chosen to rely heavily on a main architect of the financial sector failure, Robert Rubin, and his protegees, but listens to them only, excluding even the most respected progressive economists at a time when the country desperately needs the best ideas from all quarters to be weighed, and 2) he sold himself during the campaign as someone who would go out of his way to listen to all sides, and you, along with the majority of the country, believed him. Resolving it by blaming an unknown "someone", is just silly. Yeah, I'm sure he's listening to someone who's encouraging these choices, but sticking with that person's advice is the President's choice. Or if someone has something so damaging on the President that he fears he would be removed from office if he doesn't allow the destruction of the country's economy, what kind of sociopath would decide that staying in office is more important than the economic survival of 100's of millions of people? I'd prefer to believe that he's ideologically or psychologically blinkered in a way that rejects progressives out of hand. If his actions, like going along with the 2nd half of TARP mostly unchanged, or not openly evaluating alternatives to letting the Federal Reserve bail out the largest banks with endless of trillions of less and less valuable dollars, makes depression inevitable, maybe he doesn't deserve a second term. His decisions, and refusal to budge from consulting only one narrow and failed viewpoint, will have caused an unfathomably huge amount of suffering. Welcome to the current uncomfortable world of progressive Democrats.

found this on a google search on Iraq . . . quoted you here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5692896&mesg_id=5692896

Speaking of Google, I think it was Rachel Maddow whom I heard use the term “pre-Google” today for the first time – referring to a pre-Google lie told by Newt Gingrich. That got me to thinking that the post-Google era is catching up with the Republican Party and may eventually derail all of the authoritarians, Republican and Democratic alike.

Hopefully sooner rather than later, and before we do too much additional damage. :toast:

These powerful actors will somehow stifle the internet before they allow it to erode their power. Indeed the internet has evened the playing field a little but there is no way we can compete with the 24/7 propaganda news on every TV channel. Today took the cake with everything Dick Cheney and how his proclamations were so profound. All this while the GOP has a party identification number of 23%.

This graph is pretty encouraging I think:



I discuss the issue more in this post. There are a lot of encouraging trends:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5300306

once those two lines converge you will see a multi-tiered internet with sophisticated propaganda from the right wing. Up until now we see mostly unsophisticated RW propaganda on the internet.

:kick:

:kick:

This post is something I have wanted to do. And you did it. And I thank you profusely.

People do not realize just how dangerous an opponent we are dealing with. Many humane Americans are just letting things happen that should be seriously opposed.

Many things come to mind when one begins to realize the composition of the authoritarian. Such as things like the Ventura versus Hannity interview. They parted ways without Hannity so much as having gained any insight. He heard words, but he did not internalize. And what it tells me is that we cannot argue content with these kinds of people. We have to win the context. I think that's the best way I can say it. We're wasting our time unless we can find a way of revealing the bigger lies and faults of their world view. It may very well be our mission on this planet to change the consciousness of the authoritarians.

Both Authoritarian Follower and Social Dominator.

In every single "war game" that Dr Bob performed with the double highs in charge, a social meltdown and/or war was the result.

It is the double highs that are the real danger.

Hannity understands Ventura's arguments just fine, but he doesn't give a fuck, he's just in it for the power and money for himself.

I've thought a lot about this in my lifetime, and wondered how this can be done.

On a personal note, I was born into a family of fundamentalist Christians in Texas, during WWII. My father survived the war, came home, and spent the rest of his life reading -- mostly history. As a footnote, that habit of his was part of what I've thought of as my own "salvation." My dad stayed in the army because there were no jobs to be had, and I've often felt thankful, in a perverse way, for Pearl Harbor, since it saved me from being the daughter of a dry-land farmer in Texas. And my father's quiet habit of reading a wide range of historical offerings set an example for me (he didn't know how valuable an example) which served as a shield against the total lack of concern on the part of my whole family for anything "nonlocal." (And was it the war that made my father an armchair historian who went along to get along with all the church stuff, but didn't believe a word of it? Or did he possess an inborn higher intelligence that allowed him to see past the attributes of the world he was born into?)

The rest of my family were unassuming people who went to church three times a week, and were highly suspicious of my brother and me because ... "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?" We were in Korea when I was five, in Germany when I was 12 to 15. And I credit those experiences with my becoming the black sheep of the family who left all that was good and holy to marry a Californian, get a divorce, and raise (read that "ruin") a child on my own.

When I was five, I already knew I didn't believe the stuff coming out of the mouths of fundie Christian ministers, and as I was growing up, I was always a "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" with regard to my family. I couldn't relate; I didn't belong; I was bored to tears while amongst them. They didn't read (they had the Bible read *to* them); they didn't think; and I always felt an energy drain around them. Nothing moved; nothing happened.

Now, the question for me has always been: Why am I not now a Christian fundie, with little curiosity about the world? Surely, the early exposure to other countries and cultures had a major impact. I was 4-1/2 to 5-1/2 in Korea, and my mother insists that I couldn't remember that; I was too young! In a pig's eye!!! I remember it very well. And it made my world view much broader, even as a small child.

So, to apply this to changing the consciousness of the authoritarians: Does world travel change them? Not really. They have "Christian" missions all over the globe, and when they go into all the world, it's to preach their gospel, not to learn from anyone else.

Would personal suffering and the total collapse of the world they have known change them? Perhaps some of them, but there are still a few straggling Nazis who are still "Sieg Heiling" at funerals, despite the collapse of their Reich in 1945.

So, how to change the consciousness of the authoritarians?" It's a question, a question I have long puzzled over. Like others in this thread and on DU with backgrounds similar to mine, and deep familiarity with fundamentalist Christian authoritarians (leaders and followers), I know how close-minded they are, and how determined to supplant sophistication and rational thought with their indoctrinated, implanted worldview. To be in the presence of someone who is better than, greater than, makes them feel small. So they react with smugness, circle the wagons, and form an inpenetrable wall to keep out what is not easy and familiar.

I despair of being able to achieve what you've suggested. I want to be wrong.

in the face of, for instance things like, “racial and gender” inequality, both are traits related directly to Authoritarianism, and though the battle continues for even greater justice there has been some real and progressive gains that are the results of things like freeing the slaves, mandatory education, the integration of schools and woman’s suffrage. Keep in mind though that some (but not all) of the Authoritarian / regressive elements are seeking to turn back the pages of history by undoing much of what has been gained. But we can learn from real accomplishments is that people can change. And I think that as more people, and it may be mostly younger people that learn the psychology behind Authoritarianism, the more likelihood of even greater change for the better of all.

... the butcher knife just yet. :)

I agree that there are forces at play to take away our accomplishments. Home schooling by and for the ignorant is making great inroads against "mandatory education," and learning the psychology behind authoritarianism on the part of a younger generation will need the help of good basic high school standards, and accessibility to higher education without enslaving our younger generations to student loans.

I always try to remember that the generation following 1945 in Germany largely rejected what their parents' generation had done.

So ... hope, yes, and I'm talking about real hope, not the ersatz variety I'm seeing in some of Obama's offerings these days. (If they are really Obama's, and not those of the "Wiz" behind the curtain.)

Thanks for weighing in!

One thing to keep in mind when talking about this subject is that RWA isn't an all or none phenomenon. There is a continuum of where people fall on the scale. And people can change over time.

Consistent with your story, Altemeyer notes that going to college tends to reduce peoples' RWA scores by about 10% -- and those who tend to drop the most are those who had the highest scores to begin with. He attributes that, as you do, to an exposure to different people. Similarly, he notes that probably the most important fact in reducing homophobia is exposure to homosexuals.

I don't think that anyone knows how to do it -- at this time.

It may very well be that it would be a lot more practical to simply find a way to prevent them from harming others -- which would mean keeping them out of high elected offices. I don't mean doing that by force, but through our electoral system.

Edited to add that Altemeyer does note various kinds of exposures that tend to reduce peoples' RWA scores. See this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5692371&mesg_id=5698626

:kick:

They stifle unwanted projects even if the People would benefit.....

it would benefit. They have deep seated sense of selfish greedy entitlement.

It should be required reading in high school civics in this country.

Thank you for drawing attention to it on DU.

I took it a long time ago. I still remember how the government is supposed to function.

I don't think most people get it anymore.

K&R

are just too lazy to think for themselves and prefer living on their knees; probably the result of severe toilet training.

1) High degree of submission to authority
2) Willingness to attack other people in the name of the authority
3) Highly conventional attitudes

This defines pretty much any narrow group. This forum for example. Hanniet's forum, the Black Caucus.

What makes it special when applied to Bush? Couldn't it be equally applied to the progressive movement(s)?

It would be unusual for progressives to demonstrate these personality characteristics.

... of "The Other" that they undermine their own best interests by just becoming doormats, rather than standing up for a cause, as the authoritarians do. It's the extreme polar opposite of what you've described, and rare, I'd say.

There are some fairly militant socialists, too, who know what is best for the world and are working to achieve it. But the personality characteristics described in this article are mostly to be seen, especially in this country, among right-wing Christian Republicans. The last eight years have shown that it is so.

Great article. Thanks for the hard work!

You signed up here for WHAT purpose exactly?

And if you think this defines (not just exists, mind you, but defines) the progressive movement, then you're being willfully ignorant. In general, progressives are the tolerant side. The only time that really slips is when intolerant people come up. But don't waste your time in a tautological argument about being tolerant of intolerance, because that's just stupid.

DUers attack each other almost as much as they attack Repubs..

Two Democrats, three opinions is the general rule.

:rofl: :rofl:

Excellent post. It goes along great with a paper I wrote for my international relations class, comparing theories of realism and imperialism to the invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld's biblical quotes, the use of the terms "evil", "cold-blooded killers", etc., (aka the new neoconservativism) had an intentional effect to persuade.

When I get around to HTML-izing it, I'll post the whole thing. Here's a few excerpts:

This one particularly strikes a chord with me:

"Nationalism, having attained its first objective in the form of national unity and independence, develops automatically into imperialism."

I've often thought that nationalism, which a nation's elites translate into "patriotism" is one of the greatest scourges of mankind.

And bookmarked!

K&R!!!

The analysis presented here is incisive and important and very probably accurate. What does it suggest about our way out of this mess? Personality is not very changeable....

I really do want to see suggestions. We can't change their personalities. We can't revoke their right to vote (nor would we want to, being non-authoritarian types ourselves, for the most part). What do we do??

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :think: :shrug:

in Washington who have sold their souls (and ours) to the lobbyists who RUN our government. Those of us who are informed have an idea and know who these politicians are, and we MUST vote them out of our government at any cost... this includes some Democrats, unfortunately. We have to be vigilante and work in our communities to elect people who have OUR best interests, and the country's best interests at heart, and who will follow the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW of our land. We've got to do this or our country's future is doomed.

Perhaps the most difficult and important question of our times.

Altemeyer addresses this in the last section of his book. I think that we have a long way to go towards find a solution to this (and so does Altemeyer), but Altemeyer does have some important suggestions. I talk about them in the last section of this post, under the heading "solutions":


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5385774

This is a fascinating read! Thank you.

k&r

It's a fascinating book too.

to know what we are dealing with.

These people, if you want to call them that, are frightening. They have almost brought our world down--some people would say they have already done so.

Thank you for all your work in putting this together.


Cher

I've gotten into the habit of signing into DU, finding the latest TimeforChange article, printing it out and really putting some time into it.

I don't know where you get the time - but I sure appreciate what you do!

I would add one critical ingredient or nuance to the above. As Eric Hoffer points out in The True Believer (the most basically vital book I ever read), the authoritarian follower also posseses an overwhelming desire to disappear into a mass movement. This as an antidote to a perceived failed life.

Can't make anything go right in your life? Hit "reset" by totally negating that life and being "re-born" into a mass movement where you are relieved of all personal decision-making.

People who want this can be almost unaware of what the principals behind their chosen movement consist of. It's the "cleansing" of all that (supposed) failure that's the thing!

It's very nice of you to say that.

And very interesting point about the "re-born". I hadn't consciously thought of that.

I think we need to cut and paste this information EVERYWHERE and EVERY CHANCE WE GET. I know I will.

Welcome to DU

And good luck in turning Texas purple :toast:

This is an excellent and illuminating lesson which highlights the RWA Character and their leaders. I have little doubt that the usefulness in understanding this conspiracy between certain personality types could change the way the tide of deception moves inimically against the collective social conscious.

I also agree with you assessment about Altemeyer’s brief and soft discussion about Authoritarian leaders, I believe that there is a lot of information on leaders that he could have drawn from and discussed in the book, but if he had more to say about the leaders he might have found it politically prudent not to have drawn their gaze and scrutiny. Suffice to say, the emphasis, to put it in proper context, was on the Authoritarian followers from which leaders get their power. So I applaud your work and efforts to shine the light equally on both the leaders and the followers.

I’m including the following brief speech and a short clip from the movie “V for Vendetta”. The man in the mask has taken over a TV Station in London and gives a dramatic speech that puts the bizarre and horrifying authoritarian relationship into a perspective that is taken out of both historical as well as present times.



A big K&R
Larry

Woops; let’s try it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLD3Z6sJWA&feature=related

And well I'm at it another K&R

Yeah, it's kind of hard to believe that Altemeyer doesn't see the "social dominators" for the psychopaths that they are.

"V for Vendetta" was a very intriguing movie -- but it was difficult for me to follow and understand (Maybe that's because I have more aptitude to learn by reading than by watching). Maybe I should see it again.

You can see the bookmarks on "My DU." You may have to contribute, though.

Welcome to DU.

I've been meaning to read that book for a while. Even more now. Maybe I'll move it up on my unread list.

The e-book that I linked to in this post makes it very easy to go from the text to the references (which are accompanied by interesting stories that add to the general narrative).

Which is sitting on my bookcase right now.

not "normal" people.

of individuals.

Yes, he needed lots of followers to help him. But I find the theory that Hitler and his henchmen (or Bush and his) didn't cause social ills very difficult to understand.

or of the 3rd reich itself.

so the numerous attempts to analyze his theoretically warped personality are a circle-jerk leading nowhere.

similar to the attempts to put "germans" or "german culture" under psychoanalysis. ("authoritarian personality," etc.)

but this kind of circle-jerk often passes for socio-political analysis these days.

I've read about 20 books on the subject. He led a genocide of 6 million Jews. There is no evidence that it would have happened without his leadership in the matter. He led his country into a war that resulted in tens of millions of deaths. Nobody can say that would have happened without him. Germany was not ready for war. They were not chomping at the bit to kill millions of innocent people. They followed his lead -- at least the RWAs did, and the rest were not able to stop him or didn't try hard enough.

Now tell me why you think this didn't happen.

personality.

kinda like how george washington single-handedly enslaved 6 million africans.

I said just the opposite.

Your point is that he had little to do with it. I keep asking you why you believe that, and you refuse to answer.

without hitler. i take that to mean "single-handedly" & a distortion of how hitler attained power & why; starting with the fact that he was a minor local player until he got some serious funding & backing from big capital, that the workcamps & the destruction of jewish-owned capital also served the interests of those funders, & war was desired by many too.

it's a distortion of reality & real social & economic processes to focus on hitler's personal psychology & say "see, he was bent, that's why everything happened!"

does not in any way mean that he did it single handedly. It required him, and it required a lot of people to help him.

2. Blocker, Joel. Europe: World War II slave labor victims demand compensation. Prague: Radio Free Europe, August 31, 1998.

A class-action suit calling for compensation for slave labor has been filed in California against 16 German firms including Volkswagon, Daimler-Benz and Siemens.

To ward off this type of litigation, many German companies have supported the idea of a "humanitarian" fund funded by private and public monies; at the same time, the firms deny legal responsibility, saying that the Nazis forced them to use slave labor.


3. Borkin, Joseph. The crime and punishment of I.G. Farben. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1997. xi, 250 pp.

A number of German chemical companies joined together during World War I; in 1925 these companies merged into a single corporation known as I.G. Farben. The corporation lined up with Hitler when he became chancellor, and although I.G.'s head Carl Bosch, a vocal anti-Nazi, pushed the industrial need for Jewish scientists before his death in 1940, I.G. led the industrial preparation for war.

During the war, I.G.'s industrial complex built at Auschwitz, to exploit the supply of death camp labor for the production of synthethic rubber and oil, was so enormous that the complex used as much electricity as the city of Berlin. I.G. also made money from the sale of Zyklon B used in the gas chambers.


4. Breitman, Richard. Official secret: what the Nazis planned, what the British and Americans knew. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998. viii, 325 pp.

The author blames the Allies' strict suppression of information about Hitler's killings for the failure to save more Jewish lives and property and to punish many known war criminals,.


5. Civil affairs handbook: France. Section 2A: German military government over Europe - France. Army Service Forces Manual M352-2A. Washington: Army Service Forces, 1944. 65 pp.

This wartime study compiled information about the harsh effects of German occupation on French banking, foreign trade, conscription of labor, and transportation. The French were also required to pay the costs of occupation and the Jews were subjected to both German anti-Jewish legislation and French anti-Jewish laws.


6. Davis, Douglas. "Behind the headlines: survivors recall Swiss policy of using Jews for slave labor". Online Global News & Analysis(January 5, 1998).

A British TV documentary revealed that Jewish refugees in Switzerland were subjected to forced labor in a network of more than 100 work camps established by official decree in 1940.
Filed in Library at D10.


7. Dobbs, Michael. "Ford and GM scrutinized for alleged Nazi collaboration: firms deny researchers' claims on aiding German war effort". Washington Post(November 30, 1998): A1.

Ford Motor Co. has hired researchers and historians, as well as lawyers, to defend a civil case brought against them on behalf of a young Russian woman forced from her home to work at the Ford plant at Cologne where she lived in a labor camp.


8. DuBois, Josiah E. The Devil's chemists: 24 conspirators of the international Farben cartel who manufacture wars. Boston: Beacon Press, 1952. 374 pp.

The Nuremberg trial of industrial war criminals held by the Americans in May 1947, ended in May 1948. Twenty-four I.G. executives were indicted and charged with five counts including "slavery and mass murder".

Although the court did convict the defendants most directly involved in the Aushwitz labor camp, Josiah E. DuBois, chief of the prosecution staff for the I.G. case, vowed to write a book about the Farben cartel when the court passed down sentences "light enough to please a chicken thief".


9. Favez, Jean-Claude. Une mission impossible? Le ICRC, les déportations et les camps de concentration nazis (An impossible mission? The International Red Cross, the deportations and the Nazi concentration camps). Lausanne: n.p., 1988.

According to Favez, the International Red Cross in Geneva knew in 1942 about the systematic murder of European Jews. A Red Cross committee met to consider an appeal against this genocide; under the influence of the Swiss government, the committee did not follow through.


10. Friedlander, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews: the years of persecution. Volume I. New York: HarperCollins, 1997. xii, 436 pp. Vol. I.

The liquidation of Jewish economic life in Nazi Germany was first tested by the Viennese model which called for a drastic restructuring of the economy through the emigration of the Jewish proletariat, the liquidation of unproductive businesses, the establishment of labor camps for the impoverished Jewish masses.


13. Gregor, Neil. Daimler-Benz in the Third Reich. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. xii, 276 pp.

Skilled Jews were forced to work at Daimler-Benz before final deportation; beginning in 1944, Daimler-Benz's production was relocated to decentralized underground caves dug out by concentration camp inmates as forced laborers.


23. Lochner, Louis P. Tycoons and tyrant: German industry from Hitler to Adenauer. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954. 304 pp.

A study of industrial leaders and their contributions to the Nazi war effort including financial contributions to Hitler's movement. Chapter 12 is on forced labor and the spoliation of foreign plants.


25. Munns, Roger. "Holocaust survivor sues for "back wages" from camp: man says German companies owe him for work he did for them in labor". Augusta Chronice Online(August 18, 1997).

Article tells of a man who claims that German companies owe him for work he did for them in labor camps during the war. The companies include Krupp, BASF, Hoecht, Bayer and Daimler-Benz.
Online: http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/020302/fea_LB0514-2.000.shtml.


27. Murr, Andrew and Tom Masland. "The Swiss halo slips again: add Jewish camps to Switzerland's list of sins". Newsweek 131, no.4(January 26, 1998): 36+.

During the Nazi era, the Swiss requested Germany to add the letter "J" to Jewish passports and did not extend Swiss banking-secrecy laws to cover Jews who had to reveal their account numbers, secret codes, and balances. Recent research show that the Swiss not only denied safe harbor and stole gold from Holocaust victims, but that the Swiss also maintained work camps for over 20,000 Jews, including resident Jews.


30. Pool, James. Hitler and his secret partners: contributions, loot and rewards, 1933-1945. New York: Pocket Books, 1997. xiv, 415 pp.

This is the tale of bizarre financial relationships during the Nazi regime involving Germany's top businessmen including financiers and industrialists, as well as foreign bankers and statesmen. The author describes how Nazis profited from looted art, labor camps, and stolen property.

story. they knew his "bent," "mein kampf," published 1925, was widely-read.

"Although Hitler originally wrote this book mostly for the followers of national socialism, it grew in popularity. From the royalties, Hitler was able to afford a Mercedes while still imprisoned. Moreover, he accumulated a tax debt of 405,500 Reichsmark (8 million USD today, or £4m UK Pounds Sterling) from the sale of about 240,000 copies by the time he became chancellor in 1933 (at which time his debt was waived).<5><6>"


The expropriation of jewish property was *desired* by a sector of the ruling class. labor camps were *desired* by the same folks - the low-cost method of competing with the foreign capital that was ruining them. war was *desired* as well, for similar reasons.

hitler was *chosen*, *appointed* by these folks - he was never elected, & he didn't put himself in power. he was put there by a faction of the ownership class.

individual pathology doesn't explain social or political processes. there is a well-documented chunk of research demonstrating that most ordinary, "normal" people will do cruel things under the right set of circumstances: e.g. the milgram experiment.

there are many bent people. it takes more than 1 bent person to materialise wars, genocides, & social horrors.

analyses of individual "bentness" are a circle-jerk leading no where.

Good point for us in our roles as citizens. These people exist and we have to continue to try to stay aware of what's truly in the common good and is moral, and influence our gov't accordingly, no matter their numbers and actions. And yes, power politics controls the anti-democratic agenda, not the personal characteristics of those who carry it forward.

However, in our role as parents or educators, it's important to do what we can in the development of the children we affect to influence them to care about those who are different, and to ground themselves with their better instincts. We also absolutely must never penalize them for the instinct to ask questions. (I mean of course one teaches a child the hurtful consequences of saying loudly, "Mommy, why is that lady so fat?", or some such.) People who are taught that asking questions is unacceptably offensive to authority, parental and other, are on their first steps to devaluing democratic participation.

And perhaps this is the key to understating the fatal flaws in all of the "isms" of our world...as it is defiantly the fatal flaw in Capitalism.
The sociopaths tend to rise to the top into positions of leadership.

Keep em coming TFC your posts are priceless.
K&R

Good point about the sociopaths rising to the top. It's their overwhelming ambition, aggression and cunning that carries them there.

There are lots of people with a strong dominance drive who still are uncomfortable with a "big lie". The "big lie" is the sort of intentional falsehood that doesn't simply spin or slant the truth favorably to oneself, but that completely reverses reality for political gain. For instance, calling someone who is dedicated to getting the facts straight and telling the truth as they know it, an habitual liar, or attacking a Governor for allowing crime in the state to rise when it in fact had fallen, or calling a war hero a traitor, or saying you didn't believe in military adventurism and trying to police the world when in fact you were planning a war of agression abroad. These were all examples from the Karl Rove/George W. Bush record.

Sociopaths have the political career advantage of being perfectly comfortable telling and repeating those sorts of lies. The tactic works in politics because 1) voters don't know the sociopath up close and personal and haven't caught him/her out from w/i their own experience, 2) most people show discomfort while attempting an extreme lie, and the sociopath's ease confuses normal people's radar, 3) people shown only on TV when they are aware they are being seen and judged are never caught, say, yelling at their spouses so they don't seem at all evil, quite the opposite 4) it takes a lot of work for reporters to fact check things said in a campaign and real writing talent to expose a candidate's egregious lies w/o appearing to be ideologically motivated and possibly lying yourself, and 5) sociopaths gravitate toward the already powerful, so their lies and actions in office usually advantage the elite of a society, giving them formidable allies who help advance them and their message.

When you work in even the smallest political campaign, daily you run across issues where you know what sorts of lies would hit voters' hot buttons and be advantageous. Non-sociopaths won't tell them, because inciting passions opposite from one's true beliefs doesn't advance any even moderately principled version of the common good, and inventing utter falsehoods about one's opponent and sticking to them even after they've been debunked leads to a mudslinging free-for-all that makes even highly driven normal people uncomfortable. Same goes for political dirty tricks. People working in a campaign office will often say something like, "Boy, I wish we could just...(do this, that, or the other dishonest thing that would embarrass the opponent)" knowing that the campaign would do nothing of the sort, and not in actuality wanting it to. So it's not superior cunning that allows the sociopathic candidate and campaign manager to say and do dreadful, totally deceptive things, it's lack of the conscience that would stop more normal people.

They think that democracy exists to put them in office, and once they get there, they tell the people to shut up and sit down because they're the boss of us.

Of course, then they meet their buddies in the backroom, smoke Cuban cigars, drink Scotch and conspire to direct public money their way.

or Nanny government but they want a Daddy government to keep them safe.

I love Altemeyer's book; it explains so much.

Now, with this powerful media that they control what are going to do about it?

Wonderful and interesting post - I love this stuff. Off to read the book.

Wasn't there a researcher (can remember the name) that also tied the authoritarian psychology back to se. IE healthy vs being taught that it is evil or a sin by an "authoritarian" who can then control you. Usually religious, but not always.

John Dean prominently discussed Altemeyer's research in his book, "Conservatives without Conscience".

Wilhelm Reich was who I was thinking for. Interesting observations on sex and authority. He seems to have gone a little bonkers later in life, kinda "aliens are out there" kinda stuff. Still interesting that he made these observations first hand in Nazi Germany.


THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF SEXUAL REPRESSION
Even Lenin noted a peculiar, irrational behavior on the part of the masses before and in the process of a revolt. On the soldiers' revolt in Russia in 1905, he wrote:
"The soldier had a great deal of sympathy for the cause of the peasant; at the mere mention of land, his eyes blazed with passion. Several times military power passed into the hands of the soldiers, but this power was hardly ever used resolutely. The soldiers wavered. A few hours after they had disposed of a hated superior, they released the others, entered into negotiations with the authorities, and then had themselves shot, submitted to the rod, had themselves yoked again." -Ueber Religion p. 65
Any mystic will explain such behavior on the basis of man's eternal moral nature, which, he would contend, prohibits a rebellion against the divine scheme and the "authority of the state" and its representatives. The vulgar Marxist simply disregards such phenomena, and he would have neither an understanding nor an explanation for them because they are not to be explained from a purely economic point of view. The Freudian conception comes considerably closer to the facts of the case, for it recognizes such behavior as the effect of infantile guilt-feelings toward the father figure. Yet it fails to give us any insight into the' sociological origin and function of this behavior, and for that reason does not lead to a practical solution. It also overlooks the connection between this behavior and the repression and distortion of the sexual life of the broad masses.

Sorry I don't have the sources handy, but I've read:

There's a genetic disposition toward conservatism or liberalism. (Possibly the species needs both?)

First-borns tend to align with authority, unless they had a lot of conflict with their parents.

Making decisions is generally stressful. (This means, for most people, it's literally HARD to be the leader, because you have to make the decisions AND bear responsibility for the results for everyone, not just yourself. Of course, it wouldn't be nearly so hard for psychopaths.)

Altemeyer does discuss the fact that people learn RWA from their parents -- But then going away to college tends to reduce one's RWA scores by about 10%.

Yes, making decisions is stressful. I was a supervisor for 17 years, and making decisions that affected other people was the most stressful part of my work much of the time (Right, it would have been a lot easier if I was a psychopath). I'm glad not to be one any more.

there is no choice betw. making decisions & not. Abdicating IS a decision. It's just less stressful, 'cause you kid yourself about what you're doing.

I myself am the firstborn of five children. When I was younger, in my teens and twenties, I was very conservative, certainly in personal tastes, lifestyle, and values, and to a certain extent in politics.

For instance I came of age during the 1960's and 1970's, and I did not share the liking that most people in my generation had for the rock-and-roll type of music. And I was in other ways very uptight.

I had some problems in high school with some difficult peers. That had much to do with my becoming uptight, and not liking rock-and-roll. I didn't want to like the kind of music that "they" liked. (Though unfortunately I found myself liking the same music my father liked.)

I had a very strong-minded, dominating father. When I was young I pretty much was not able to have my own thoughts about things, if such thoughts were against those that my father had. He was very easily offended, and I tried very hard not to offend him. I wanted to think that even if he was strong-minded and even dominating, he was basically good and basically had my best interests at heart.

I even registered as a Republican when I first registered to vote, I think in 1971. Though I shortly thereafter realized I was not happy being registered as a Republican, and changed my registration to an independent voter (no political party), and then shortly after that as a Democrat.

Even though my father had been a Democrat and had greatly admired FDR and Truman (he knew hardship during the Great Depression), and was strongly against Goldwater in 1964, he was very strongly against McGovern in 1972, and I was not able to go against him in that regard, and unfortunately voted for Nixon that year. My dad had served in the Navy during World War II (and had actually wanted to be in the Marines), and was offended by young people not willing to serve their country during the Vietnam War.

I became a Christian in my early 20's because it seemed to make sense to me. (Actually I had gone to church and Sunday School when I was younger, and a two-year confirmation class when I was in junior high, but at the time the real lesson about Christianity did not really "take" for me.) For a time it seemed to make sense to believe that the Bible might actually be God's authoritative "Word".

However I found that I had some serious problems as a young man, including problems with my relationship with my dad among other things.

As far as Christianity was concerned, I could never accept the idea of people going to hell if they did not "accept Christ" in this lifetime, for whatever reason. I became a more "mainstream" Christian; I went to Presbyterian, Methodist, and Lutheran churches which were not "fundamentalist", though I was in some groups with Christians who were of fundamentalist persuasion.

Over a period of time, with a number of episodes which happened starting in my early 20's, I came to realize that I had some serious problems in my relationship with my dad. He would decide in Godlike fashion that I needed, "http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm">for my own good", to be "lovingly" rebuked (actually treated like I had committed a crime or a heinous sin) when I made an honest mistake, honestly forgot something, or something was not according to his standards. And he was often especially poor at understanding, from my point of view, some difficult or sensitive personal issue which was causing me to be upset.

And I also had some problems at some of my early jobs. I badly screwed up on an assignment at my very first full-time job, and was not able to deal with the matter, and being chewed out by my boss, in a way that I was able to keep my dignity and self-respect.

My dad always worked very hard, and was "successful" (relatively speaking) in a worldly sense, and it seemed I could never measure up to his standards about working hard. I found that even if I was not going to outwardly rebel against him, I had a lot of inner rebellion which messed things up for me. I had a hard time at some of my early jobs.

It was about a little over a year after my father died, in the mid-1980's, when I was in my mid-30's, that I came to fully realize how angry I still was at my dad, and that he had been at times actually abusive. I.e. it was not just something wrong with me that I had problems with him (and a lot of anger, which spilled over into other areas of my life). That was a healthy realization for me.

I struggled with my anger about my dad for a long time, and was in much therapy, both individual and group therapy.

Along with realization that my dad had at times been abusive, I also came to realize that being a Christian (and supposedly having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ), had not been of help to me in enabling me to deal with my problems with my dad, and with other problems that I had. I eventually came to part company with the Christian faith, and feel as certain as I do of anything that that was the right thing for me to do.

There have been many very beneficial results in my life of having come to realize that my dad actually was at times abusive (i.e. my problems with him were not just something wrong with me.) I have become much less uptight, and much more certain about my own values, and much better in being able to deal with other people. And I have done some things that I had long wanted to do, both personally and professionally. (Though I have had, and still have problems, but to a lesser degree than I used to.) And I find that I am definitely "liberal" rather than "conservative", and much less aligning with authority than I used to be.



That is definitely true. I had a very hard time making some of my own decisions when I was a younger man. My dad was very strong and decisive, and I was often intimidated by him. (He eventually became president of a mid-sized electric utility company before he died, but was often very personally insensitive, though I don't think he was a total psychopath. He did do many very good things and very nice things, and when he was in a good mood he could be quite pleasant.) I have been much better at making my own decisions since coming to realize the truth about my dad.

Though I don't think I could myself ever be a leader or a boss, and make decisions and bear responsibility for the results of others. That is not for everyone. One thing that is very healthy is realizing my own strengths and my own weaknesses and limitations.

Some of these things can be easily applied to the power-hungry on the far left too.

For example about the authoritarian followers:

"They can be woefully uninformed about things they oppose, but they prefer ignorance and want to make others become as ignorant as they."

This is very well documented in the more authoritarian of the far left on the issue of guns. Rarely is there a news article or political speech or gun law that doesn't show ignorance or even downright lies.

Also, "One lever they use is fear, creating enemies where none exist, or making our enemies out to be a lot more dangerous than they really are."

This is used by the far left on the issue of gun control, global warming and other enemies.

I hate authoritarianism in any form.

But on the issue of global warming I've never noticed the left to exhibit much authoritarianism on the subject, nor have I noticed them exaggerating the threat.

I think that in order to discuss this you'd have to give some specific examples to make your point.

He says the issue is over, period, not subject to theory anymore. It is authoritarian to say there is no more room for scientific argument or doubt. If not about Global Warming itself, there is no room for debating the degree of Global Warming, its impact or how it places in our priorities. His dismissal of Bjorn Lomborg recently is a good example. That is his priority and in an authoritarian manner he will force it to be everybody else's priority too.

For guns just look at the laws and rhetoric concerning "assault weapons" which roughly translates to "it looks scary" and has little or no logic behind it. Recent articles here about the Mexican gangs getting hold of weapons from the US were full of inaccuracies and hype. Several people here caught it.

on the subject.

If Gore doesn't exaggerate the threat of global warming -- and I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't, in that his views on it are right in line with the scientific experts -- then I don't see how he can be accused of being authoritarian about it. He tries to call attention to an issue that poses grave consequences for the future of our planet.

About the exaggeration, the models and even the existence. They are silenced when they speak up. They tried to railroad Bjorn Lomborg for dissenting and succeeded, but he had it overthrown on appeal. Authoritarian is forcing laws through Congress that tell us how to act in response to Gore's pet global emergency.

This was a nice detailed view of the Republican Party and I might be inclined to agree with you......but, you are not a Republican, so it is difficult to believe that you might have any unique insights into what are the "Pillars of Republicanism". This might be what you hope are the "pillars" or might be what appear to be "pillars" in your view. However, this is just wasted print in my view. How does this help our efforts??? I would say....not at all.

Can we focus on what helps us win or what helps us succeed with needed legislation.....and forget all of the this pseudo-theoretical nonsense??? This is classic "preaching to the converted". If you want to help...tell us how we can use this (assuming it's correct) to our advantage. We don't need a liberal Rush.

If you're going to slander me by calling me a "liberal Rush", it might be appropriate of you to mention one single lie or exaggeration I told in this OP.

And maybe, since you thought that I did such a poor job of describing the right wingers of our country, you could do a better job?

My partner and I have been discussing the authoritarian minder / follower mindless especially in religious folks that have bowed down to R authoritarian/ taken over the reprehensible party since raygun, and how they could just give up their real input for following like lemmings..
Sorry if I m not making much sense..no coffee yet.

show facts to support their assertions. They use derogatory language to describe their opponents. They refuse to even read evidence that contradicts their beliefs. All confess to being Christian. All believe in the death penalty. All support the pro life agenda. All believe in execution for all Muslims based on the assumption of guilt. All support nuclear strikes on Muslim nations and the theft of their oil.

is another superb book on that subject. If you're researching the topic, don't miss it. He also has a truly eyeopening article on the RW agenda in the New Statesman, called "The plot against liberal America". As for the authoritarian followers, I believe John Dean was the first to take the subject out of Altemeyer's scholarly psychological studies, and bring it to the intelligent layperson in his book, Conservatives Without Conscience. Altemeyer had published professional text-style books on the topic many years ago. Dean encouraged the aged Altemeyer to write his own book for the layperson. Dean's book emphasizes how then-current leaders and followers fit the profile, while Altemeyer's emphasizes the overall theory. I believe they complement each other. As for authoritarian followers, they come in all political stripes though certain types of leaders--those emphasizing "my way or the highway" and retaliation against opponents--attract the highest percentage. For a follower, feeling like one is in charge by proxy can be addictive, and not relinquished easily.

Reluctantly I must say I've both experienced firsthand, and seen others be the recipients of heavy-handed mob attack here on DU for expressing sincere and pained dissent. Fortunately, the attackers are a small minority on the board, and blocking about 20 posters out of the 1,000's of members eliminates most of it.

First, I want to let you know, Time for change, that I always look forward to and enjoy your thoughtful posts with your thoughtful analyses. I have linked to your journal on my journal blogroll.

I have come to like and appreciate Bob Altmeyer’s book about authoritarians and the phenomenon of authoritarianism in followers and leaders.

The Swiss writer and psychologist, Alice Miller, in her http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php">books and in her http://www.alice-miller.com/">web http://www.naturalchild.com/alice_miller/">sites, deals with the matter of the matter of the often harmful effects of a person’s childhood upbringing, and childhood abuse and mistreatment, and the long term effects of such abuse and mistreatment.

Of particular note is her now online book http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm">For Your Own Good (a phrase my father used very often; I had a very difficult father), written in the early 1980’s, which starts by documenting the horrific, soul-destroying upbringing recommended by child rearing manuals of past centuries. One such manual was very popular in Germany in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, right at the time that the future perpetrators of the Nazi holocaust were children. She documents that all of the Nazi holocaust perpetrators, without exception (as far as she could find), had “strict” (actually soul-murdering) upbringings. Her book has an http://www.nospank.net/fyog13.htm">entire chapter on Hitler, which documents that he was constantly abused and tormented by his father, and shows how when he became dictator he manifested pretty much his own childhood history.

Here is a http://www.nospank.net/fyog9.htm#values">passage in Alice Miller’s book about Rudolf Höss, a commandment at Auschwitz, which includes a quote by him.



In http://www.nospank.net/fyog10.htm#central">another section of her book, which starts with an excerpt from Heinrich Himmler’s Posen speech in 1943, she has the following passages, which strikingly demonstrate how people who have had a certain childhood upbringing come to be authoritarian followers.


and



Altmeyer in his book describes both authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders. Alice Miller in her book did not show why one person might become an authoritarian follower while another person might become an authoritarian leader (like Hitler). That question was beyond the scope of her book, and I don’t think it was being asked at the time she wrote it.