Authoritarians and Conservative Politics
There’s something I want to delve into over a series of posts, and I thought I’d touch on the tip of that iceberg tonight. Namely: authoritarians, and the toxic impact they are having on democratic values and politics in America.
This is a subject area that is, as it were, part of the skeleton of what makes conservatism tick in contemporary politics. The conservative movement, as embodied by the current GOP and its largely Christian-religious base, is a relatively recent development on the national stage. It has gained momentum since Falwell et al’s jump into the spotlight with the perversely named “Moral Majority” in the late 1970s, and its successor organization the Christian Coalition.
The damage that has been done by this school of thought is insidious and widespread, and has managed to hijack older strains of conservatism and pervert them to a narrow, righteous, and dogmatic worldview that takes no prisoners and works to create a fundamentalist autocracy in place of actual democracy.
Democracy, you see, requires compromise, and truly listening to what others have to say so that compromise can be achieved. Because of the authoritarian orientation that closes doors to open discourse and marches roughshod in condemnatory righteousness over “enemies” (Let’s take our country back! We’re the Real America!) – we are losing or have already lost our channels of true bipartisanship. It is increasingly difficult to find common ground in national issues. The disconnect between liberals and conservatives has become a gaping chasm, and authoritarianism is the underlying dynamic, I think, behind why the country has become so polarized, so Red State/Blue, “Us or Them”, most markedly over the last decade.
In the posts I’ll write regarding this theme, I hope to share with you not only my rationale, but the social psychological research that underpins it. I believe my perspective is well-founded from a rational basis. I live in the eternally springing hope that rationality and not only emotional appeal can inform people’s political opinions. Yes, I know our knees all jerk more quickly to the emotional hotbutton, but at the end of the day if we are talking about long term strategic governance of a great nation (and I am), then rationality, I believe, should take premier place at the table. (That’s one reason I favor braniacs in the Presidency: it’s good to have Spock in office. At least then rational arguments will be considered, and it is likely that polemic will take second place.)
I find it ironic that I of all people am commenting on this sort of thing. According to the self-survey at Political Compass, I rate out as a libertarian-liberal somewhere on the spectrum near Gandhi. (hahahaha) Yet by some other measures I also have streaks of conservatism, and potential affiliation with certain closely defined conservative interests, ranging from aspects of Goldwater conservatism to a distinct Technocratic leaning. (again: hahahaha. I am amused by the weirdness of life.).
Yet I rather toss all these cards in the air, because labels are too constricting or not descriptive enough, and in my case at least, change situationally. And I know from experience that my socially “open-minded” leanings are stark enough to tie even most progressives into knots. They are also off-put by my avid gun-ownership. <g>
At the end of the day I aim to pitch most of my arguments to moderates and independents, not only because “you’re the swing votes, baybee!” but because I find them the least ideologue-driven of all interest groups, and actually inclined to listen to rational argument and come to their own conclusions. (But of course people with open minds willing to engage with new info and new perspectives can be found anywhere, and if you come from this orientation I welcome your thoughts no matter where you think you may fall on a political spectrum.)
So. I will be spending a little energy here delving into some threads of power and control that play largely upon fears and have, I believe, hijacked what our country is about in quite overt ways. I can’t separate these discussions entirely from my own potpourri of political leanings, but I can step back as a social scientist and make some observations and arguments founded in actual research, not merely reflexive opinion. Or, for that matter, ideology, to which I am rather allergic. My own eclectic interests are one reason I remain non-affiliated with any party, and prefer to ask pointed questions from something of an outsider stance.
Nevertheless, those points will be pointed rather directly at the present configuration of conservatism or better said, Republicanism, as it appears today, because that is where I find the most egregious offenses and greatest threat to the practical work of democracy, for reasons I will be getting into in coming posts.
There. Pump primed, posts to follow.
“Every facet, every department of your mind, is to be programmed by you; and unless you assume your rightful responsibility, and begin to program your own mind, the world will program it for you.”
Evil Nine – Cakehole
______
1. Political Compass offers a surprisingly accurate self-test, with some interesting social science to back it up. If you’re interested in how such things tick, read their various explanatory notes and links at the site. If you don’t care, just take the test for fun. If you’re a regular reader here and care to share, please feel free to post your Political Compass orientation. I’m curious. And hey, I’ll share my ratings specifics too, if at least 1 person posts their own in the comments 
Next in series: Authoritarians, pt 2: The Problem Broadly Outlined
My apologies. I accidentally deleted your comment.
I have watched this worsening problem with dismay. I would love to see a multidiscipline analysis of its etiology.
Well, thanks for stopping by and dropping me a note.
The authoritarian thing has been relatively little examined outside academic circles and certained pointed analysis such as John Dean's great Conservatives Without Conscience. It's so virulent, though, that I think we really need to expose it and talk about it more in public fora, so people can begin to recognize it as a gestalt and recognize the hazards that come with it. Hence this series of posts.
if you or others write in this topic area, too, I hope folks will leave pointers to those discussions in comments here at my blog.
Very interesting,right straight to the bookmarks! I assume you have read Altemeyer's stuff – he more or less quantifies the phenomenon, but loses credibility as a pure scientist because he has a distaste for authoritarians. As do I.
The most disturbing feature of authoritarians – fear. They walk and talk fear. Because of the we have to go through all the nonsense of having our abdomens xrayed and shampoo confiscated to get on an airplane.
Anyway. I'll be reading your stuff regularly. What a find!
Hey, Mark,
Nice to see you here. Thanks for stopping by.
I'm very familiar with Altemeyer's work, and find it offers rich insights into the authoritarian dilemma (in fact I'll be referencing it frequently in my posts).
I don't think his credibility is lessened by his personal stance, which he goes to great pains to keep out of his research proper. His body of work is extensive and rigorous, and his research and test methodologies have yielded the same results when repeated by other social scientists. His work has also been recognized by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which awarded him its prize for behavioral science research for his essay "Authoritarian Aggression." That's about the most prestigious award a social scientist can receive from his peers.
Of course, his is not the only work in this field (although it may be the most comprehensive), but it is of a piece with the other findings on the subject. There's much to explore there.
I hadn't seen enough of your writings before posting that comment – you directly reference Altemeyer. Then I see a quote for the day off to the side about fear, and see that I am on well-traveled ground. You are miles ahead of me on this journey, so I will be reading with interest.
Here's something you might be (probalby are) aware of … the prominence of sociopaths in the male population – between 2-4%. Couple that with Altemeyer's work, and what I see is cold and calculating leaders (corporate and military and political) manipulating the authoritarians to create a rigid authoritarian state.
Not a new phenomenon by any means.
Anyway, carry on.
These days with the government going from big to total, the more Libertarians we have the better!!!