Modern Conservatism & the Authoritarian Personality

[Huckleman2000]

I know, sounds like a PhD thesis.

In his new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience", John Dean looks to social psychology to explain the modern 'Conservative' movement. From this review:

Dean contends, and amply documents, that the "conservative" movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers’ devotion to authority and the movement’s own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.

I haven't read the whole book, but I've read several reviews and that led me to do more research into this idea of the Authoritarian Personality . Initial research in this area was conducted after WWII, to try to better understand the psychological bases that led to fascist social movements. The researchers developed a survey instrument that led to a score on the "F-scale" that strongly correlates to individual tendencies toward fascistic movements. Further research in this area was conducted by Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba, which resulted in the "Right Wing Authoritarianism" or RWA scale .

Altemeyer discovered a wide range of correlations over the years, which can be organized into four general categories.

1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:
* Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
* Hold contradictory ideas leading them to ‘speak out of both sides of their mouths.’
* Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
* Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
* Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
* Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:
* Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
* Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
* Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
* Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
* Be hostile toward homosexuals.
* Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
* Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

3: Profound Character Flaws — RWAs are more likely to:
* Be dogmatic.
* Be zealots.
* Be hypocrites.
* Be bullies when they have power over others.
* Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
* Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.

4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings — RWAs are more likely to:
* Believe they have no personal failings.
* Avoid learning about their personal failings.
* Be highly self-righteous.
* Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

RWA is also correlated with political conservatism — not so much at the level of ordinary voters, but with increasing strength as one moves from voters to activists to office holders, and then from lower to higher-level officeholders.

Brief review of other research

 

[Tom Collins]

If you were to substitute the word “religious” for the word “conservative”, it would read exactly the same. Have you ever noticed that the more politically conservative a person is the more powerfully religious they inevitably will be? Have you ever heard of an Atheistic Republican? I seriously doubt it.

 

[mack_the_knife]

If you were to substitute the word “religious” for the word “conservative”, it would read exactly the same. Have you ever noticed that the more politically conservative a person is the more powerfully religious they inevitably will be? Have you ever heard of an Atheistic Republican? I seriously doubt it.

I'm an athiest Republican. My wife is a Pagan Republican. Go Figure.

 

[mack_the_knife]

1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:
* Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Like Libs and Global Warming? Overpopulation (30 yrs ago)? Global Cooling (40 yrs ago)?
* Hold contradictory ideas leading them to ‘speak out of both sides of their mouths.’
Like Libs arguing against the death penalty and for abortion? Arguing for campaign finance reform and for freedom of speech? Voting for the financing of the war BEFORE voting against the financing of the war?
* Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
Like Libs and the Iraq War - or Global Warming - or Poor Katrina Response?
* Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
Like Libs and Global Warming?
* Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
See Above.
* Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.
See Above above above.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:
* Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
Like the right to bear arms?
* Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
Like pursuing people with laws that did not exist when the 'crime' was committed?
* Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
Like gloating that they would use their position of DA at a political rally to destroy an opposing political group's member?
* Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
Like giving favored treatment to over half the people in the country through affirmative action?
* Be hostile toward homosexuals.
Got me there, one of the annoying aspects of the right wing. However if you replace homosexual with Devout Christian, you come close.
* Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
Pretty vague - persecute almost anyone? Libs voluntarily hound and harp at most anyone who doesn't agree with them, is that close?
* Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
Like libs railing agaisnst any Conservative politican who says two words out of place yet ignore that same shortcoming in their own people?

3: Profound Character Flaws — RWAs are more likely to:
* Be dogmatic.
The Liberal movement has its own dogma and 'party line' that must be toed. See Leiberman for an example of what happens if you aren't properly following the current 'rules'.
* Be zealots.
You mean like people who hurl paint on other people cuz they're wearing furs or chain themselves to trees, or spike trees to injure logging workers, or fly to where an imminent attack is coming to act as 'human shields' for the enemy?
* Be hypocrites.
Like being a peace prize winner and talking about killing someone you dislike? Like protecting everyone's right to say what they like EXCEPT people who speak out against liberal causes, those people are hateful and must be silenced. Mistaking the freedom of speech for freedom from repurcussions of what you say?
* Be bullies when they have power over others.
Okay, okay - I can't do this anymore - Watch the behavior of CPS workers toward parents that they 'feel' have done something wrong. Watch the behavior of the IRS worker toward those they think have shorted the government a few bucks. A vast majority of governmental employees are liberals, btw, could it be that they like grabbing at those jobs that put them in authority positiongs? Especially unanswerable bureaucratic positions that are virtually without chance of answering for any mistakes made in the conduct of that position?
* Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
Oh, no, the libs have simply decided that anything bad for America is good for them.
* Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
Like twisting 'advise and confirm' to fillibuster over judges?

4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings — RWAs are more likely to:
* Believe they have no personal failings.
No one believes they have no failings. Even those who refuse to acknowledge they have them know they have them.
* Avoid learning about their personal failings.
How does one avoid learning of their personal failings - the guy who created this list is a hack.
* Be highly self-righteous.
Too fucking easy. Libs seem even more self-righteous than cons in the threads with their rolling eyes and dismissive remarks.
* Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.
Rewrite to read: Use liberal causes to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

I think, perhaps, what this is is a standardized listing of human foibles, rather than something that can only be applied to one side of a political debate.

 

[rgraham666]

I hate to be with Mack on this one, but he's right. The traits listed are not unique to the 'right'.

My view on authouritarianism goes back to Eric Fromm's book, Escape From Freedom.

Freedom is a frightening thing to most people. It involves constant thinking, constant doubt and personal responsibility. It is much easier to stop doing all these things and sink into an absolute truth of an ideology.

It's another reason why I call the neo-conservatives, neo-Marxists.

 

[SummerMorning]

I prefer the title Marxist-Capitalist myself ...

 

[rgraham666]

I prefer the title Marxist-Capitalist myself ...

They're both economic determinists. And both are quite willing to do anything to advance their goals. It's hard, from my point of view, to tell the difference between them.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's one of the reasons that I am fed up with the major parties and want only some gridlock in the next election. The hard right's blind allegiance to "traditional family values", which means imposing social conventions on millions of people who may not consent to such constraints in their private lives (or who don't believe in the morality on which such constraints are based in the first place) reminds me of the Taliban and the present regime of mullahs in Iran. That's why I call two of my former heroes (emphasis on the FORMER part) Ayatollah Falwell and Ayatollah Robertson. The hard left's blind allegiance to political correctness and a weak America is also nauseating. I say that they can both kiss my ass. Voting for a third party of my choice is at this point the only vote that I can cast that WON'T be wasted. It will be my personal vote of no confidence and censure in the existing major parties.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I hate to be with Mack on this one, but he's right. The traits listed are not unique to the 'right'.

My view on authouritarianism goes back to Eric Fromm's book, Escape From Freedom.

Freedom is a frightening thing to most people. It involves constant thinking, constant doubt and personal responsibility. It is much easier to stop doing all these things and sink into an absolute truth of an ideology.

It's another reason why I call the neo-conservatives, neo-Marxists.

Fromm's theories on authoritarianism formed the basis of the empirical work that followed, which Dean refers to.

I should also point out from the "Brief review of other research":

It should be noted that Altemeyer's use of "right wing" in this context tends to denote identification with the status quo rather than any particular set of social or political opinions. In this sense of the term, Stalinists can be as "right wing" as McCarthyites.

It's a valid criticism, to my mind, that in determining a tendency to identify with the status quo, the RWA scale therefore identifies those with "Conservative" beliefs (whether the status quo is a leftist or rightist political system). In that sense, it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more interesting is the range of correlative behavioral factors that go along with the Authoritarian personality. For example, in the famous experiment where people were supposed to give electric shocks to other subjects, those people with higher RWA scores administered the shocks more readily.

This tendency to abdicate one's personal morals to an authority is characteristic of religious dogmatists as well.

With the growing influence of the Religious Right in the Republican party, Dean's thesis appears to be that Authoritarians have become ascendent, and that the events of 9/11 have exacerbated this ascendence by stoking the fears that are central to the Authoritarian personality.

 

[Pure]

hi huck,

it's an old thesis, going back to adorno. but i think the brush stroke is a bit too broad. 'authoritarian personality' is found in many places.

likewise a few conservatives have remained true, i.e., to minimum interference of government. arlen specter on the surveillance programs.

i do think *the present "conservatives" in power, those so called, are very authoritarian, and many ordinary conservatives have wondered about, for instance, Bush signing a bill, but saying, "As Commander, i may not choose to enforce this."

recently Wm Buckly had a go at some of the weird things about the current 'conservatives'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml

Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative

CBS News Exclusive: Buckley Criticizes President For Interventionist Policies


Stamford, Conn., July 22, 2006


(CBS) President Bush ran for office as a "compassionate conservative." And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.

But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley.

CBS Evening News Saturday anchor Thalia Assuras sat down for an exclusive interview with Buckley about his disagreements with President Bush.

Buckley's Stamford, Conn., home is a tranquil place that allows Buckley to think, write and spend time with his canine companion, Sebastian.

"He's practically always with me," Buckley says.

Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.

Only on CBSNews.com: Watch more of Thalia Assuras's interview with William F. Buckley

Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy, including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran and its nuclear facilities.

"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"

Buckley does support the administration's approach to the North Korea's nuclear weapons threat, believing that working with Russia, China, Japan and South Korea is the best way to get Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. But that's about where the agreement ends.

"Has Mr. Bush found himself in any different circumstances than any of the other presidents you've known in terms of these crises?" Assuras asks.

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."

Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"

At 81, Mr. Buckley still continues to contribute a regular column to the National Review, the magazine he started 51 years ago.

By Thalia Assuras
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think Dean's description more accurately describes the Fascist/totalitarian personality of the 30's-50's than it does todays American NeoCons.

There are certainly RWA types on the extreme right, but I think most conservatives today are just conservatives, as they've always been, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's changed is that they've made politics personal and acrimonious. They're not willing to discuss issues anymore, they just slander the left, and now, unfortunately, the left has no choice but to slander back.

We don't do politics in America anymore. We do talk-show rage-ertainment.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think Dean's description more accurately describes the Fascist/totalitarian personality of the 30's-50's than it does todays American NeoCons.

There are certainly RWA types on the extreme right, but I think most conservatives today are just conservatives, as they've always been, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's changed is that they've made politics personal and acrimonious. They're not willing to discuss issues anymore, they just slander the left, and now, unfortunately, the left has no choice but to slander back.

We don't do politics in America anymore. We do talk-show rage-ertainment.

This is exactly the observation and experience that led Dean to examine this. Dean is no Liberal. He called his book Conservatives Without Conscience as an homage to Goldwater's book Conscience of a Conservative.

The tendency of authoritarians to identify with the status quo makes so-called 'conservative' movements susceptible to promoting leaders with authoritarian tendencies. Thus, you get people like Rove, Pat Robertson, Falwell, Nixon, Cheney, etc. in positions of power and influence. As authoritarians, they have little reticence in using fear and smear tactics to accomplish their ends.

There are certainly authoritarians within some so-called 'liberal' movements, but they don't rise to prominence. In fact, the inability to unite within a common ideology is the hallmark of the Democratic party.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'm an athiest Republican. My wife is a Pagan Republican. Go Figure.

but are you athiest and POOR and a Republican... sure THOSE can't exist!

("ROUS's? I don't believe they exist!")

 

[rgraham666]

One thing I've become fairly convinced of through my observation of humanity is that we prefer authouritarianism.

Not surprising as we're still apes at heart.

Apes gather themselves into troops. The alphas of the troop decide what the troop does and every one goes along with it. And conspire to become alphas themselves.

So democracy doesn't fit us well. Thanks to our brains we can be democrats but it's not our natural impulse.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

They're not willing to discuss issues anymore, they just slander the left, and now, unfortunately, the left has no choice but to slander back.

We don't do politics in America anymore. We do talk-show rage-ertainment.

I agree entirely with the bolded part.

The other part I quoted; not so much. I find it hard to believe either side can uniformly be blamed for the state of modern politics. It's more like someone (as an individual) started it, and someone else saw the effectiveness of it, how important it is to be seen as opposed to having your points heard. Politicians aren't exactly the most conscientious of people, on any side of any debate. It's all about alterior motives, and that makes talk obsolete. Everyone's to blame in this deal, even us, for paying so much attention to the drama it creates.

Q_C

 

[Pure]

We don't do politics in America anymore. We do talk-show rage-ertainment.

i think of the far right, the Limbaughs and Coulters are not really a position or set of values or beliefs. they have more, an allegiance, a zealous devotion to ... well, lately, presidential power; before that to some predifined picture of a virtuous in group and a bunch of evil others.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

but are you athiest and POOR and a Republican... sure THOSE can't exist!

("ROUS's? I don't believe they exist!")

Depends on what your definition of POOR is.

I'm with mack on this one...I am definitly not a religious person.

But then again I am not truely a conservative. I don't not agree with the right on many things.

 

[mack_the_knife]

but are you athiest and POOR and a Republican... sure THOSE can't exist!

("ROUS's? I don't believe they exist!")

For a four person household, our income is below the national average, does that count?

And, believe me, the religious right an I have many things we disagree upon. I suppose I'm mostly a foreign policy and economic conservative, as a posting author on this site, I highly doubt my social conservative credentials would be accepted by the 700 Club.

 

[Tom Collins]

I'm an athiest Republican. My wife is a Pagan Republican. Go Figure.

I shan't nit pick the athiest/agnostic thing. I'll simply accept that you're using the correct word in your sefl definition. That being said, I readily admit that I'm very surprised. I feel like Cryptozoologist who's gone looking for Bigfoot, Nessie or Champ without really believeing they exist and then winds up taking a picture of one.

As for your wife being Pagan Republican...not really surprising. I was speaking of religious people of all persuasions, not Christians.

 

[mack_the_knife]

I shan't nit pick the athiest/agnostic thing. I'll simply accept that you're using the correct word in your sefl definition. That being said, I readily admit that I'm very surprised. I feel like Cryptozoologist who's gone looking for Bigfoot, Nessie or Champ without really believeing they exist and then winds up taking a picture of one.

As for your wife being Pagan Republican...not really surprising. I was speaking of religious people of all persuasions, not Christians.

I'm quite clear on the difference. There is no higher power of any kind (save perhaps Pat Sajak). There are reasons to lean right other than the church (such as wanting to keep people out of my pocket just to give it to someone else who didn't earn it).

 

[Tom Collins]

I'm quite clear on the difference. There is no higher power of any kind (save perhaps Pat Sajak). There are reasons to lean right other than the church (such as wanting to keep people out of my pocket just to give it to someone else who didn't earn it).

You're a living reminder of something that I try to keep in mind, but don't always manage. The only true absolute is that there are none.

 

[rgraham666]

You're a living reminder of something that I try to keep in mind, but don't always manage. The only true absolute is that there are none.

Just so.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

but are you athiest and POOR and a Republican... sure THOSE can't exist!

("ROUS's? I don't believe they exist!")

Present and accounted for. More precisely: I'm an agnostic, registered republican that most definitely isn't rich. Combined household income for me and my wife is a little over $60k.

I'm registered republican, but in reality I'm a slightly right leaning moderate. I've never voted a straight party ticket in my life. This fall I will be voting for the dem challenger over the incumbent republican in my local congressional race.