EDITED: How do you understand the term "authoritarian"?

[Bolo Boffin]

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

My first experience with it was discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories with other DUers. (OK, discussing and debating which at times grew quite loud for Internet standards). Because I was a proponent of the "official" story, I was called an authoritarian.

I quickly came to dismiss the title. It only appeared to apply to those who (in my view) asked for actual evidence of allegations, not just "it could possibly be like this and Bush is evil, so that's how it happened." It seemed to go hand in hand with accusations of my supporting the Bush Administration, despite my actually having voted against Bush twice and having demonstrated against the Iraqi war, etc. But whatever - it was a nice four-dollar word that shuffled a rhetorical opponent off into a place where the debater no longer had to respect them.

And it may still be just that, now that the term is cropping up in the Snowden-NSA debate. But between then and now, I've run across a really great treatment on the subject. I cannot say that those who use the term use it in just this way, but the study is something that everyone should read:

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

This book was written in 2006, halfway through George W. Bush’s second term as president. A great deal was wrong with America then, and I thought the research on authoritarian personalities could explain a lot of it. Since then a new administration has been elected, and although it has had to deal with a very serious economic crisis brought on by others, it is taking steps to correct some of what is wrong.

However, the forces that largely caused the problems have remained on the scene, and are more active today than ever before. As I try to show in the “Comment on the Tea Party Movement” (link to the left), the research findings in this book apply at least as strongly to America today as they did four years ago. Indeed, the events of 2009 and 2010 have confirmed conclusion after conclusion in "The Authoritarians." I wrote in 2006 that the authoritarians in America were not going to go away if they lost the 2008 election, that they would be infuriated if a new president tried to carry out his mandate. That has certainly been the case.

If you check the “hit counter” on this page, you’ll see that this site has been visited nearly 300,000 times so far. The feedback I’ve gotten from those who have read The Authoritarians enables me to give you the major reason why you might want to do so too. “It ties things together for me,” people have said, “You can see how so many things all fit together.” “It explains the things about conservatives that didn’t make any sense to me,” others have commented. And the one that always brings a smile to my face, “Now at last I understand my brother-in-law” (or grandmother, uncle, woman in my car pool, Congressman, etc.).

Maybe it’ll work that way for you too.

Bob Altemeyer
May, 2010

Are those people who are using the term here and now at DU referring to this book? I don't know. If they are, I wish they had brought a link to this research long before now. I suspect that a basic awareness of this information is filtering through, but many using the term probably have never read this book.

The book is free as a PDF (though you can order bound copies), and quite good. Altemeyer has been conducting surveys of his students for decades now, and it is those surveys along with other material that he uses to diagnose authoritarianism and demonstrate its dangers to a democratic society. In fact, you can take the basic test he has given out to his students and others yourself, although Altemeyer cautions against reading too much into an individual score. It's in the aggregate that the test works best.

One of Altemeyer's points in his book is that authoritarian personalities, both followers and leaders, are on both sides of the aisle, and he uses the terms "right" and "left" very differently than you may be used to. Politically speaking, he does maintain a regular understanding, but his focus is on psychology. For example, those Russians who were diehard supporters of the Soviet regime would be a "psychological right-wing authoritarian" even though their political views were on the left, traditionally speaking. A "left-wing authoritarian" would be someone, either follower or leader, who wants to overthrow the establishment - a follower of Che Guevara or Lenin (back when Lenin was not in power). This idiosyncratic terminology can be confusing to first-time readers, so Altemeyer spends some time hashing it out.

Some excerpts from the book itself (the quote above is from the website):

Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves. It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want--which often is something undemocratic, tyrannical and brutal. In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies, and eventually lost to them in wars both hot and cold. But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I'm going to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the nation.

...Finally, just to take this to its ludicrous extreme, I asked for reactions to a “law to eliminate right-wing authoritarians.” (I told the subjects that right-wing authoritarians are people who are so submissive to authority, so aggressive in the name of authority, and so conventional that they may pose a threat to democratic rule.) RWA scale scores did not connect as solidly with joining this posse as they had in the other cases. Surely some of the high RWAs realized that if they supported this law, they were being the very people whom the law would persecute, and the posse should therefore put itself in jail. But not all of them realized this, for authoritarian followers still favored, more than others did, a law to persecute themselves. You can almost hear the circuits clanking shut in their brains: “If the government says these people are dangerous, then they’ve got to be stopped.”

Early on in the book, Altemeyer describes a game of global politics/war that he manipulated so that on one night, only people who scored low on a Right-Wing Authoritarian scale played, and on the next only people who scored high played. You want to guess how both games turned out?

Anyway, it's a fascinating read and could contribute to a better understanding of what's going on in our country (and perhaps even in our discussion board) today. Do be sure and get the later addendums to the original book, including the Tea Party chapter.

EDITED: I've edited the title so that we can perhaps get away from the etymology lessons and actually discuss the term, how it's used, and the book I spent a while discussing in the OP here.

[dkf]

1. Is a democratic surveillance state possible?

Being able to name things is an important part of our humanity. (Before everything went sideways, Adam was supposed to spend eternity in the Garden of Eden naming animals.) Being able to name things gives us a power to describe them, identify what we like and don’t like, and begin to think of better alternatives.

So it’s important to name what we are seeing with the recent stories from the Guardian and The Washington Post on how the U.S. government is collecting cell-phone metadata and mining data from Internet companies. The best name that I have seen for this is the “National Surveillance State.”

A surveillance state is one that uses bulk information and data techniques to monitor its citizens and draw inferences about their potential behavior in the service of carrying out the responsibilities that it sets out for itself. Like other parts of the state (welfare, national security), the surveillance state provides a type of security for its citizens through the manipulation of knowledge and resources. And like other parts of the state, the surveillance state fights against democratic efforts to provide accountability and transparency.
This name comes from a 2008 paper, “The Constitution in the National Surveillance State,” by Yale law professor Jack Balkin. He provocatively argues that “[t]he question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of state we will have.”

If that’s true, how can we distinguish between better and worse surveillance states? Balkin identifies and contrasts two. The first is an authoritarian surveillance state, while the second is a democratic surveillance state. And the recent scandals clearly reveal that we live in an authoritarian one.

What do authoritarian surveillance states do? They act as “information gluttons and information misers.” As gluttons, they take in as much information as possible. More is always better, indiscriminate access is better than targeted responses, and there’s a general presumption that they’ll have access to whatever they want, at any time.

But authoritarian surveillance states also act as misers, preventing any information about themselves from being released. Their actions and the information they gather are kept secret from both the public and the rest of government.

Even though the paper is from 2008, this description of an authoritarian surveillance state fits perfectly with recent revelations about the Obama administration. The information that the National Security Agency has been seeking, from phone metadata to server access, is about as expansive as one could imagine. Meanwhile, the administration’s war on whistleblowers, which received public attention after revelations about the surveillance of AP reporters, shows a lack of interest in measures of transparency and accountability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/08/is-a-democratic-surveillance-state-possible/

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Anyone seeking to defend the accidentally revealed machinations of the national

Security state is an authoritarian. They may think that they are Democrats, liberals, progressives, but they are acting on behalf of a system that is not democratic, is immune to democratic political processes, and that is engaged in activities that demonstrate that it views "the people" as an enemy that needs to be closely monitored in order to defend against any threat we might pose. The word is being used because it is the correct description.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. "They may think that they are Democrats, liberals, progressives"

And as Altemeyer points outs in his research, they may very well be all three of those things.

Being a RWA psychologically is not an indicator of being right wing politically, not in Altemeyer's view. And I very much doubt that even the highest scoring RWA here at DU would be scoring as highly on that chart as the average Tea Party member.

[Summer Hathaway]

7. "Accidentally revealed"?

More like "known for years by those who were paying attention".

Of course, the 'revelation' that someone in Snowden's position could easily access the personal information of any citizen, up to and including the president, was new. Do you think he'll be offering any proof of that anytime soon?

[ElboRuum]

21. That's a very authoritarian viewpoint, Warren. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

47. I think perhaps you have confused authoritative with authoritarian.

[ElboRuum]

48. No, I have not. n/t.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Oh, I'm sure it is.

But Altemeyer has done a lot of research on the subject. The book is very much worth your time.

ETA: Hmm, Quantess pulled the post. I don't know why. Anyway, here's her link.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1957/authoritarian.htm

[Recursion]

4. First attested use is 1859, as a noun

It didn't become an adjective until a few decades later.

[Fumesucker]

8. I've posted about Dr Bob's book quite a few times on DU

I'm pretty sure I have an OP up about it on GD but I'm too lazy/occupied to search for it.

A fascinating read for sure and it really does make some things clear for those of us who are not authoritarians and don't easily relate to their mindset.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. I'm glad you have shared it!

Nothing like good research to warm an authoritarian's heart!

I kid, of course. Authoritarians could give two shakes for scientific research that questions their beliefs.

[treestar]

9. It's just name calling

If you question that every leaker is a hero, you get called that. If you think the government is not always evil, you get called that. It's not worth that much serious reflection. It's a straw man.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. It can be, I agree.

But still do check out the book.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Wow. You really should read it. n/t

[Fumesucker]

18. There is some truth to what you say

But you are exaggerating quite a bit also, almost as much as those who say what you are talking about.

Of course the government is not always evil but it has done plenty of evil things in the past, the Tuskegee Experiment comes to mind as one horrific example and there are plenty more.

Government is a tool, in my experience the more powerful the tool the more judiciously and cautiously it should be used because the more dangerous the misuse of that tool can be.

[ElboRuum]

22. Yes, it is.

What's ironic is that binary thinking is often the hallmark of the authoritarian mindset. "If you're not with us, you're against us." "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong/a sheep/drinking the Kool Aid."

[CakeGrrl]

34. Yes. The irony here is quite thick.

It's particularly telling in the tone of the responses when, as you noted, one dares suggest that Snowden's motives are not the purest as evidenced by his actions since fleeing the U.S.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Altmeyer relies on classic poli sci research

The term is much older, hell I studied it in comparative government in 1985. It is standard descriptor of a type of government.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Thanks.

His research can at least inform the topic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Absolutely, it is the best modern introduction IMO

[UTUSN]

15. "used on both sides" but currently it's being used as ad hominem & bullying & knee-jerking

It's not uncommon as a propaganda rhetorical device among True Believers. Idealism is one part of Dems/Libs, and like everything else is graduated on a spectrum with purity for/against at either end of the spectrum. Some of us are somewhere within the bulge of the Bell Curve. Those at the ends tend to lash out.

Other members of the Dem coalition, such as the CHAVISTAS, have flung all manner of names at anybody who criticized Hugo, claiming that we were brainwashed by the CIA and spouting talking points, and, yes, on the side of "authoritarians."

What's funny is that those name-calling with that word are de facto demanding a shut-down of differing opinions, therefore being authoritarians themselves.

In the SNOWDEN/GREENWALD wars, for me it's all about those two, not about privacy or intelligence. Their revelations were just confirmations of my assumptions. Their methods and motives are my problems.

Both of them appear to be unschooled and out for their individual selves without socialization with others. I would think that a lawyer/GREENWALD would not appear to be learning about "ad hominem" only when it is used against him:

*********QUOTE********

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[font size=5]Frequently Told Lies (FTLs)[/font]

by Glenn GREENWALD

.... I'm a right-wing libertarian
Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]label[/FONT] to me. It’s almost always [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance[/FONT] of their arguments. It’s the classic [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]ad hominem[/FONT] fallacy: you don’t need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he’s an X. ....

**********UNQUOTE**********

[Fumesucker]

20. Have you read the book mentioned in the OP?

I've read it a couple of times and read parts of it more than that, it's really eye opening and explains a lot, in particular it explains why the Republicans got in lockstep behind Dubya and did all kinds of really stupid stuff.

[UTUSN]

23. no, replying to the word in the current unpleasantness that piqued the o.p. nt

[Fumesucker]

26. The word has an actual specific meaning, at least in context of the book

It's an interesting characteristic of authoritarians that they are typically rather incurious.

[UTUSN]

32. i.m mildly curious about where u and i are headed in ths colloquy. nt

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2013, 09:38 AM - Edit history (2)

[bananas]

17. How old are you?

The word "authoritarian" goes waaay back, and it's been used in many contexts, including non-political contexts such as "authoritarian parenting" etc.
http://psychology.about.com/od/childcare/f/authoritarian-parenting.htm

[BOG PERSON]

24. it's not a inherently bad thing

just depends on who's wielding the authority, and on whose behalf

there's kind of an implicit understanding of that here too, since some of the people here are evidently ok with it so long as a democratic administration is doing it, because it represents them

[backscatter712]

19. Altemeyer's book should be required reading! n/t

[woo me with science]

25. Ah, the attempt to discredit the term, "authoritarian." I predicted this OP.

I've seen this tactic in several posts lately and figured it would be used for an OP. Authoritarians don't like being called what they are, and since they can't yet prohibit words and restrict others to an approved Newspeak Dictionary, they settle for flailing at and attempting to discredit the individual words they dislike.

This tactic, used less slickly and more openly as elsewhere in this thread, is most amusing in one-to-one settings. When someone uses an accurate word to describe what you are doing or advocating, just put the word in quotation marks, add some exclamation points, and try to neutralize it by pretending it's an epithet instead of an accurate descriptor. We have all seen it here 1,000 times. A person's politics are described as Third Way, and he or she rears up in indignation, expressing shock at the "namecalling."

Well, no. "Third Way" means something. It is not an epithet, but rather descriptive shorthand for a clear and specific set of political values and policies. You can see what "Third Way" means by going to the Third Way website, where the goals and policies - liberal on the social issues unimportant to the One Percent but corporate and authoritarian on virtually everything else - are clearly delineated.

Those who embrace the policies don't want to admit it, so they try to make the term an epithet...something to be banned by a jury so that it can't be accurately applied to them on the forums. And now we are hearing the same sort of defensive attempts to discredit the word when authoritarianism is called "authoritarianism."

Of course "authoritarian" means something. Brazen defense of a government's spying on its own citizens is indisputably authoritarian.

I always picture an indignant poodle rearing up in outrage and exclaiming, "What?! You called me a DOG?!"

Orwell was right. Defending against authoritarianism *requires* defending language, because authoritarians will try to twist, discredit, or take away the words that are necessary for us to describe what is being done to us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3165643

Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak.

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. [font color=blue]It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. [/font color]
Orwell, 1984

"Doublethink"
"Thoughtcrime"
"Superlative" CPI
"Ethical" DroneStrikes
"Transparency"
"RealityBasedCommunity"

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Yes, if by "discrediting the term" you mean grounding it in science

and finding a way for everyone to talk about it and perhaps recognize it in their life.

Perhaps you should read the book before kneejerk dismissing the OP.

[backscatter712]

35. We're absolutely seeing a lot of high-RWAs posting on this board.

It's kind of sad, really - with the Evo Morales thing, they painted themselves into a corner, and then decided to double-down, and started with the trashing and bashing of Morales: "He's high on coca leaves!," "He hung out with Hugo Chavez, and said crazy shit!,"

It's classic trait #2 from Altemeyer's 3-trait definition: authoritarian aggression. They can't help themselves. Every time someone questions their worldview, they lash out.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. "Every time someone questions their worldview, they lash out." Not what Altemeyer says.

It's only when they feel both "right" in that the attack is endorsed by or supports the authority AND "might" in that they have superior numbers or other physical advantage. If someone questions their worldview and the high-RWA feels he or she is outnumbered or weak, they won't lash out.

[HiPointDem]

40. +1

[gollygee]

28. The term often has merit, but on the other hand

libertarians throw it around too liberally.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Yes, I think that's so.

If a wide variety of DUers were involved in a global politics game like Altemeyer describes, I've a hunch it would go rather like the lower-RWA-score game than the higher-RWA-score game, even if our highest RWA scorers were involved.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Seriously? It is an old and actual word with meanings in serveral contexts

authoritarian
First recorded use 1862, "favoring imposed order over freedom,". Noun in the sense of one advocating or practicing such governance is from 1859.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Read the book.

Dispense with the attitude. Thanks.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Why should everyone read a book written well over a century after the word came into use

before they can explain to you where the term "authoritarian" came from? You seem to think that all modern useage must refer back to Altemeyer.

The quotations the OED uses:
adjective:
1879 Daily News 28 June 2/6 Men who are authoritarian by nature, and cannot imagine that a country should be orderly save under a military despotism.
1882 Contemp. Rev. Sept. 459 Communists of the ‘Authoritarian’ type.
noun:
1883 Times 2 Jan. 3/1 (Gambetta) was accused of being an authoritarian.
1884 Seeley in Encycl. Brit. XVII. 226/1 A lover of liberty, not an authoritarian.

So it was reasonably common in the 19th century, in use in things like Encyclopaedia Britannica articles. Or, if you want something from the 20th century:

"The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians."
George Orwell, in a letter to Malcolm Muggeridge (4 December 1948), quoted in Malcolm Muggeridge : A Life (1980) by Ian Hunter

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Read it, don't read it.

I don't care what the hell you do, muriel. But if you're not going to read it, why are you in this thread?

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. If you don't want the answer to "Where did the term "authoritarian" come from?", don't ask it

Especially in the thread title. If you put a question in the thread title, you make people think you want an answer. When the rest of your OP is about a book written in 2006, you give the impression that you think it is a modern word, from just the past decade, and that one book is the defining study on the concept.

We're telling you it's been used in everyday discussion of politics for well over a century. If the purpose of the thread is "everyone should read this book", then change the title to reflect your desire.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Thank you for your concern. n/t

[bigtree]

31. I'm glad you decided to take this on. . . it's almost juvenile the way these terms are thrown around

. . . here in the DU Archipelago.

[Fumesucker]

41. Emoprogs are emo

Eh?

ETA: Just remembered this little bon mot of yours.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2870956

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. First Known Use of AUTHORITARIAN---- 1879

au·thor·i·tar·i·an adjective \ȯ-ˌthär-ə-ˈter-ē-ən, ə-, -ˌthȯr-\

Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun
See authoritarian defined for English-language learners »
See authoritarian defined for kids »
Examples of AUTHORITARIAN
<grew up with an authoritarian older sister who thought she was queen of the world>
<an authoritarian coach who runs football practice like it's boot camp>

First Known Use of AUTHORITARIAN----1879

Related to AUTHORITARIAN
Synonyms
bossy, authoritative, autocratic (also autocratical), despotic, dictatorial, domineering, imperious, masterful, overbearing, peremptory, tyrannical (also tyrannic), tyrannous

Antonyms
clement, forbearing, gentle, indulgent, lax, lenient, tolerant

Related Words
arrogant, assumptive, disdainful, fastuous, haughty, highfalutin (also hifalutin), high-and-mighty, high-hat, huffy, important, lofty, lordly, overweening, presuming, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, self-asserting, supercilious, superior, toplofty (also toploftical), uppish, uppity; commanding, controlling, dictating, regimental; arbitrary, high-handed, imperial; directorial, magisterial; aggressive, assertive, self-assertive; imperative; conceited, narcissistic, pompous, vain; all-powerful, almighty, omnipotent; firm, stern

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Thank you.

You've solved the mystery! Now, unless you'd like to discuss the book, your assistance is no longer required.

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. "Now, unless you'd like to discuss the book, your assistance is no longer required." LOL!!

How authoritarian of you! I'm good though, I've had my yearly interaction with you. Any more would just ruin an otherwise healthy friendship we've cultivated over the past 7 years. See ya' next year!

Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

45. You could discuss the book. n/t