John Dean: Conservatives = Authoritarians

[Avalux]

Anyone else catch Keith Olbermann's interview with John Dean? It was incredible, and for once, I seem to understand the mentality of the neoconservative/Republican movement that has taken grip of our nation.

Dean's new book "Conservatives Without Conscience", delves into the psyche of modern-day Republicans, dividing them into two groups, the leaders and the followers. Apparently the book contains tons of information Dean himself didn't know - there's a definite psychological profile for these people, and the ugly traits have appeared by other names in other countries at other times. It's called authoritarianism, and the followers, as Dean describes, are extremely loyal to their leaders; will do just about anything to defend them. Having an enemy is the cohesive factor. They must have an enemy to attack - be it terrorists, liberals, or just about anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep and agree with their point of view. To remain in power, to keep the gold ring, they must have an enemy or the whole thing falls apart.

I think everyone will be happy to know that only 1% of those calling themselves Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc. have the proper wiring to be sucked into an authoritarian movement. We just don't get it - and that's why we spend countless hours here gasping in horror at the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

So when we talk about peace, when we talk about ending war and everyone getting along, conservatives cringe and plug their ears. What would they do if they didn't have someone to attack? They would cease to exist.

Here's more from John Dean about his new book. I'm definitely going to purchase it; fascinating stuff.

Contemporary conservatives have become extremely contentious, confrontational, and aggressive in nearly every area of politics and governing. Today they have a tough-guy (and, in a few instances, a tough-gal) attitude, an arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their extreme thinking. Incivility is now their norm. “During the Father Bush period, there was a presumption of civility,” Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute observes, but “we lost it under Clinton,” when conservatives relentlessly attacked his presidency, and “then the present President Bush deliberately chose a strategy of being a divider, rather than a uniter.”1

Even more troubling, the right-wing presidency of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney has taken positions that are in open defiance of international treaties or blatant violations of domestic laws, while pushing the limits of presidential power beyond the parameters of the Constitution. It is aided and abetted in these actions by a conservative Republican Congress that refuses to check or balance the president. These patterns were apparent long before the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, but the right wing’s bellicose response to the events of that day has escalated into a false claim of legitimacy. Many authors (and journalists) have described the extreme hubris now present in Washington, along with the striking abuses of power. While some of this activity has ostensibly been undertaken in the name of fighting terrorists, much of it is just good old-fashioned power corruption.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dea_060710_how_conservatives_ha.htm

[Sherman A1]

1. Insteresting

[Avalux]

2. >

[Marr]

3. It's hardly a new idea. Check out this quote from Jefferson:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

--Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824

People have been noting this aspect of the so-called "conservative movement" for years. There's nothing at all conservative about them- they're authoritarians.

[Avalux]

7. That's true -

however it sure was great hearing it all on TV; taking the information and using it to explain the current state of our country. Quite scary, actually.

[Marr]

8. Oh, I hear ya. I mean, I've heard the idea expressed personally-

but *never* in some big media outlet. Let alone television. That's highly unusual.

[AX10]

4. KICK

[chookie]

5. He must read my DU posts

I've been saying that for years. So has Tahiti Nut.

It's a social pathology.

I think more than 1% of liberals are prone to it, though. That being said, some of these authoritarian liberals comprise the highly touted conversion stories of Dem into Republican as the result of some great "insight" or reaction to a powerful event -- they find more opportunities to be mean on the Republican side.

[Avalux]

9. Dean did say the far-left was prone -

think about the leaders of the neoconservative movement - they were far-left liberals at one time.

[HereSince1628]

6. If you found this interesting you should read Jost et al

Psychological Bulletin vol 129, pp 339-375

It is a very revealing analysis of conservatism conducted by nationally recognized psychologists and social scientists.

[Avalux]

10. Thanks - I'll check it out.

And Dean may have used that publication in his book; apparently he's included a large amount of academic material. :hi:

[HereSince1628]

11. The paper was extraordinarily controversial--the project used Fed. money

if I remember correctly. The R's had a hissy-fit when it was published.

[Avalux]

12. kick!

:kick:

[omega minimo]

13. What you're talkin bout is the patriarchal hierarchical system

That was the theme of Thom Hartmann's show today (7-10). Check it out.

:hi:


"......then the present President Bush deliberately chose a strategy of being a divider, rather than a uniter."

"Even more troubling, the right-wing presidency of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney has taken positions that are in open defiance of international treaties or blatant violations of domestic laws, while pushing the limits of presidential power beyond the parameters of the Constitution. These patterns were apparent long before the terror attacks on September 11, 2001..."

These patterns were apparent the first week Bushco. was in office :evilfrown:

[Avalux]

14. This is truly troubling stuff.

Thanks for the info. I guess I've always known; now how do we stop it? :shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

15. Great interview....but wasted on the choir.

Now if Bill O'Reilly had Dean on to discuss his book and the authoritarian nature of social conservatives, that might reach the audience that needs to hear it. Of course, that would not be in Bill's best interests, would it?

[Avalux]

16. O'Reilly, lol.

Well, that will never happen; he probably couldn't comprehend Dean anyway. It may have been preaching to the choir, but KO's ratings are going up and he's gaining new viewers every day. If only a few people were 'enlightened' by that interview, it's worth it.

[Old and In the Way]

17. Quite true. F911 is on again tonight.

A few more people who never saw it will be shocked back to reality, too. Every day we get a little stronger.
Everyday, they get a little weaker from the exposure of the truth.

[bloom]

18. The 10 commandments - the authoritarian creed

Piscis Austrinus posted this is R/T - contrasting it with the 10 Commandments....

So here is the answer, and it's a good one: Romans 13:8-10:

"...The person who loves others has obeyed all the law. The law says, 'You must not be guilty of adultery. You must not murder anyone. You must not steal. You must not want to take your neighbor's things.' All these commands and all others are really only one rule; 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' Love never hurts a neighbor. So loving is obeying all the law."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x80461



I thought it was interesting - how similar a passage it was to the 10 commandments (not to steal, murder, etc.) - without all the Commands to obey God (see below). I've wondered before - why doesn't the Christian Right promote something out of the NEW Testament (IOW - about Christianity). Well - it seems to me that they don't - because the New Testament isn't authoritarian enough. It's all about obedience. Otherwise they could just post "Love your neighbor" or 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' and be done with it. The One commandment.

(3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name....

[Ilsa]

19. I hate that shit.

The authoritarianism, I mean. They want you to believe they are all fucking Capt Picard, the benevolent authority figure, but hell no.