This diary corrects a material omission on a front-page diary that neglects to mention the contribution made by John Dean to the scholarship on the subject of 'Authoritarianism' as applied to the current groups of Republicans in the White House and elsewhere.
I. John Dean published a book, Conservatives Without Conscience in July 2006
The book's publication date is July 11, 2006, and is currently available in various different formats on-line, or at public libraries. Its availability, and wide-spread discussion and review in mid-2006 cannot be denied by anyone who either follows the politics of the Bush Crime Family, or who have researched anything to do with this Administration. John Dean is famous for his involvement in Watergate, and was one of the first distinguished critics of the Administration with the publication of his book Worse Than Watergate in 2004.
The book was reviewed by Glenn Greenwald, The New York Times, and The Washington Post among several others.
Those that missed the book, or for one reason or another cannot read, may have heard about the book Conservatives without Conscience by listening to Keith Olbermann's Hardball show during 2006, or The Daily Show on July 11, 2006. There were also several live events that the author participated in during the book tour in the Summer of 2006.
II. John Dean discussed his book three times in 2006 on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown
July 10, 2006
DEAN: I ran into a massive study that had really been going on for 50 years now, by academics. They’ve never really shared this with the general public. It’s a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality, both those who are inclined to follow leaders, and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders.
...
OLBERMANN: Does it really -- do the studies indicate that it really has anything to do with the political point of view? Is it -- would it be easier to essentially superimpose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Or is it theoretically possible that they could they have gone in either direction, and it’s just a question of people who like to follow other people?
DEAN: They found -- they have found really -- maybe a small, 1 percent of the left, who follow authoritarianism, probably the far left. But as far as widespread testing, it is just overwhelmingly our conservative orientation....Well, to me, it was something of an epiphany to run into this information. First, I’d never read about it before. I sort of worked my way into it until I found it. It’s not generally known out there what’s going on. And I think, from best we can tell, these people, the followers, a few of them, will change their ways when they realize what they’re doing, not even aware of their behavior.
...
DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, I look at the numbers in the United States, and I see about 23 percent of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers. They’re not going to change. They’re going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them -- and they’re growing. And they have tremendous influence on Republican politics. The best thing, the best defense is understanding them, to realize what they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective, then they can be seen for what they are.
August 31, 2006
OLBERMANN: When your book came out, we talked at length about the psychological study of authoritarian personalities and how they had overtaken the conservative movement. Is there room in that psychological structure for one of them like the secretary seriously misjudging the playing field and overreaching? Is that one of the symptoms of all this, and did he do that in this speech?
DEAN: Keith, this is textbook authoritarianism. I can’t think of a better example. It’s the typical zeal, it’s the sort of blind aggression to go out and reach out and perpetuates your world view or to sell it to others using whatever means you have to. And these are very strong and typical authoritarian traits, so it doesn’t surprise me and the fact that others had to call it to his attention to have some sort of critical look at it is very typical of what happens with those authoritarianism, so it is exactly what I was talking about in the book.
OLBERMANN: Can there be, in your opinion, a bigger or broader danger to our democracy then when the very notion of debates, never mind the particulars of debate, becomes not just anathema to the leader, but no is no longer seen as a requirement for the very survival of the democracy?
DEAN: Well, I think it’s essential we have debate. I think it’s essential that debate be honest debate and that’s one of the things when I read the Rumsfeld speech, I mean, it’s riddled with errors, historical and distortions, mischaracterization, as well as being rather vicious in its attack. This is not really what I would call a very high level of debate. It’s sort of the -- the level of civility is dubious on this one, whereas it’s very important to have a good debate on these issues.
December 8, 2006
OLBERMANN: I still retain a negative fondness for James Buchanan. But we have talked about this White House being the textbook case of authoritarianism before. Since the last time we discussed this, the war in Iraq has unbelievably gone to even much worse from the original bad.
If, in face of the overwhelming evidence that the plan in Iraq is not working, the public disapproval at this extraordinary high, if, even now, President Bush is not willing to change course on a real basis, and Mr. Rumsfeld’s not to-- not expressing any remorse, might that be the deciding historical factor in declaring once and for all this president the worst one ever?
If someone missed the shows, missed the discussions about the book, the many reviews of it, and the discussions of it on various web-sites and blogs, Mr. Dean has just completed a three-part series on the Findlaw web-site, essentially condensing the book into three articles, and updating the argument made in the book, where necessary.
III. John Dean recently finished his three-part series on the subject.
Installment One, September 5, 2007
Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party: Authoritarians Have Taken Control
Outlining his path taken in the book, as he will summarize it in his series, and introducing his readers to past social science research upon which he drew for his original thesis:
While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives. To make the results of my rather lengthy inquiry very short, I found that it was the authoritarians who took control of the conservative movement in the 1980s, and then the Republican Party in the 1990s. Strikingly, these conservative Republicans - though hardly known for their timidity -- have not attempted to refute my report, because that is not possible. It is based on hard historical facts, which I set forth in considerable detail.
Authoritarian control continues to this day, so it is important to understand these people. There are two types of authoritarians: leaders (the few) and followers (the many). Study of these personalities began following World War II, when social psychologists asked how so many people could compliantly follow an authoritarian leader like Adolf Hitler and tolerate the Holocaust. Early research was based at the University of California, Berkeley, and it focused primarily on followers, culminating in the publication of a The Authoritarian Personality (1950) - a work that broadly described authoritarian personalities. The book was quite popular for decades, but as the Cold War ended, it had been on the shelf and ignored for a good while.
Given the strikingly conspicuous authoritarian nature of the contemporary conservative movement, and in turn, of the Republican Party, those familiar with the work of the Berkeley group thought it time to take another look at this work. For example, Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, observed that the fact that "the radical right has transformed itself from a marginal movement to an influential sector of the contemporary Republican Party" called for a reexamination of this work. That is exactly what I did, although I did not discover Dr. Wolfe's call for it until well into my project.
Installment Two, September 21, 2007
Why Authoritarians Now Control the Republican Party: The Rise of Authoritarian Conservatism
Arguing that the work done by others in political science research, when applied to the current situation yields some fascinating results. Dean, of course, gives detailed citations for those interested in further research:
These, of course, are followers. Altemeyer labeled these people "right-wing authoritarians" not because he was looking to target political conservatives, but rather because he was drawing broadly on the historical terms that identify those who openly submit to established authorities, and whether those authorities are political, economic or religious, those who submit to them are traditionally described as being on the right wing. As Altemeyer developed and refined his testing, however, it became apparent that those who tested as highly submissive to economic or religious authorities also proved to be hard-right political conservatives.
In addition to being especially submissive to established authority, Altemeyer's research revealed that those he calls right-wing authoritarians also show "general aggressiveness" towards others, when such behavior is "perceived to be sanctioned" by established authorities. Finally, these people are always highly compliant with the social conventions endorsed by society and established authorities. These basic traits, submissiveness to authority and conventionality, are the essence of those Altemeyer describes as right-wing authoritarians. If these traits are not present in some significant (albeit varying) degree, he does not consider the subject to be a right-wing authoritarian. However, these people can, and often do, consistently reveal they have many other interesting traits as well.
Installment Three, September 25, 2007
The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism On American Government
Concluding that:
Eastland, like many conservatives, thought it a poor showing when Ronald Reagan left office with the highest approval ratings of any post-World War II president. Quoting the voice of authoritarian conservatism, Charles Krauthammer, Eastland assessed this supposedly unfortunate aspect of the Reagan presidency to be "Like dying rich... a great moral failure." As this comment shows, authoritarians do not want Americans to love or even necessarily like their president; indeed, they believe a president must be doing something wrong if they do.
Bush and Cheney's actions must surely bring a smile to the faces of folks like Terry Eastland and Charles Krauthammer, as they sink lower and lower in their approval ratings, spending all their good will and then some. Authoritarian conservatives will no doubt be disappointed if Bush and Cheney do not manage to get to single-digit ratings before they leave.
Many observers have suggested that the Bush/Cheney Administration may, in the eyes of history, be the worst ever. Yet this condemnation must seem beside the point to authoritarians, for these people simply do not care what others think of their performance. What is important, in their eyes, is simply that these leaders and their compliant followers are doing things the way they believe they must be done, and enforcing their will upon any who dare to dissent or disagree.
It is my great hope that voters will reject the option of embracing yet more authoritarianism in 2008, for, even in this three-part series of columns and in my books, I have only touched on its negative impact on America.
IV. Conclusion
It is hoped that this brief diary corrects misconceptions currently being espoused on this web-site by one of its front-page diarists, and gives a much-required nod to the academic who has worked tirelessly over the past year-and-a-half to develop the concept of Authoritarianism as it applies to the current Administration: John Dean. It is wrong and improper to take another's ideas, and his development and application of that idea as one's own. This diary is an attempt to correct, and have some community moderation over the ideas expressed on this site by those who have been given the gravitas to speak on its behalf.
Thank you.