As many of you know there has been a rise in interest in analyzing the "Authoritarian Personality" type. The original work was done by T. Adorno and colleagues in the book of the same name. This has been followed by much more work and summarized in John Dean's new book "Conservatives without Conscience".
Basically a person with an authoritarian personality believes in a strong leader and a hierarchical design to social organizations including government and the church. They also need simple answers to life's hard questions and once they have such an answer stick with it even in the face of contrary evidence. Other studies have show a strong correlation between this personality type and a conservative political outlook.
A proposal on how to deal with this type of person below.
Much of Dean's book is based upon the work of Robert Altemeyer. A good summary of work in this field can be found in this
article.
Both Dean and Altemeyer claim that this personality type (which they estimate at about 23% of the population) is unreachable by progressive or liberal ideas. "A leopard cannot change its spots" fits these people perfectly. I'm going to assume they are right, but I still think there is something that can be done about this.
I claim there are two types of authoritarian followers (there are also authoritarian leaders, but we are not interested in them). The first I'll call the strong followers. These are people who are seriously invested in their beliefs. In a religious setting they would be the ones who attend services frequently and who also participate in many other religious functions or ceremonies. In politics they might be those who join special interests groups and actively participate in their activities. They might also be those who work for the party or specific candidates.
The second group are the weak followers. In a religious setting they may attend services less frequently or, even if regularly, they restrict their religious activities to this one action. In politics they may send money to activist groups and vote regularly, but don't otherwise participate.
What happens in a social movement is that the leaders promote a viewpoint and attract strong followers. Many of these become the "disciples" of the movement. As the movement grows the weak followers may join in to the extend the membership for such activity. A good historical example is the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and its use of lynching. When the movement started it was highly secretive with many members being anonymous. After their first acts of violence were met with weak enforcement they became more open and started to attract onlookers. Eventually lynching became a quasi-social function. Fathers would take their children. Postcards were issued of the events and people tried to get into the picture to show others that they were there. The lack of government law enforcement had removed the social stigma and the weak followers were emboldened to participate.
At some point there was a national movement to eliminate lynching and the KKK, and laws were passed and better enforced. The attitude of the public changed as well. The crimes were seen for what they were and there was condemnation of those involved. The activity became shameful. The weak authoritarians became worried about the social stigma of being associated with a shameful activity and faded away. The movement shrank until only the most invested remained. It is doubtful that the racist ideas of those who supported the movement changed (even among the weak participants), but their actions did.
This is my model for pushing back against the present authoritarian/conservative alliances that have formed in the US. One can be against, say, abortion as a personal matter, but showing up at demonstrations or intimidating women entering a clinic can be made into a shameful activity. Similarly pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control items can be treated as unprofessional by their peers and thus the objects of career stigmatization.
Do their beliefs change? I don't care. Can their actions be changed, by social disapproval? Yes. One of my favorite stories on how social pressure, shame and embarrassment can affect behavior has to do with Bill Gates. According to this (apocryphal?) story, Ted Turner met Gates at some point after Turner had given millions to charities and said "What are you planning to do with all your money, take it with you?". He shamed Gates into becoming a philanthropist.
Disapproval by society is a powerful force. The progressive movement should use this to influence all those who weakly support repressive programs and shame them into withdrawing from such anti-democratic activities.
Other areas where shame can be successfully used, in my opinion, include same sex marriage and child adoption, wealth idolizing "Christian" organizations, scapegoating of immigrants and ignoring the public health repercussions of sex education.