I am disgusted by the arrogant posture of the Republican leadership, and need to get my message out to anyone who might be interested in what I see as an underlying, unstated theme in their behavior; one that can pretty much explain whatever they do. The keyword here is "authoritarianism". You may be very familiar with the concept in the psychology of moral development and politics, and if so, how 'bout what's going on?
It's important for us to know who and what we're fighting, so I intend to develop a series of writings on authoritarianism and also voter psychology. I refer people interested in further reading on tonight's topic to Bob Altemeyer's web site.
Please follow over the fold for my first installment in a series.
Described in psychology literature are two kinds of parenting styles that have long-lasting consequences on our moral development. One is authoritative, and the other is authoritarian.
An authoritative parent is firm but responsive to a child's needs. He or she will explain the reasoning behind rules and boundaries that are set by the parent and by society. In this way, he or she is empowering of the child as a unique individual. An authoritative parent might ask a child, "How would you feel if someone threw your toy and broke it?" The child learns empathy, and more. Knowing the reasons for current rules and boundaries, the child is free to explore those boundaries, question authority, and challenge existing rules without breaking them.
An authoritarian parent is very different. Rules are not explained but implied by command. The reason a child is expected to behave in a certain way is because the parent, as an authority, told them to do so. They are punished for questioning the authority of the parent. In this way, the child of an authoritarian learns to see themselves, and others in the world, as either good or bad, depending on adherence to authority. They learn that the reasoning underlying rules and boundaries is unimportant.
You may have read these descriptions and said "aha!" I can see which child would develop to be progressive and which would be conservative! And you'd be mostly correct. But like most things in life, it's not so simple. And it truly is wonderful to write "it's not so simple" to liberals, because they get it, unlike, um... other people. There are many other implications to be drawn, and I hope to discuss them over time.
Here's some skinny: Authoritarians believe that they are entitled to power, much the way a narcissist believes he or she is entitled to extra special treatment. It is not a rational "I earned it" sense of entitlement; no - that would call for an understanding of the reasons behind rules and boundaries (and from whence came authority). Instead, they are entitled by God, or some other authority, or simply by virtue of being devoted followers.
Authoritarianism is taking over the Republican Party, and has been, arguably, since Reagan was president. It showed itself during the Clinton years and now especially since Barack Obama became president; an event that has pushed many authoritarian buttons (I refer you here to the Tea Party).
Since Republicans and the Tea Party took control of the House on Tuesday, Mitch O'Connell and John Boehner have said that they plan to undo everything that Obama and Democrats have done over the last two years, and that if Obama wants cooperation it is he who must submit to their principles, because, they say, "the people have spoken, and Obama didn't listen to them". Yet in exit polls, when voters were asked whether they voted against president Obama's policies only 27% said yes. In another poll, voters were divided on keeping health care reform 48-48. It is also true that while Republicans took the House, they did not take the Senate.
Do they really believe they have all the power now that they have the House? Yes, they do. "The people" said so. That's all you need to know!
Many of us see them on television or read about what they are saying and think, "so, liberals aren't 'The American People'? Do President Obama and our Democratic Congress critters not represent our interests? Are our interests now, for the repeal of DADT, health insurance reform, a Keynesian investment in infrastructure, etc. not valid, simply because 'the other side' doesn't like it? Simply because people can't give Obama more than two years to clean up the devastation that took Bush eight years to create? And how stupid do you have to be to vote Republicans back into power? They don't deserve it."
Oh, yes they do. Didn't you know? They are entitled to it, by fiat.
Republicans, now more authoritarian than ever, have this answer for us. It's not explicit, but it's there, and it's loud, if you step back and use your wide angle focus to see it. Here it is in brief:
"Liberals (and therefore also liberal institutions and associations, such as science, the truth-telling media, universities, non-religious charities, public education, etc.) are not legitimate authorities. We've tolerated Obama for two years and he isn't doing what we, the entitled authorities (Republicans, financial institutions, big corporations), want him to do. So he's out. Same with all Democrats who don't fall in line. We might impeach Obama now for being a liberal, and trying to get away with a liberal agenda."
Liberals, you really don't get to have your voice heard, because what you want isn't legitimate. Any leaders you elect are not legitimate leaders. They are there only in the name of democracy, and can only be tolerated if they fall in line and cater to real authorities: the authoritarian right.
Sharron Angle didn't need to answer to reporters, she instead asked them to spread her propaganda. She's an authority. You should know better than to question authority; certainly the conservatives voting for her didn't question her. They only needed to hear the dog whistles, like "Obamacare". Sarah Palin is another authority who isn't beholden to truth or facts or the media or anything else liberal. Her constituents don't question her, they just eat her red meat. Fox News listeners never question its authority. They are good authoritarians. And yes, they are entitled to their own facts. Those "facts" that don't resonate with the propaganda are rejected, often as "liberal" and therefore illegitimate.
Have you noticed that any words with "Democrat" have become dirty words on the right? Did you know that we've been told by these 'authorities' that we live in a republic, and not a democracy? It's true, I read it on the internet.
President Obama has been under fire from authoritarians since he took office. It's even worse because he's black, since the only accepted authorities in the White House until now have been old white men. They barely tolerated the Clinton years, and only then because they were able to create lots of raw, red meat for their base over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Our Republican leaders believe they are entitled to be in power by virtue of authoritarian rules, and they are sending out messages that make it abundantly clear that our democracy, er republic?, is becoming a plutocracy.
There is so much more to understand: the religious right and the Tea Party and how they fit into the scheme; the attack of the right on science and education; the anti-intellectualism of the right; the reinterpretation of the Constitution; I want to write about it all. It all culminates in a logical manner to a plutocratic, theocratic society, if you see the common elements under the apparent madness.
If you aren't scared by recent events, you're sleeping through it.
We need to fight NOW, for our democracy. We need President Obama and other Democrats to understand that there is no compromise to be had under the current circumstances.
(More soon, if you will, on authoritarianism in our current political climate.)