Part One in a Three-Part Series, by John Dean.
At the outset of Conservatives Without Conscience, I provided a quick and highly incomplete summary of Altemeyer’s findings, explaining that his empirical testing revealed "that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral." To be clear, these are not assessments that Altemeyer makes himself about these people; rather, this is how those he has tested reveal themselves to be, when being anonymously examined.
Altemeyer has tested literally tens of thousands of first-year college students and their parents, along with others, including some fifteen hundred American state legislators, over the course of some three decades. He has tested in the South and North of the United States. There is no database on authoritarians that even comes close in its scope to that which he has created, and, more importantly, these studies are empirical data, not partisan speculation.
…John Dean would know more than one thing about the operations of Authoritarians in Government. Meanwhile, 7 more US troops have been reported killed in Iraq
and the band played on
From what I saw in that article it looks like the author is playing fast and loose with terms like “conservative” and “right.”
Conservatives Without Conscience (“CWC”) sought to understand the modern conservative movement, and in particular it’s hard turn to the right during the past two-and-a-half decades. Hard turn to the right? According to whom have “conservatives” turned hard to the right?
Most conservatives today do not believe that conservatism can or should be defined. They claim that it not an ideology, but rather merely an attitude. ..there is a good amount of inconsistency and variety, but the movement has long been held together through the power of negative thinking. The glue of the movement is in its perceived enemies.
To me it seems that the author is using the term “conservative” as a catch-all term for people whose political ideas he abhors. The only understanding to be elucidated from this article appears to be an understanding of who this writer calls conservative and why he hates them. Ron Paul has identified himself as the most conservative candidate running for the Presidency. To the extent that he wishes to preserve and restore classic “liberalism” I regard Paul’s claim to be more than empty rhetoric. But I would be very hard-pressed to say the man is “authoritarian” or that he has no conscience and believes in nothing other opposing liberalism. While Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts are a slightly different stripe of conservative, I again would struggle to see how they deserve to labeled as having no conscience.
…I think what AA may mean to say is that the entire Political Spectrum is presently undergoing yet another re-configuration…But regardless of this latest face lift and the revisions that time compels of all things, regardless of every Holy commitment proffered, humanist promises made, and facultative oaths sworn by those in power: The State, as a relative instrument of oppression will, as Christ said of the poor “…always be with you.” Go figure?
wtf AA? sounds to me like you need to get some air before you have an aneurysm, or some shit. where in the fuck do get that this has anything to do with Ron Paul in the first place? or is that the qualification of content here now? The only claim Dr. Paul lays to being a “conservative” is in the shadow of Taft and Goldwater before him. He knows he’s a libertarian, and so does John Dean – who quotes one of Ron’s floor speeches identifying neoconservatism in his book “Worse than Watergate”.
despite your well-intentioned (I’m sure) promulgation, do you always fly off the handle about shit that you’re essentially clueless, or is that the trendy thing to do? put down the purple shroud and the nike’s, k?
Not that I give twoshits about Nick Gillespie, at least he got it right.
Fairly good article until he starts handwaving on the “Authoritarian Personality” and talking about Freud. That’s just another high falutin way of labeling someone an Irredeemable Asshole. A Horse’s Arse. You can say that in 10000 words with $10000 words or you can say it in two.
Sorry Democrats – there is no Peace Party in the United States.
Sorry Republicans – there is no Small Government Party in the United States.
Neither Hillary nor Obama have pledged or will pledge to end the war in Iraq by bringing all US soldiers home. Really. Ask them.
Neither will Frudy McRomnebee do any more to shrink the government nor return sanity (nor even mere sustainability) to the federal budget.
The war in Iraq is, yes, Bush’s war, and is, yes, a Republican war. But in an important sense it isn’t, and in an important sense it is misleading and dangerous to say that it is.
Because that leads us away from the bigger truth that the war in Iraq is the Establishment’s war. Just like the bloated federal bureaucracy is the Establishment’s bureaucracy. Just like the Ponzi-scam federal budget is the Establishment’s budget.
And both political parties are Establishment parties filled with Establishment loyalists.
This is why, barring a victory by anti-Establishment candidate Ron Paul, this election really doesn’t matter at all. As Fred Reed noted, we have bitterly-fought, astoundingly expensive elections that have as much real effect on national policy as does the Super Bowl or the outcome of American Idol.
So really… who gives a crap?
Sorry Mudshark but the author here is not writing solely of neoconservatives. the guy writes that ” the movement has long been held together through the power of negative thinking. The glue of the movement is in its perceived enemies. Well, let’s face it, Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan, and even Ron Paul are conservative. I doubt that they are animated by the power of negative thinking. A comment like that says more about the writer than it does about conservatives.
Everyone but me is a totalitarian, and you should all be in prison.