The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer

Well, there's this from introduction of this brilliant manifesto.

"But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago"

So authoritarianism is only a characteristic of the right, and the right "took over" the government 12 years ago. That's odd, considering American politics has been dominated by the left since Woodrow Wilson in 1914, if not further back, and that the current government is far left, with a far left president. There's a far left candidate about to become president, who defeated in the primary a self-avowed socialist who is a stone's throw from Uncle Joe Stalin. And that's not authoritarian?

The desire for a total take over of medicine by the government is NOT authoritarian? Medicine run completely by the government is NOT authoritarian? Yeah, right. This whack-job needs his own thread.

Perhaps you might start by actually reading the book, rather than merely the introduction.

You might have found, for instance, that it's dealing with the individuals who support people like Trump, Jim Bakker, Stalin, etc.; why they do so (and the caveats about their support).

And then there's the minor matter that the 'Left' doesn't actually exist anymore in American politics. You have right of center (Democrats) and far-right (Republicans). (My opinion, not mentioned in the book.)

And no, if you had read the book, you would have grasped that 'authoritarianism' as defined in the book is not a characteristic of the Right, but rather a short hand for people who have a high RWA score. And what's an RWA score, you ask?

Since it's a free download, read it for yourself.

Let the annihilation begin.

"What is Authoritarianism?

Authoritarianism is something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves."

OK, Bob. Remember to check for monsters under your bed tonight.

"It happens when the followers submit too much to the leaders, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want...In my day, authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies"

Gee, where to begin. The mind boggles. In Bob's day, in Bob's world, "authoritarian fascist and authoritarian communist dictatorships posed the biggest threats to democracies" But not Islamofascism, right? Who is the dictator of radical Islam? There isn't one. Or does radical Islam NOT count as authoritarian? It's NOT a threat? It's not the BIGGEST threat?

"We know an awful lot about authoritarian followers. In one way or another, hundreds of social scientists have studied them since World War II."

Wow, hundreds of social scientists, armed with pocket protects and tape on their glasses have made a discovery that no one in TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT previous has discovered. This is another example of "the history of the universe begins with me and my egghead friends."

"if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago"

Taken control. How? By violent overthrow of the government, of course, which is what conservatives have always—oh, wait, that's left-wing revolutionaries who do that (French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Maoist Revolution, Islamic Revolution).

It's not like America ever has elections to—

Oh, wait...

"I have found that some people make assumptions about why I study authoritarianism that get in the way of what the data have to say. The stereotype about professors is that they are tall, thin, and liberals. I'm more liberal than I am tall and thin, that's for sure. But I don't think anyone who knows me well would say I am a left-winger. My wife is a liberal, and she and all her liberal friends will tell you I am definitely not one of them."

OK, Bob. Trouble at home? All this statement means is that your wife and her friends, who laugh at your behind your behind, you fat ass, are FARTHER to the left than you are.

I already downloaded it a few days ago. I'm reading it right now.

I'm going to go over every line of it in this group...

Are you suggesting I have to read the entire book before I can disagree with one word of it? What an odd way to read a book. I doubt that's even possible.

We continue...
"I hope you'll agree that the studies were fair and square."

OK, Bob. I'll take your word for it. But wouldn't that consitute being authoritarian? I'm supposed to take it on the authority of social scientists who think they can apply the scientific method to a society made up of 318 million people of a dizzying multiplicty of ethnic, racial, religious differences? A huge gumbo of people with which there is no comparison, today or in the history of mankind?

Actually, the illegal Mexican influx means we are losing our diversity, but that's another topic that only a whack job like Trump dares even bring up.

Everyone should read this work. It's that important. Of course, "authoritarians" are not found only on the Right-end of the political spectrum. There are Leftist authoritarians--but they are not "Liberals," they're Leftist authoritarians and we should beware of them.

" But ultimately, in a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office. That’s how Adolf Hitler destroyed the Weimar Republic and became the Fuhrer.

It is? It's odd to square the contradiction of Hitler being a comical figure, on one hand, and the to blame him for the slaughter of millions

"So we need to understand the people out there doing the wave."

Millions of sports fans all over the world need to be told that they are fascists because they are doing the Wave.

You're an extraordinarily poor reasoner because you read with your mind closed.

→ "It is? It's odd to square the contradiction of Hitler being a comical figure, on one hand, and the to blame him for the slaughter of millions."

" But ultimately, in a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office. That’s how Adolf Hitler destroyed the Weimar Republic and became the Fuhrer."

>1 barney67: Your response is no less hysterical than the thesis of the "brilliant manifesto" you've brought to our attention. There are better ways to rebut foolish arguments concerning authoritarianism that don't leave one susceptible to making similarly foolish counter-arguments and to asking specious questions. Such as:

>1 barney67: "... American politics has been dominated by the left since Woodrow Wilson in 1914..."

>1 barney67: "The desire for a total take over of medicine by the government is NOT authoritarian?"

American politics have been drifting rightwards for a long time. There really is no longer such a thing as a moderate republican. They've abandoned moderation in part because of all the litmus tests they needed to pass to get the support of religious and economic and law and order fundamentalists on the hard right. The positions they abandoned have often been adopted by a majority of democratic politicians determined to appeal to the center and moderate right figuring they already had anyone left of center.

Barney should take another look at #2 and as #9 says he's 'an extraordinarily poor reasoner' and I agree with that 100%.

Lone guy gets up on a soapbox and proclaims that the country would have won the war, except that the nation was betrayed by 'fellow travelers'.

People wander by, listen a bit, and decide the guy is high, drunk, or may have mental issues, and wander off.

So, just how much power is the guy on the soapbox going to have in a democracy where his fellow citizens have to voluntarily put him in power?

Answer: none.

So yes, Hitler would have been a comedic figure involved in a opera-bouffe Beer Hall Putsch...except that his fellow Germans (mostly) voluntarily choose him (and the National Socialist Party) in free elections.

Does that make it clearer? The reason the book is important is that it explains WHY people might think choosing a leader with clear, simple, and moral statements is a good idea.

>10 theoria: Ad hominem. Why do you think my comments are "hysterical"?

I guess you think that 1) Woodrow Wilson was not left-wing. 2) Left-wing politics has not dominated American politics. 3) Governnment-run medicine is neither authoritarian nor left-wing.

I'm always amazed when I assume too much. Here, it seems, I can assume nothing. In this case, I thought we all knew that the story of 20th century American politics has been greater centralization of power and resources in the hands of the federal government. You can be for that or against it. I doubt you can argue that it didn't take place. But if you want to, go ahead.

>12 BruceCoulson: If you want to read about totalitarianism, Hitler, or any other subject which you seem to be interested in, there are so many other better books. Not this social science professor from Manitoba.

If his assumptions are wrong, the rest of the book is going to be wrong.

>11 lriley: Your claim that American politics has been right rather than left is wrong in so many ways, I would need a calculator to figure it out.

Your claim that moderate Republicans don't exist can be disproved by the number of Republicans who oppose Trump. If they really were the right-wing whack jobs that you always claim they are, then they would be supporting Trump. But you don't want to give them any credit for opposing him. You conclude that they are part of the imaginary Establishment.

#15---your claim that the democratic party is left is debunked when---when they're in power they pursue the same kind or very similar economic, banking, regulatory, trade, environmental, surveillance and foreign policies (just to name a few things) as the Republicans do when they're in power.

And since when has Trump ever espoused any consistently coherent substantive political philosophy or ideology? He's simply a PT Barnum like demagogue preaching to a bunch of half wits and zealots who are angry about who knows what. Is he right wing? No doubt on some things--but there needs to be some distinction(s) between what a real conservative is and a faux one. And Trump is not a real one. He can't stay on message because really the only thing he believes in is his own phony life. Apparently most republicans can't tell the difference between real and phony anymore.

Left and right aren't absolutes; they're relatives. You can say we have no left-wing compared to Europe, or no right-wing compared to... Theodore Roosevelt, I guess?, but all this argument about whether we lack a left-wing or right-wing is unhelpful; it's all in the definitions.

>14 barney67:

You know what the odd thing is in books about Hitler?

They're about Hitler; not his followers. Which means you could learn a lot about Hitler, but not so much about the people who put him into office and supported him (or Stalin, or Mussolini, or any other dictator you care to mention).

What evidence are you offering that the book's assumptions (people support authority figures unswervingly, despite ample evidence of their faults and flaws) are mistaken?

If you have evidence that his test is invalid, perhaps you'd care to present that evidence and the qualifications of the people disputing the test.

>13 barney67: "In this case, I thought we all knew that the story of 20th century American politics has been greater centralization of power and resources in the hands of the federal government. You can be for that or against it. I doubt you can argue that it didn't take place. But if you want to, go ahead."

Since Max Weber's writings on politics and processes of rationalization in all areas of life, "everyone" knows that bureaucracy is part and parcel of the modern state. Why would I deny that the state has centralized its power (a history that begins long before the twentieth century) using the tool of rational organization? Weber also noted the tension between the bureaucratic expert (who follows strict rules 'without regard for persons') and the politician (who must bend to the variable winds of democratic sentiment).

Re the US: the centralization of power and the increased bureaucratization of life is a fact. Perhaps you didn't know that the first "rationalizer" of the US federal government was Herbert Hoover. Trained as an engineer, he brought the rationalist spirit to bear in his positions in the WWI Food Relief administration and as Secretary of Commerce. No one would call Hoover a "leftist" in whatever relative meaning that term has. The expansion of the US federal government certainly took off more decisively under FDR. The New Deal and WWII (which could be described as the militarization of American society) brought greater reach to central government. But after that emergent period, subsequent Presidents -- from Truman to Johnson to Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Obama -- have not sought to reverse this long term trend. Again, the word "leftist" fails to capture this reality.

Now it is the case that the US was founded on, among other things, a fear of tyranny (but, ironically, not a fear of slavery). Hence, the federal government (i.e., Big Government) is a persistent monster under the bed in Americans' infantile distortion dreams. But you also certainly know that in the US, political powers are divided, so much so that it is difficult for the Federal government, especially the Executive Branch, to do much of anything in a decisive manner. Thus, I would argue that the fact of centralization is not a sign of the demise of American democracy (after all, bureaucratic rule and a Republican form of government have co-existed for a long time). It is not an "evil". It is simply one of the practical conditions of living in a modern state, where legal proceduralism has triumphed over what Weber called "Kadi justice."

What might count as "authoritarianism" would be instances when the rule of constitutional law has been suspended. There's an interesting old book I've mentioned before by Clinton Rossiter that considers three instances when this might have happened: the Civil War, the New Deal, and WWII.

"The principle of constitutional dictatorship finds its rationale in these three fundamental facts: first, the complex system of government of the democratic, constitutional state is essentially designed to function under normal, peaceful conditions, and is often unequal to the exigencies of a great national crisis (...).

"Therefore, in a time of crisis a democratic, constitutional government must be temporarily altered to whatever degree is necessary to overcome the peril and restore normal conditions. This alteration invariably involves government of a stronger character; that is, the government will have more power and the people fewer rights (...).

"Finally, this strong government, which in some instances might become an outright dictatorship, can have no other purpose than the preservation of the independence of the state, the maintenance of the existing constitutional order, and the defense of the political and social liberties of the people. It is important to recognize the true and limited ends of any practical application of the principle of constitutional dictatorship (...). And the narrow duty to be pursued by this strong government, this constitutional dictatorship? Simply this and nothing more: to end the crisis and restore normal times. The government assumes no power and abridges no right unless plainly indispensable to that end; it extends no further in time than the attainment of that end; and it makes no alteration in the political, social and economic structure of the nation which cannot be eradicated with the restoration of normal times."

Rossiter defines three conditions for the emergence of a constitutional dictatorship: war, rebellion, and economic depression.

Clinton Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship
Michael S. Sherry, In the Shadow of War: The United States since the 1930s

>18 BruceCoulson: You might be interested in the True Believer by Eric Hoffer. The biography by Tom Bethell is excellent.

>20 barney67:

I've read it; it's quite compatible with The Authoritarians.

Well, I agree that political winds change but not the terms are not so relative and subject that right and left don't mean anything. A Clinton Democrat is a lot different from a Truman Democrat. A Trump Republican is a lot different from an Eisenhower Republican.

I agree that centralization is part of modern life, as a result of industrialization, technology, democracy, capitalism, modernity, the collapse of the family and mediating institutions and religion.

And of course, the growth of left-wing politics. Whoever thinks left-wing politics has not been defined by centralization of power has been voting for the wrong party. Whether the law is being followed strikes me as not really the point, though I agree that tyranny is consistent with lack of respect for the law. I don't expect or fault Republican presidents for being unable or unwilling to follow the libertarian dictates of Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, and Howard Stern who believe government is evil and politicians are evil. It's a superficial view, among other reasons.

Years of reflection have made the Republican position for decades into that of trying to slow the rate of growth of government, not demolish it, as when Bob Dole helped defeat Mrs Clinton's previous attempt, as First Lady 20 years ago, to centralize medicine in the hands of federal government. I knew then that Republicans couldn't keep their finger in the dike forever. The flood would come, and come it did with Barack Hussein Obama, and now will all pay.

You may say that's not authoritarian. I believe it is. But it certainly has been left-wing politics. There is some truth to what you say about Hoover, though I've heard people blame Lincoln for centralizing government when he "started" the Civil War and the income tax. I don't agree with either. Republicans were more moderate in Hoover's days, though he was still far more conservative than Wilson or FDR or Clinton or Obama. As I've said here recently and repeatedly, America has really never been all that conservative, nor will it be. Capitalism and free market economics run counter to traditional societies. America's society has never been that traditional, and it gets less so all the time.

It's the hippie dippie, don't tread on me libertarian tendencies of Americans that unite the Sanders votes and the Trump voters. I imagine that eventually there will be a party that corrals these people into one coalition, and conservatism will be pushed out of our system altogether. Today really is the libertarian moment, or least its beginning.

re 'government is evil':

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

Republicans (at least, the party as it has been in the last few decades) seek to control people in their moral conduct, while letting economic conduct run unchecked. Democrats try to control economic conduct, while tolerating what is considered by some moral wrongs. What differs is not seeking control; it's what is to be controlled.

Since respect for property rights (a bedrock of capitalism) is built in to the Constitution, I'm not sure just how you are defining 'conservatism'.

I was never a big fan of Tom Paine. I'm a Burke man.

"Republicans (at least, the party as it has been in the last few decades) seek to control people in their moral conduct"

This is just wrong.

#24---I would think the great majority of women just on Roe v. Wade (just for one thing) would disagree with you. Then there is the Equal Rights Amendment. Who opposed that? I would think a very very high % of black and hispanic people would disagree with you as well. Go back to John Ehrlichman who talked candidly about the criminalization of certain drugs to target certain groups during Nixon's years. What party was in the forefront for civil rights? It wasn't the Republican party.

The idea that the Republican party has stood up for freedom is a canard. More recently under George W. Bush we have the Orwellian Patriot Act which allowed and created a new growth industry out of the surveillance state which Barack Obama to his discredit enhanced during his time in office.

But continue on believing what you must believe.

>25 lriley: By your own admission, the Democrats have been as guilty as Republicans when it comes to privacy.

But I don't believe we're living in a surveillance state, though you might want to check under your bed tonight just to sure. You have just as much to fear from Apple, Google, and Facebook as the government.

I don't know about "enabling" some kind of "surveillance industry." Those products have been around for many decades. The march of technology and consumers' purchasing has driven innovation and lowered prices. Blame for your fellow man for buying all that stuff and using it on you. Blame your fellow man for paying $3000 for Cubs tickets.

You may be right that the Republican idea of freedom is different from the left. But it's one I think more congruent with reality. If you believe freedom means doing whatever you damn well please, and the hell with everyone else, it doesn't surprise me that you cite the issues as you have done.

The Great Debate by Yuval Levin.

Paine v. Burke. It may bother you that the author is Jewish.

#26--you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. The truth is though the NSA just for one can track every single one of your movements whenever they want if they decide to do so.

As for freedom yeah, it is pretty much about doing what you damn well please--it's just that if one is going to live within a societal structure some concessions towards other members of society have to be taken to account. As long as you're not actually harming others a free society would be one that is open to pretty much all kinds of what some might call today nefarious activity.

#27--bizarre how you bring up the author being Jewish. You're the one making the big deal out of it.