"The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." -- Ralph Nader
Republicans like to tout as virtue the fact that their party seems to speak with one voice. Whether it's anti-flag burning, marriage amendment, the war, etc., they are, with very few exceptions, lock step. But is it really moral strength? One person who should know is John Dean, former White House lawyer during Watergate. Citing information from a 50 year academic study, he took exception with that conclusion. In a recent discussion with Keith Olbermann on his show, Countdown, he had the following observations:
The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders
" ... Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality..."
" ... have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation."
" ... the followers -- a few of them will change their ways when the realize that they are doing -- not even aware of what they are doing. The leaders, those inclined to dominate, they're not going to change for a second. They're going to be what they are."
" It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors ... they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it."
"... there has been fear mongering, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time in this country. It happened early in the cold war. We got accustomed to it. We learned to live with it. We learned to understand what it was about and get it in proportion. We haven't done that yet with terrorism. And this administration is really capitalizing on it and using it for its' political advantage. ... when people are frightened, they tend to go to these authority figures. They tend to become more conservative. So, it's paid off for them politically to do this. "
"The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, "I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% 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 a tremendous influence on Republican politics -- The best defense is understanding them, to realize what they are doing, how they're doing it and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective and they can be seen for what they are. "
Obviously the study and Dean's opinions don't constitute a definitive appraisal, but I do think that they do indicate the trend. Those that are prone to follow look for an authoritarian figure and a cause to unite around. And that cause can be a moving target. It's not idealism that drives them but rather a need to be part of the crowd. And cognitive dissonance allows them to justify it to themselves.
"What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
8 comments:
Just from anecdotal evidence, I can say the republicans that I know are mostly followers. I can't count the number of family discussions that have resulted in one of them saying something like: "well, they're in charge so they know best" or "who am I to question that" or "that's too complicated for someone like me to change".
It's a little hard for me to swallow the "Republicans are all followers and Democrats are individuals" pill when democrats are, by principle, pro-big government.
Scott,
By no means am I saying that all Republicans are followers. But as a matter of psychology, more that ARE followers tend to gravitate to the Republican party.
I'm sure there are other psychological trends that would indicate a certain group of people's predilection for the Democratic party. But I'm just speaking to this particular study right now.
And I'm not sure that the pro-big government collar that has historically been put on Democrats holds any more. This administration is the very model of bloated big government. Even the conservative Cato Institute agrees:
Republicans Become the Party of Big Government
Oh I'd whole heartedly agree that that the current Republican party idea of "conservatism" is an absolute joke. The US model of Government is currently closer to Fascist than Capitalist.
My comment wasn't meant as a "yay! republincans!" comment.
But in principal, Democrats tend to support more social programs and government run agencies. Which, to me, is forfeiting choice and hardly constitutes individualism.
Scott said, "My comment wasnt meant as a "yay! republicans!" comment". -- And I wasn't meaning mine to be a "yay Democrats!" one either. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I lean left (way left), but I still always want to try to be as objective as I can. And certaintly there are few without sin in this government (R or D). I've chronicled my problems with several Democrats on this blog in the past.
The reason I felt that Dean's comments might cast a new light was that he was a Republican in a Republican administration (perhaps the most notorious in history).
Scott doesn't understand the difference between social democracy and authoritarianism.
Those of us on the left who prefer "big government" do so out of a sense of community. The idea that the good of the community takes precedence over the good of the individual. It has nothing to do with following or needing an authority figure. One need only take a quick glance at the state of the American left to figure out that we are about as far from rallying around a single (or ANY) voice as you can be. Remember, we are the ones who coined the phrase, "trust no one over thirty". And since we are now mostly all well past thirty, we trust no one!
Authoritarians need someone to tell them what to do and how to live because they are either a) too timid to figure out life on their own, or b) too intellectually lazy to do so (read Erich Fromm's MAN FOR HIMSELF for a really great insight into this). It is not a coincidence that Bush's most hardcore and blindly loyal followers are Evangelical Christians. Having spent the first 35 years of my life as an active evangelical, I can tell you the whole concept of that particular brand of Christianity is to give your life over to a higher authority, and allow that authority to make your decisions for you.
Which also explains why the Christian right's political philosophy so resembles fascism.
ps... my word verification is turdduo... obviously refering to Karl and Scooter
Well said GWB.
Pity I didn't see this sooner.
Socialism and Authoritarianism go hand in hand. You can't have Socialism without it. Socialism always gravitates toward complete control of the means of producing and distributing goods. That is, after all, the definition of Socialism. No really, it is.
Post a Comment