The Authoritarians

[rickb]

I just finished reading "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer, which summarizes his research into authoritarian personalities (followers and leaders). He wrote this in 2006 during Bush's 2nd term in office, but it has a lot to say about what is going on right now.

Very highly recommended.

The full book is available in PDF format at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[Benko]

From your link:

"“Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.”"

Has it occurred to you that the above applies as well to the clinton campaign, and the media saying how evil all trump supporters are, why Trump supporters were afraid to say they were trump supporters, and why there was and will continue to be violence against trump supporters:?


Bill Clinton and Michael Moore before the election said that working class (in many cases white) voters were being ignored. Bill Maher befoer the election pointed out how silly it was to preach Muslim tolerance after every terrorist act. Not to mention the many other big issues (Hello classified info on a private server in someone's basement) But feel free to blame it all on authoritarianism. It will prevent you having to reexamine your assumptions.

[moda0306]

From your link:

"“Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.”"

Has it occurred to you that the above applies as well to the clinton campaign, and the media saying how evil all trump supporters are, why Trump supporters were afraid to say they were trump supporters, and why there was and will continue to be violence against trump supporters:?


Bill Clinton and Michael Moore before the election said that working class (in many cases white) voters were being ignored. Bill Maher befoer the election pointed out how silly it was to preach Muslim tolerance after every terrorist act. Not to mention the many other big issues (Hello classified info on a private server in someone's basement) But feel free to blame it all on authoritarianism. It will prevent you having to reexamine your assumptions.

Pardon the snappy retort, but has it occurred to you not to look at this in right/left tribal terms, but rather more of a libertarian/authoritarian framework?

Anyone on the left or right preaching or "condemning dangerous elements," especially in terms that imply a state/police reaction is ideal, could be considered authoritarians. I see those attitudes on the left and the right.

Right now, with R's holding both houses of congress and a potential neo-fascist in the white house (depending on how far he goes with his promises), it's arguably more appropriate to focus on "right-authoritarianism," but by no means does this need to be described in clean left/right terms to be explored richly.

[I Shrugged]

Am I the only person left who knows that fascism is essentially a type of economic arrangement between government and business? Because Hitler was a fascist, it does not follow that all fascists are like Hitler.

And what is a neo-fascist?? Did you make that up? Someone did. What does it mean?

I guess I should let it go, since the meanings of words do change. But if I let that go, what's next? Oh the madness!

[Benko]

My point was that Trump wasn't elected because he was racist, sexist, HItler, etc. It can never be the lefties loose because the people don't like their policies/their policies are hurting people (as Moore and CLinton tried to tell them).

Right now, with R's holding both houses of congress and a potential neo-fascist in the white house (depending on how far he goes with his promises), it's arguably more appropriate to focus on "right-authoritarianism," but by no means does this need to be described in clean left/right terms to be explored richly.

" neo-fascist in the white house"
You should really read Scott Adams (who predicted Trump would win like a year ago). Or listen to people who've known Trump for decades. He's not the monster you think. Obviously he is an alpha and high powered executive.

Trump was elected by people who want him to make changes for the benefit of those people. I expect his admin to go no further than say Obamas or other pushy democratic admins have. Which leaves him a lot of room. Consider it karma.

[Kriegsspiel]

Anyone on the left or right preaching or "condemning dangerous elements," especially in terms that imply a state/police reaction is ideal, could be considered authoritarians. are probably shitheads.

Made that truthier for you.

[moda0306]

Anyone on the left or right preaching or "condemning dangerous elements," especially in terms that imply a state/police reaction is ideal, could be considered authoritarians. are probably shitheads.

Made that truthier for you.

Well anything could be "condemning dangerous elements" if you're being hard on certain groups.

Where things get "authoritarian" is where you want the government to start taking care of those dangerous elements.

Surely you guys can see the difference. I'd "condemn" anti-intellectualism as "dangerous," perhaps... but I don't want people spied on, silenced or arrested because of it.

[rickb]

From your link:

"“Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.”"

Has it occurred to you that the above applies as well to the clinton campaign, and the media saying how evil all trump supporters are, why Trump supporters were afraid to say they were trump supporters, and why there was and will continue to be violence against trump supporters:?


Bill Clinton and Michael Moore before the election said that working class (in many cases white) voters were being ignored. Bill Maher befoer the election pointed out how silly it was to preach Muslim tolerance after every terrorist act. Not to mention the many other big issues (Hello classified info on a private server in someone's basement) But feel free to blame it all on authoritarianism. It will prevent you having to reexamine your assumptions.

Pardon the snappy retort, but has it occurred to you not to look at this in right/left tribal terms, but rather more of a libertarian/authoritarian framework?

Anyone on the left or right preaching or "condemning dangerous elements," especially in terms that imply a state/police reaction is ideal, could be considered authoritarians. I see those attitudes on the left and the right.

Right now, with R's holding both houses of congress and a potential neo-fascist in the white house (depending on how far he goes with his promises), it's arguably more appropriate to focus on "right-authoritarianism," but by no means does this need to be described in clean left/right terms to be explored richly.

The quote from the page is a statement that the author uses in one of several personality tests (he's a psychology professor), asking whether the subject agrees or disagrees Those who agree with this particular statement tend to score high on what he calls "right-wing authoritarianism" ("right" in this context meaning right as opposed to wrong). It sounds like Benko is thinking the author is advocating that patriotic citizens help stomp out rot - which is decidedly not the case (he even says he views this is as an entirely ridiculous statement that he would not expect anyone to agree with). On the other hand, 26% of 1233 US state level legislators who responded to his survey AGREED with this.

[Maddy]

Gee, authoritarianism didn't seem to bother the libs one iota before the election.

[Benko]

It sounds like Benko is thinking the author is advocating that patriotic citizens help stomp out rot

No. I'm saying you/he are accusing Trump voters of being like that when that is standard operating procedure for e.g. DNC, most of the media, the left --perhaps you have heard of SJW (social justice warriors)?


"Gee, authoritarianism didn't seem to bother the libs one iota before the election."
Heh. Just like the left will scream when Trump uses his pen. Like I said. Karma.

[moda0306]

My point was that Trump wasn't elected because he was racist, sexist, HItler, etc. It can never be the lefties loose because the people don't like their policies/their policies are hurting people (as Moore and CLinton tried to tell them).

Right now, with R's holding both houses of congress and a potential neo-fascist in the white house (depending on how far he goes with his promises), it's arguably more appropriate to focus on "right-authoritarianism," but by no means does this need to be described in clean left/right terms to be explored richly.

" neo-fascist in the white house"
You should really read Scott Adams (who predicted Trump would win like a year ago). Or listen to people who've known Trump for decades. He's not the monster you think. Obviously he is an alpha and high powered executive.

Trump was elected by people who want him to make changes for the benefit of those people. I expect his admin to go no further than say Obamas or other pushy democratic admins have. Which leaves him a lot of room. Consider it karma.

I've read Scott Adams blog. His assessment of Trump using "persuasion" like he does actually fit into the mold of fascistic leaders that try to push a nativism/nationalism angle. I've heard from people that have "known Trump for decades." Some state he's a good guy. Others state you'd never want him to be president and that he's a scam artist.

There's no such thing as "karma" with authoritarianism. Nobody deserves it, and once again you're viewing things in left/right terms. You seem to be caught in this tribal alignment quite often. It's not right vs left. It's people that want to silence dissent vs people who don't. Freedom loving folks should hate it on both sides, and often do. But we've been trained only to hate it when "those people" do it to us (the opposing political tribe).

This is part of why we have such a bad government. We see failures of "our side" as acceptable because "those guys" did "worse" when they trampled our rights.

[Maddy]

It's not like Trump is embracing nationalism in a vacuum. The movement to "take back" this country is in direct opposition to the authoritarian ideal of global governance and the assault on individual liberties that has seen its zenith during the last eight years.

[Benko]

Karma means e.g. Obama shoves policies down voters throat that they don't want. Voters respond to get rid of those policies or put simply in this case (10 sec video illustration):

https://twitter.com/sangtaekim/status/7 ... 6876451841

[MachineGhost]

Here's my SparkNotes:

Democrats = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoticism
Republicans = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism

And the "right" in "right-wing" does mean right on the political spectrum because the author is a Canadian liberal that was trying to understand the Tea Party movement, etc.. Such gatekeepers are always alarmed by movements not based on their cherished liberal ideology. Furthermore, there is no "left-wing authoritarianism" in common lexicon usage, so "right" is being very specific, i.e. conservatives.

[moda0306]

Gee, authoritarianism didn't seem to bother the libs one iota before the election.

It bothered civil libertarian liberals. Which doesn't align with the standard conservative/liberal tribal narrative so it is no fun to explore.

[moda0306]

It's not like Trump is embracing nationalism in a vacuum. The movement to "take back" this country is in direct opposition to the authoritarian ideal of global governance and the assault on individual liberties that has seen its zenith during the last eight years.

8 Years? Convenient time-frame there... Try the last century, if not longer.

And global governance is only one form of tyranny. Might want to check out Noam Chomsky for some other perspectives on this stuff.

[Maddy]

Gee, authoritarianism didn't seem to bother the libs one iota before the election.

It bothered civil libertarian liberals. Which doesn't align with the standard conservative/liberal tribal narrative so it is no fun to explore.

I was one of those "civil libertarian liberals." We became civil libertarian conservatives when the Left went full-throttle authoritarian.

[moda0306]

Gee, authoritarianism didn't seem to bother the libs one iota before the election.

It bothered civil libertarian liberals. Which doesn't align with the standard conservative/liberal tribal narrative so it is no fun to explore.

I was one of those "civil libertarian liberals." We became civil libertarian conservatives when the Left went full-throttle authoritarian.

What is your opinion on the Patriot act, surveillance, the "war on terror," stop and frisk, and the idea of police forces trying deport 11 million people by force.

Also, explain the main few ways the left went "full throttle authoritarian?"

If you don't mind.... thanks.

[I Shrugged]

Re deporting people by force.

Are they intentionally breaking the law, or aren't they? Does that count for anything? If not, wow.

What happens in Canada when they find someone illegally in the country? (I don't know, but I suspect they get deported.)

[MachineGhost]

What is your opinion on the Patriot act, surveillance, the "war on terror," stop and frisk, and the idea of police forces trying deport 11 million people by force.

I'm sure you didn't mean police -- police aren't legally allowed to deal with immigration issues. And ICE doesn't have the manpower to deport 11 million people which would be a logistical nightmare. I read that ICE only has 34,000 beds day-to-day to hold all the illegals -- hilarious.

So once the wall is built and all the violent illegals are deported or locked up (notice how Trump's hedging already), it'll be easy to solve the problem with the remaining non-violent illegals, have them self-travel to just outside the border and immediately re-enter via a pathway to citizenship or guest worker program. That's common sense.

[MachineGhost]

Re deporting people by force.

Are they intentionally breaking the law, or aren't they? Does that count for anything? If not, wow.

What happens in Canada when they find someone illegally in the country? (I don't know, but I suspect they get deported.)

The reality of other country's strict immigration policies vs ours hit Democrats like a bitchslap to the face when they looked it up for Canada, Australia and New Zealand last week. Nothing like a harsh dose of reality to pop an echo chamber bubble.

It's gonna be fun ragging on Democrats for the next four years. They may be high IQ, but boy do they ever have low information.

[WiseOne]

It bothered civil libertarian liberals. Which doesn't align with the standard conservative/liberal tribal narrative so it is no fun to explore.

I was one of those "civil libertarian liberals." We became civil libertarian conservatives when the Left went full-throttle authoritarian.

What is your opinion on the Patriot act, surveillance, the "war on terror," stop and frisk, and the idea of police forces trying deport 11 million people by force.

Also, explain the main few ways the left went "full throttle authoritarian?"

If you don't mind.... thanks.

While we wait for Maddy to answer (Maddy - love your posts btw!), let me take a shot. 200 years ago, there was such a thing as freedom of speech in this country. Now, you can be fired from your job for saying something that is not approved by certain authorities. If you say those things while committing a crime, you get charged with a hate crime in addition to the one you committed.

Even if you dislike the opinions that some people hold or what they say, unless it meets the Oliver Wendell Holmes test of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that doesn't mean you can dictate those opinions or what is and is not OK to say. The First Amendment was never about making people comfortable.

And btw I would never dare to say the above in any situation where it could be easily attributed to me. To me, this smacks of living under authoritarianism. This, more than anything else, is what prompted my personal political rightward shift. Not that the Republican's social conservative platform is much better, but it's at least a lot less sinister.

[moda0306]

His assessment of Trump using "persuasion" like he does actually fit into the mold of fascistic leaders that try to push a nativism/nationalism angle

What in the world is wrong with a leader looking out for their own people first?

When did it become "fascist" for someone to say that a country built by their own people should be given priority first to those same people?

Do you see Japanese leaders giving away Japan to everyone else? Are they fascists?

How about the PM of Israel? Is he giving away Israel to hostile people and cultures? Why isn't he a fascist for refusing to do that?

Your first question presupposes Trump is looking out for his own people first. If we can boil that down to mean "Americans in general," I reject that premise. I'm not trying to be belligerent in disagreement... just zooming in to where disagreement exists. I think our problem is more of a class issue (and no I don't mean between people making $150k per year and a Mexican making $35k per year) than an issue aided much by nationalism/nativism. Like I said, I don't mean to disagree in a rude way by any means. I think we just see this point very differently. By the way I'm not for open borders. I do believe we need systems to reduce immigration modestly if not starkly. But that's just one small part of the bigger issue, IMO.

The Japanese tend to be nativists, for better or worse (I think it's a mixed bag, but I see where you and others come from in saying it's positive)... but they're not making jokes about committing war crimes, advocating a vastly expanded surveillance state, deporting millions (and the police state that would take), sucking all the oil out of Iraq, etc. They will do what they will.

Israel is actually a good example fascist state if you look at history. There's an excellent podcast on this actually, and the same guy goes into some of the very nativism v globalism in his other podcast. Martyr Made and Decline of the West are the two podcasts, respectively. I can't recommend Martyr Made podcast enough. Just a side note. He has a very "Dan Carlin-esque" way of describing history and human motivation and story-telling. Great stuff. Craig, his "Decline of the West" podcast might be up your alley. He goes deep into topics surrounding offshoots of nativism that are super interesting... of note is one of his interviews with a very intelligent white nationalist.

[moda0306]

Re deporting people by force.

Are they intentionally breaking the law, or aren't they? Does that count for anything? If not, wow.

What happens in Canada when they find someone illegally in the country? (I don't know, but I suspect they get deported.)

Yes they are knowingly breaking the law.

So has almost every president since Harry Truman. Like war crimes... not paperwork misfilings.

So have many officials in our government and in the CIA who have committed crimes of spying, torturing, killing, lying to congress, and leaking of classified data.

So is everyone who hasn't been reporting sales tax sufficiently (for which states have developed "amnesty" systems due to the implications of bankrupting a business over a decade of not filing sales tax).

So is everyone going 31 in a 30.

So is anyone smoking weed in their living room.


If we're going to start enforcing all laws to their letter... we will have a massive police state. I want to limit immigration. I really think there's a compromise to be had here that respects human rights. It's quite amazing to me that there are a critical mass of people who actually think that deporting people who have been here for decades is a reasonable position to take. If so, fine... let's start enforcing all laws to a T and watch our republic crumble (not actually advocating that... just trying to paint a mental picture).

[clacy]

His assessment of Trump using "persuasion" like he does actually fit into the mold of fascistic leaders that try to push a nativism/nationalism angle

What in the world is wrong with a leader looking out for their own people first?

When did it become "fascist" for someone to say that a country built by their own people should be given priority first to those same people?

Do you see Japanese leaders giving away Japan to everyone else? Are they fascists?

How about the PM of Israel? Is he giving away Israel to hostile people and cultures? Why isn't he a fascist for refusing to do that?

This hits the nail on the head one of the big divides we have today.

For the globalists (that's really what the left has become), hurting the feelings of hypothetical/future illegal immigrants is far worse than maintaining control of who is or isn't coming into our country.

Why do these same people not call Mexico a fascist country for wanting to curtail illegal immigration from Central America? They are trying to build a wall on their southern border from what I understand.