I agree you can't have a dialogue with the

• Important issue - me
  • Even the worst of ideas - Chele
  • Obama lives in a fantasy land of his own making. - mt
  • Some of Obama's friends are enemies of the USA - So, he would negotiate with them -scary.nm
    • Did you ever think that... - Proud of Obama
      • You cannot convert these people - me
        • So is the only way out to go to war with all of them? - s/m
          • you posed some valid points - me
            • I agree you can't have a dialogue with the - true crazies like Hussain, Bin Ladin, etc., sm
            • I think I meant to say you "posted" some valid points - me
      • exactly what alternative universe do you and Obama....sm - good grief
        • You foolishly contradict yourself! - Proud of Obama
          • You foolishly think I posted before the one above yours here...sm - good griefl
        • I would be nice if life was a fairytale. - Terrorists dont become your friend.nm
          • One of you call them enemies...the other one calls them terrorists! - Make up your mind!
            • I posted about enemies...sm - good grief
          • Yeah, lets give our money away and make our - enemies our friend. Thanks Obama -OMG.nm
      • I agree 100% - I'm putting my money on Obama!
        • Then be prepared for Obama to take - Chele
        • you won't have any $ left if this commie gets elected. nm - susan
          • I already have next-to-none. If he's elected, at least - I stand a chance; none with McSame.
            • If you have next to no $ left now - I do not support scum!
            • I would like to hear how Obama will make it better. - Socialism takes freedom away. nm
          • Are you insinuating that Obama is a communist? - What!
            • Insinuating?? We're stating it as a fact!!! - To the bone........nm
            • You really should read a book about his... - sam
            • Obama is a socialist and probably a closet...sm - ms
            • He is a socialist - New Englander
              • that's putting it lightly - susan
                • It is frustrating - New Englander
                  • so true - susan
                    • Thanks for the welcome home. - New Englander
                      • Sean, etc. - susan
                • Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. - "Help! The sky is falling"! - nm
                  • Susan and others are right. Obama supporters - need to open your eyes! nm
                    • we could challenge them - susan

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

07/11/2006 @ 11:48 am

In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, former Nixon counsel John Dean explained a largely unknown 50 year academic study. The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

Dean discovered the ongoing study while researching his new book, Conservative Without Conscience.

Dean believes that the study helps to explain why the Republican party has been driven further right.

A rush transcript follows the video.

Video can be found at: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, Why were Republicans acting as they were? -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. 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.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They 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.

OLBERMANN: There is an extraordinary amount of academic work that you quote in the book. A lot of it is very unsettling. It deals with psychological principles that are frightening and may have faced other nations at other times. In German and Italy in the 30's, come into mind in particular. But, how does it apply now? To what degree should it scare us and to what degree is it something that might be forestalled?

DEAN: To me, it was something of an epiphany to run into this information. First, I'd never read about it before. I sort of worked my way into it until I found it. It's not generally known out there, what's going on. I think, from the best we can tell, these people -- 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. So, by and large, the reason I write about this is, I think we need to understand it. We need to realize that when you take a certain step of vote a certain way, heading in a certain direction, where this can end up. So, it's sort of a cautionary note. It's a warning as to where this can go. Other countries have gone there.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: 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. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, 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.

OLBERMANN: Let me read something from the book. Let me read this one quote then I have a question about it. Many people believe that neoconservatives and many Republicans appreciate that they are more likely to maintain influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism, so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke the potential terrorists throughout the world. That's ominous, not just in the sense that authoritarians involved in conservatism and now Republicanism would politicize counter-terror here which we've already argued that point on many occasions. Are you actually saying that they would set up -- encourage terrorism from other countries to set them up as a boogey man to have, again, that group to hate here -- more importantly, afraid of?

DEAN: What I'm saying is that 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. No question, the academic testing show -- the empirical evidence shows -- 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.

OLBERMANN: This all seems to require, not merely, venality or immorality but a kind of amorality where morals don't enter into it at all. We're right. So anything we do to preserve our process, our power -- even if it by itself is wrong -- it's right in the greater sense. It's that wonderful rationalization that everybody uses in small doses throughout their lives. But, is this idea, this sort of psychological sort of review of the whole thing, does it apply to Dick Cheney? Does it apply to George Bush? Does it apply to Bill Frist? Who are the names on these authoritarian figures?

DEAN: You just named three that I discuss at some length in the book. I focused in the book, not on the Bush Administration and Cheney and The President because they had really been there done that, but what I wanted to understand is what they have done is made it legitimate to have authoritarianism. It was already operating on Capitol Hill after the '94 control by the Republicans in Congress. It recreated the mood. It restructured Congress itself in a very authoritarian style, in the House in particular. The Senate hasn't gone there yet but it's going there because more House members are moving over. This atmosphere is what Bush and Cheney walked into. They are authoritarian personalities. Cheney much more so than Bush. They have made it legitimate and they have taken way past where anybody's ever taken it in the United States.

OLBERMANN: Our society's best defense against that is what? Do we have to hope, as you suggested, the people that follow, wise up and break away from this sort of lockstep salute to, of course, they're right, of course there are WMDs, of course there are terrorists, of course there is al Qaeda, of course everything is the way the president says it. Or do we rely on the hope that these are fanatics and fanatics always screw up because they would rather believe in their own cause than double-check their own math.

DEAN: 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.

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel.  I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts.  (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC.  I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox.  I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor.  (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder.  And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion.  One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member?  That sick stuff DOES happen in this country.  What if she knows she wants an abortion?  Should she be forced to have the baby?  I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know.  I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion.  That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman.  After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it.  I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they?  I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight.  Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay.  I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country.  As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay.  (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker."  That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."  

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech.  Next, it will be freedom of religion.  What about freedom of "thought." 

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it.  And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people.  A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor.  Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7.  I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them.  All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries.  They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods.  About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

Let's hope he really is a "good guy" with a heart and a brain.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope.  I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today.  The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made.  But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy.  Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned.  I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT.  If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters.  Am I painting that picture correctly GT?

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican. 

As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work.  The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help.  Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency. 

I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work.  If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that.  But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working.  Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it.  I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq.  O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there.  I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest:  The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.

And now that Libby (yuck! I should change my moniker) and Rove are both implicated in the Plame scandal, it will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald's findings are, and they should be coming soon.

I also agree about Cheney.  He's very scary.  There is definitely a very shrewd, conniving network at work in this administration, and Bush simply isn't bright enough to do this on his own.  And there are no standards of decency left on any level in this administration, which is incredible for the CONs, considering all they ever babble about is their superior *decency*.  For example, they blatantly lie without blinking an eye, as do some of their more dedicated followers.  If anyone dares to disagree with this president, the response it to DESTROY the opponent (not unlike what happens on these boards, only to a more dangerous degree, such as exposing Valerie Plame, for example).  Nothing is out of bounds any more.

I'm eagerly awaiting the results of Fitzgerald's investigation. 

Bush and his military brass treated this family horribly.  They did nothing but lie about everything.  (Big surprise, huh?)

They tried to use Pat Tillman as their poster child for recruiting purposes, but Tillman wouldn't agree to be used that way.

When I think if the incredible courage and integrity Pat Tillman had and I look at what a coward Bush was when it came to fighting in a war and what a lying sack of crap he is today, it's easy to see who the REAL man is, and it just makes me want to spit on Bush.

Murtha's words always seem to get twisted. 

He never advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  He suggested we redeploy to the periphery in an attempt to let the Iraqis stand on their own feet, with us still being there if they needed us.

Regarding the deaths of the civilians, he said that continued stress and repeated tours of duty can can take a toll on soldiers. 

As you said, I couldn't imagine what it must be like to live every single second of every single day, not knowing if the next step you take will be your last.  Regardless of whether or not these soldiers had excellent training, in the end, they are human beings and can only take so much before they crack.  Although I don't condone the killing of innocent civilians, I also can't crucify American soldiers, either.  I've never walked in their boots, and it must be terribly difficult to survive physically, mentally and emotionally under such extreme conditions.

Even if an investigation proves the facts to be as reported, rather than condemn them to harsh punishment, I think instead they need intense mental health treatment, probably for the rest of their lives.  I don't think a prison exists that could be more painful for them than the prison that exists within their hearts and minds. 

This was a very poorly planned war, and our soldiers are suffering because of it in the form of repeated tours of duty.  I think they deserve our compassion, not our condemnation. 

I even admired Giuliani at one time and thought I could maybe vote for him, but he's in the same category with Hillary and McCain now.

I think it's time to clean out the Senate and the House, get rid of mostly everyone (from both parties) and start again from scratch.  They're all ineffective, Republicans and Democrats alike (with the exception of very, very few), and they're completely out of touch with what Americans really want.

They don't like to be treated the way they treat others, and it showed.

I would love to debate issues here.  I almost did a month or so ago, but the person who claimed she wanted to debate ran off with the promise to respond to the issues I raised in my post later.  When she did return, she didn't live up to her pledge to respond to my post and instead instead baited others by insulting and trying to start an argument.

Have you taken a look at the Conservative Board?  It contains nothing but hate for all liberals, and they even go so far as to name people from this board during their insulting hateful tirades. 

I wish things were as you describe, as well.  Everyone talks about a civil war in Iraq.  It seems to me like one is inevitable in the United States at the rate we are going.

Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings about me, I thought your post was very well written and seemed to be sincere and come from the heart.  Thank you for posting it.

We give them billions of dollars every year.  We give them weapons to fight their (our?) wars.  And anyone who even thinks of questioning their actions are demonized.

I'll never forget a video I saw years ago of Palestinians throwing rocks at Israelis (the only weapons they had) and Israelis responding by firing machine guns at the rock throwers.  The only difference in the response ratio of the number of dead (Israelis versus Lebanese) is that their enemies have better weapons today.  But the Israelis are still occupying Lebanon and causing more destruction and death.

We should give them both the boot.