Nope, not mission impossible, not spy, not anything like that...

• You know who you are Observing.... - Observer
  • who do the voices in your head tell you I am? - Observing
    • Oh geez. The least you could do is get a new line... - Observer
  • Is this mission impossible... - Lisa
    • Nope, not mission impossible, not spy, not anything like that... - Observer
      • Understand what exactly? - piglet
        • No, I was trying to understand someone who defines themselves liberal.... - Observer
    • Provocative, no? - piglet
    • we need more posters - reveille
      • I have yet to see you post a liberal issue... - Observer
        • Yes.....and? - Observing
          • Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals... - Observer
            • Not me. - Observing
              • Me too. I have to speak up when I see someone posting crud... - Observer
                • You keep calling me your friend... - Observing
                  • Yada yada...still protesting too much. nm - Observer
        • you are following me closely - reveille
  • Oh, do I smell conspiracy? - piglet
    • No, not a conspiracy....it is a game that... - Observer

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.

I'm simply not in a position to judge all that stuff.  There's far more going on behind the scenes than we know.  That's not to give Bush (or any politician, for that matter) a free pass.

The big threat approaching is Israel & Iraq.  A war there is inevitable (& soon), and they're a huge ally of ours.  The not only deserve our help, but will likely need it.

The GOP Mission Statement!

GOP Rep: "Our Goal Is To Bring Down Approval Numbers" For Democrats

'GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.

"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint." ' -Huffington Post

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/house-republicans/gop-rep-our-goal-is-to-bring-down-approval-numbers-for-dems/

You see the Republicans are always up to something. Too bad it is usually no good for the American people.

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.
One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.” The Times included this quote in its story:

“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. “He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.

Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.
Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden’s goal:

[A]bout ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. […]
I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.

He only signed off on it after it had been planned and then vouched for by a whole lot of other people.  The CEO of a car company does not design a car or put together a sales campaign.  He only gives the go-ahead after others have figured out what to do, then takes credit for it.

The only thing this guy has ever made in his life is reservations. 

That's right, Bush is still alive and well.  Check this out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28024676

Yeah, I know it's MSNBC, but how many other people are doing a lame duck watch?

I'm defending a president who has the courage to do what is right.

God bless GWB.  I'm glad he doesn't cower to lilly-livers like you.

I insinuated that that is how we have evolved, into 2 main separate parties.  No, I don't think we have to have 2 parties.  One would be fine so long as decisions that are made are made in the best interest of the people.  That's one thing I like about Obama, his willingness to work with the other side, regardless of whether or not they return the favor.  However, quite frankly, the republican side of the equation is not doing very well.  They have managed to stampede all over the constitution (founding father stuff, btw), take away rights, left us with a deficit when they started with a surplus (while they are calling us the spending party), and completely destroyed any credibility we had worldwide.  What I see in the democratic party IS common sense.

The couple that just had the union would also have the same opportunity to practice whatever ceremony that applied to them, and just like the christians, would not be recognized legally without a union.

Look at it like this (and this is probably a bad analogy, but I'll try it anyway):  Everyone has to go to high school (unions), but if they want to go that extra mile to excell they go to college (practice whatever religious beliefs).

And before you guys start, yes, I do know that not everyone goes to high school.

you can believe that but it just ain't so...

Most, if not all, of YOUR posts are incredibly tasteless, in addition to being rude, crude, offensive and frequently untrue.  Yet, NO liberal has accused you of saying they aren't allowed to speak.

Incredibly tasteless = Not permitted to speak IN WHAT WAY?

Are you agreeing that the poster lied in saying that Army Mom was told she wasn't allowed to speak?

No, of course you're not doing that.

Never mind.

as long as libs wan't to dig up dirt we'll continue throwing the mud you throw from your huge pig stye right back at ya...