As you can see from posts below, it is impossible

• A serious question - Just me
  • You have a very valid point........ - sm
  • I'd say at least wait until his term BEGINS. nm - In all seriousness
    • Obama didn't wait for his term to legally begin, he started on Nov. 5th. - .
      • You would prefer he not have staff on day 1? Or have a plan of action? sm - In all seriousness
        • Obama on TV - Long-Time MT-NY
  • As you can see from posts below, it is impossible - to get through to the brainwashed.nm
    • You mean, it's impossible to change intelligent people's minds! - sm
      • Normally, intelligent people thinks for themselves - and dont gush over 1 man who's proven nothing.n
        • Well, the celebrities LOVE Obama. Most of them - are on drugs.-very fitting.nm
          • This has got to be the stupidst, ill-informed comment I have ever read on here!! - penny
    • Thanks for proving my point. - penny
  • A serious answer - Sheesh
    • "I won't have to worry..." - Long-Time MT-NY
    • I'm sorry, you are aware of what caused the financial crisis aren't you? - Emily Ayn
      • Memory does not serve you correctly. - The financial crisis
        • left with a bang LOL im not a troll far from it - Emily Ayn
        • Barney Frank is to blame for the economic - downfall............sm
          • It's Barney Frank's fault??!!??!! - Truthseeker
            • You don't even know his position do you? - get a clue, then post........NM
            • To a great extent, it is Frank's fault, previous poster correct. - Sorry you don't live up to your name...
    • How soon we forget about - Minnie the Moocher sm
    • And a serious question from me about Gitmo - Backwards typist
    • Point taken - Just me
    • I was wondering what you think we ought to do with - Lu
      • Many of them are innocent and should be sent home to their families. - sm
        • OMG. sad. there is brainwashing going on. - Most Gitmo prisoners are TERRORISTS!.nm
          • Oh, no...... those bleeding heart liberals - would love nothing more.........sm
  • Probably about the time that - conservatives. -JC
    • Ditto!!! nm - maggie
  • I guess I must have missed something. s/m - penny
    • Absolutely!!! nm - maggie
      • Wrong!. nm - nm
        • Agreed! - nm

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 saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.

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 really do believe that, at least as far as the crazy/psycho/nasty ones.  But they are so darn hard to ignore!!!  I'm going to try, though, starting now.

We play right into their hands by getting irritated and retaliating - just as I have on many occasions.

...did I state I was the board monitor?  How curious that you would think I was.

I had assumed, as most reading this board would also, that the Merry Christmas was somewhat passive-aggressive.  It is quite peculiar to bash someone repeatedly and rudely and then top it off with MERRY CHRISTMAS and then wonder why they didn't acknowledge the greeting. 

reveal about the poster than they do the subject.  I feel extremely lucky to be living and politically aware during this time.  I think Obama has much potential for greatness and look forward to watching him grow and govern. There will always be folks who disagree with the president and complain - that's the magnificance of living in a democracy.He appears to me to be the first in a long, long time who sought the office to improve our lives rather than just gain political power.

Transparent projection.  Suck it up and enjoy the next 4 years, y'all.  Absolutely nothing you can do or say to change the fact that the country has changed and is moving in a new direction. The republican philosophy has been soundly and firmly rejected.

Obama to tax aspirin, or the post that says Obama said that old people are going to die anyway....those kinds of posts??  Oh wait....that wasn't us dems....now who could that have been?.....hmmmm

If you're going to dish it out, you need to learn how to take it.

You never meant a socialist Jew! sm

Posted By: MT on 2005-07-20,
In Reply to: I know history - gt

What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew.  Do you know Noam Chomsky?  How about David Horowitz's parents?  How about the Rosenbergs?  Shall I go on.  Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!? 

Google has 637,000 entries on Jews and communism. sm

[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups]      [Politics] --> [Liberals]

Posted By: MT on 2005-07-20,
In Reply to: LOL - gt

But I guess you read the one history book that didn't have that in it.  Unbelievable.

I was responding to gt's, and no, I was not around when those other posts were made, and that's why I didn't comment on them.

I was responding to the "drunk" comment that gt made which was totally off par and shows what that gt is here for only one reason and that is to incite fighting, because calling someone a drunk without knowing them at all is definitely fighting words.

I don't know how you can render me a phoney, because I have told you nothing of my self.  That is again, a baseless judgement.  GT was typing nonsenical stuff right after telling someone their posting habits sounded like those of a drunk.  If posting habits are evidence of drunkeness then gt needs to look at his or her posting style.

This is the liberal board, you dont like my opinions, dont read them, its as easy as that.  Free country, freedom of speech..

were from posters from within the U.S.

you start sermonizing?

You said:

I think that you have made a crucial error in believing that WWII and Vietnam are at all similar.  WWII and the US Civil War were also very different wars.  There are even major differences between Iraq and Vietnam and the Korean War although some historians would also find greater similarities in these three wars.  You may rewrite the history of wars as well as US history to fit your agenda of political hatred, but you will never be able to present a convincing argument if you have completely questionable sources and facts to back it up.

If you will please read my post, I was alluding to the differences in the mindset of 18-year-olds at the time of the draft in the 60's and at the time of the draft in the 40's.  It was an opinion, one I believe is justified in looking at the correlation between mindset of young people then and of young people now.  When morals decay, and the character weakens.  That is my opinion and frankly I don't care whether you share it or not.  I was NOT comparing the two wars.  try reading it AGAIN before lecturing me.

You negate most historical records, which I admit often have some aspects of questionable validity, and you seem to re-create a fictionalized account to accommodate your rather far-out-there belief system based in hatred of the left. 

Please explain what in my post led you to say that...that I fictionalized something for my rather far-out-there belief.  And again, how many times do I have to say it...I have no hatred for the left.  A lot of sympathy, but no hatred.

You rearrange and fictionalize facts and history to make your point.  You provide spurious sources for your facts (I could probably find sources that prove that the earth is populated by aliens from Mars if I looked hard enough).

What the heck are you talking about?  Spurious sources?  Did I post any sources?  I was answering a question and then giving an opinion.  I rearrange facts and fictionalize?  What did I fictionalize?

I also notice on the conservative board constant condemnation of liberals, leftists as a whole.

No, not leftists as a whole.  I based my opinion of leftists who speak out and speak *for the left*, the poster children of the left, on these boards, blogs, in print, on TV, etc.  I form my opinion of the left on what I hear coming out of their mouths, mostly, and here from their fingers as it were.  That is plenty.  The rest is icing.

 We are characterized as stupid, immoral, crazy, unpatriotic, love the terrorists, cowards, angry, on and on. 

Well, to me abortion IS immoral.  To me cloning embryos just to kill them IS immoral.  To me oppressing people with social programs instead of helping them grow into productive citizens is immoral.  If that is you, then I think you are immoral. 

I never called anyone crazy.  So far you are the only one I have ever seen call anyone mentally ill....when you compared me to your mother.

I believe patriotism is supporting the military when they are engaged in a war.  If you do not do that, then I believe you are unpatriotic.  You will notice I said I believe.  I did not say all Republicans believe, all conservatives believe....I, myself, believe.

I never said you or anyone else loves the terrorists.  I said when you get out and protest against the war and carry nasty signs about the commander in chief when we are engaged in a war you are aiding the enemy.  I, me, myself, speaking only for ME, believe that you are.  I did not say you love them, and if you cannot figure out how they would use that video as propaganda....not my fault.  I still have my opinion.  You, if you are carrying those signs or support those who do carry those signs, are aiding the enemy.  It should not be done in war time when we have soldiers fighting.  Again, MY opinion.

Cowards....well, to me it is cowardly to call yourself a *peace* movement and be unwilling to take that movement to the real enemies of peace....you know, the ones who have been attacking us for years now, with the big hit on 9-11.  The people who are really interested in snuffing you, and I mean literally.  The people who are really interested in making this a Muslim nation.  Those people.  Talk to THEM about peace.  Because if you change THEIR minds, your problem is over, sis.

Angry...yes, I believe you as an individual are angry.  The left as a whole...sure, I believe they are angry.  They act angry.  They talk angry.  They can't even get along among themselves (kind of like radical Muslims seem to be) ---and before you go there, I am not comparing the left to radical Muslims...just the fact that they cannot get along in their own ranks.  The Republicans seem to be having the same problem, though not to as large a degree....yet. 

You are condemning at least 50 percent of the citizens of this country with those adjectives.

I am not *condemning* anyone.  You escalate each post with needless inflammatory rhetoric.  I am merely stating an opinion.  And yes, when I see that some 41% of Democrats are not sure they want the surge of troops to succeed, 51% say right up front they DONT want the surge of troops to succeed, and the rest are undecided, my opinion of those folks is not very high, and yes I think they are unpatriotic.  If you can say bold faced that you do not want your troops to succeed in battle .... yep, that is about as UNpatriotic as you can get...my opinion, my own, me, myself. 

Doesn't seem at all patriotic to me. 

Of course not.  I would not expect that it would.

 Your group also points out nuts (like those who would spit on veterans) as representing the liberal mindset.

*Your group.*  There you go, doing the same thing you accuse me of...demonizing an entire group.

 I realize I am not going to be able to convince you of the great disservice you do to yourself with a narrow and naive mindset like that. 

Oh here comes the compassionate I know so much more than you do let me lead you along speech.  I swear it must be in some leftist handout because I have heard those same words from others.  And I mean the EXACT same words.  Your mindset is not only narrow, it consists of the opinions of others.  Leftists seem to be incapable of forming an individual opinion and instead repeat what I have read in a million articles, full of buzz words, yada yada.  Do you know what you yourself honestly believe as an individual?  In your own words?

 I know many Republicans and with the exception of possibly one, none are as condemning and narrow-minded as the posts I see on your board. 

You are paranoid.  I do not see any condemning.  All I see is rebuttal with opinions that differ from yours.  Thank Heavens for that! 

While I have participated in bashing and see bashing on the liberal board, it rarely occurs in a generalized fashion toward all right-wingers. 

That is true.  You have participated in bashing.  You are, in my opinion, the worst offender.  But again...MY opinion.  Oh come onnnnn.....*your group,* *you guys*...gimme a break.  You are into the group bashing as much as anyone.  The reason I refer to *the left* as a group is because you all say the same things.  Nearly the exact same things.  If I could find any individuals, it would be different.  I can't.

As I said, that would be a very naive assumption and the root of bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is in the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset.....

I would not group you all together if you were not all saying exactly the same things?  And I am so glad that you are so all-knowing that you have laid down the edict that  the root of all bigotry and prejudice and ultimately hatred is the grouping of all peoples as being of one mindset....geez, which article did THAT come from?  But, you know, you might try flying that one at Bin Laden.  See if it will bring HIM around, because he has kinda put the West into one big group he HATES. 

Lurker is the only one that I can honestly say does not fall into direct lockstep.

think of Muslims, blacks in the south pre-Civil Rights, Native Americans in the 1800s (and even now). 

So easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals.  Actually the comments I see made about the liberal mindset are so far removed from the reality of most liberals in the United States it verges on the ridiculous, well no, it doesn't verge on the ridiculous, it IS ridiculous.

Okay....let me see.  You said so easy to ridicule and oppress when we don't see folks as individuals.  Well, if you were all saying something different perhaps that would be easier to find those individuals.    Then you say *the comments I see about the liberal mindset*....hmmm...that does not sound individual to me at all.   How, dear Teddy, do you expect us to know the *reality of most liberals* when all we hear, see, read, are saying almost exactly the same thing? 

Well, I feel so privileged that you took my simple little post as a stepping stone to rant.  Please do not get me started on which board is the worst on bashing.  I have seen comments on both sides, but the liberal board has been far more virulent and tasteless (I feel like I have been defecated upon, sit your butt in your chair).  I have seen far worse than that.  The reason we do not see that now is that they probably have been banned.   And so should they be. On EITHER board. There is no need for belitting and name calling, and you are a master at it.  Your lecturing, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude wears real thin.   We all read it, we all recognize it, including other liberal posters who do not want to join in on your name-calling, condescending manner.    If you are so smart, and you have it all right, why don't you take it somewhere it will do some good?  Take the antiwar rhetoric, all the noble ideas about we are all the same, and it is wrong to group everybody together because that is where hate comes from, yada yada.  Why not take that message to the real enemy?  Quit preaching and sermonizing to conservatives and talk to your real enemies, the terrorists.  Except...oh...how silly of me.  You don't view them as a threat.  Or, more truthfully I am sure...you like your head where it is on your shoulders.   

As far as your further condemnation of Democrats as far as blacks and their allegiances, I believe most informed political science folks would be the first to admit that the party doctrines have evolved over time.  What probably counts most is the current party belief system.  Just some common sense.

*Party doctrine evolve over time.*  Now that is funny.  The only reason it evolved is because Republicans forced it to evolve.  Check the votes on civil rights legislation as close as the 60's, Teddy.  Democrats voted AGAINST, in great numbers.  Had it not been for the Republicans outvoting them, no civil rights legislation would have passed.  The filibustered it for days.  All that has evolved is now Democrats choose to enslave in a different way....through social programs that do not encourage people to do any better and stay tethered to the government for their existence.  Whenever you have 3 generations of a family on welfare, something is VERY wrong with that system.  Again, Teddy....pay attention now...that is my OPINION.

Rebuttal to sermon ended.