The Republican Approach to Government: Authoritarian Rule

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Apr 4, 2009
16,829
2,492
245
The Evidence Establishes, without Question, that Republican Rule Is Dangerous: Why It Is High Time to Fix This Situation, For the Good of the Nation

By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, Oct. 31, 2008


The Republican Approach to Government: Authoritarian Rule

Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.

Republicans' authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which is to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.

Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however - and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves.

In my book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, I set forth the facts regarding the consequences of the Republicans' controlling government for too many years. No Republican - nor anyone else, for that matter - has refuted these facts, and for good reason: They are irrefutable.

The 'Tea baggers'

The leading authority on right-wing authoritarianism, a man who devoted his career to developing hard empirical data about these people and their beliefs, is Robert Altemeyer. Altemeyer, a social scientist based in Canada, flushed out these typical character traits in decades of testing.

Altemeyer believes about 25 percent of the adult population in the United States is solidly authoritarian (with that group mostly composed of followers, and a small percentage of potential leaders). It is in these ranks of some 70 million that we find the core of the McCain/Palin supporters. They are people who are, in Altemeyer's words, are "so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds."

The Problem with Electing Authoritarian Conservatives

What is wrong with being an authoritarian conservative? Well, if you want to take the country where they do, nothing. "They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result," Altemeyer told me. "The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of 'old-time religion' on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going to go away."

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer
 
So is this your idea of something worth "engaging", Jethro?

The unabashed Freudian projection in that heaping pile of manure is astonishing. :eek:

Of course, the presumption that handing the whole gubmint over to authoritarian democrats is going to bear any better fruit is laughable, too.

As I said, you have no understanding OF authoritarianism...thank you for proving my point

John Dean...

For more than 40 years I have considered myself a ``Goldwater conservative," and am thoroughly familiar with the movement's canon. But I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon ``imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

What true conservative calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary to the degree that it is now possible to determine the outcome of cases by looking at the prior politics of judges? Where is the conservative precedent for the monocratic leadership style that conservative Republicans imposed on the US House when they took control in 1994, a style that seeks primarily to perfect fund-raising skills while outsourcing the writing of legislation to special interests and freezing Democrats out of the legislative process?

How can those who claim themselves conservatives seek to destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate by eliminating its extended-debate tradition, which has been the institution's distinctive contribution to our democracy? Yet that is precisely what Republican Senate leaders want to do by eliminating the filibuster when dealing with executive business (namely judicial appointments).

Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in ``conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.

Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede -- usually only when not speaking for attribution -- that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe. This is what I gleaned from discussions with countless conservative leaders and followers, over a decade of questioning.

I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater, whom I had known for more than 40 years. Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today's professed conservatives -- their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation. From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do, and to author a book laying out what we found. Sadly, the senator's declining health soon precluded his continuing on the project, so I put it on the shelf. But I kept digging until I found some answers, and here are my thoughts.
 
I understand authoritarianism just fine, and John Dean is still a leftist party man hack, like you.

The answer to his question is all too obvious: Republicans are no more "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) than you are a "Goldwater libertarian". And feel free to give up that pretense, as you are in fact nothing of the sort.

Fact remains that the demopublicraticans are playing the game between the 40-yard lines and there is no difference in substance between the two.
 
I understand authoritarianism just fine, and John Dean is still a leftist party man hack, like you.

The answer to his question is all too obvious: Republicans are no more "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) than you are a "Goldwater libertarian". And feel free to give up that pretense, as you are in fact nothing of the sort.

Fact remains that the demopublicraticans are playing the game between the 40-yard lines and there is no difference in substance between the two.

The answer to my question: 'What do you believe the role of government should be' is NOT obvious and continues to be unanswered.

Instead, you want to tell me what I do and don't believe...better look up the definition of pretense

1. pretending or feigning; make-believe
2. a false show of something
3. a piece of make-believe.
4. the act of pretending or alleging falsely.
5. a false allegation or justification
6. insincere or false profession
7. the putting forth of an unwarranted claim
 
So is this your idea of something worth "engaging", Jethro?

The unabashed Freudian projection in that heaping pile of manure is astonishing. :eek:

Of course, the presumption that handing the whole gubmint over to authoritarian democrats is going to bear any better fruit is laughable, too.

My thoughts exactly.
 
Do people ever get tired of beating the old stereotypes of Republicans as wife beating Christians who want to stand in everyone else's bedroom while they clip bond coupons for a living?
None of those things is true. Not even remotely. But it is more true of Democrats than Republicans.
 
Do people ever get tired of beating the old stereotypes of Republicans as wife beating Christians who want to stand in everyone else's bedroom while they clip bond coupons for a living?
None of those things is true. Not even remotely. But it is more true of Democrats than Republicans.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
 
What do you call a so called liberal agenda that strives to control via "good for you" social programs via draconian taxes and fines?
 
What do you call a so called liberal agenda that strives to control via "good for you" social programs via draconian taxes and fines?

Name 'em

Social Security, the new so called health care reform bill, alcohol and tobacco taxes

Social security...tell me what you want to eliminate:
* Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
* Unemployment benefits
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
* Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
* Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
* State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

The health care bill...

Tell me how you will offset the cost of doing nothing?

Affordability
As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.

Alcohol and tobacco taxes are bipartisan.
 
What do you call a so called liberal agenda that strives to control via "good for you" social programs via draconian taxes and fines?

Got that right Skull.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster --

Sounds more like the "progressive" movement to me.
 
What do you call a so called liberal agenda that strives to control via "good for you" social programs via draconian taxes and fines?

Got that right Skull.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster --

Sounds more like the "progressive" movement to me.

What a man does for others, not what they do for him, gives him immortality.
Daniel Webster
 
Charity at the point of a gun, stealing from one to give to another, is not righteous; it is evil, yet it is the only means by which the government can perform its "charity".

Anonymous
 

Social Security, the new so called health care reform bill, alcohol and tobacco taxes

Social security...tell me what you want to eliminate:
* Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
* Unemployment benefits
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
* Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
* Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
* State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Yes all of it. Let people keep that money the government takes from them. With it they could afford a better disability insurance from a private company and have more money at retirement. And the government would not have it's Ponzi scheme and the slush fund it has now.

The health care bill...

Tell me how you will offset the cost of doing nothing?

So forcing people to pay more for insurance is the answer?

Giving unions and special interest groups a pass on taxes that everyone else has to pay is the answer?

Fining people with an additional income tax if they don't buy the "government approved" insurance plans is the answer?

Affordability
As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.[/quote]

What you don't seem to understand is that medical costs are up because of insurance not in spite of insurance. When the public has no idea what a service costs, market forces cannot be brought to bear. Even health insurance costs are high because government won't allow sales across state lines.

Alcohol and tobacco taxes are bipartisan.

Doesn't make them less draconian or less of a ham handed social engineering tool used by government to control behavior.
 
Charity at the point of a gun, stealing from one to give to another, is not righteous; it is evil, yet it is the only means by which the government can perform its "charity".

Anonymous

I always find it ironic the right clamors for liberty, yet they blindly support draconian theft of liberty for their self centered temporary safety...like the misnomer called a Patriot' act, or illegal wiretapping, capital pinishment which IS death BY the state, torture of 'others'...

Pretty empty 'liberty' when human beings are incarcerated, abused and killed

BTW, your 'good intentions' quote is Noah Webster

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman
 
Charity at the point of a gun, stealing from one to give to another, is not righteous; it is evil, yet it is the only means by which the government can perform its "charity".

Anonymous

I always find it ironic the right clamors for liberty, yet they blindly support draconian theft of liberty for their self centered temporary safety...like the misnomer called a Patriot' act, or illegal wiretapping, capital pinishment which IS death BY the state, torture of 'others'...

Pretty empty 'liberty' when human beings are incarcerated, abused and killed

BTW, your 'good intentions' quote is Noah Webster

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman

Don't assume those that disagree with your progressive agenda are somehow in lockstep with the "right"

And just what does the so called progressive agenda strive to do if not "regulate matters of mind and spirit" I'll go so far as to say the left would regulate body mind and spirit if they had the chance.
 
Charity at the point of a gun, stealing from one to give to another, is not righteous; it is evil, yet it is the only means by which the government can perform its "charity".

Anonymous

I always find it ironic the right clamors for liberty, yet they blindly support draconian theft of liberty for their self centered temporary safety...like the misnomer called a Patriot' act, or illegal wiretapping, capital pinishment which IS death BY the state, torture of 'others'...

Pretty empty 'liberty' when human beings are incarcerated, abused and killed

BTW, your 'good intentions' quote is Noah Webster

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.
President Harry S. Truman

Don't assume those that disagree with your progressive agenda are somehow in lockstep with the "right"

And just what does the so called progressive agenda strive to do if not "regulate matters of mind and spirit" I'll go so far as to say the left would regulate body mind and spirit if they had the chance.

Anyone that supports the theft of liberty like the 'Patriot' act, illegal wiretapping, capital punishment and torture IS in lockstep with the right...even if they are oblivious to it.


"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln
 

Forum List

Back
Top