Authoritarianism... by Niki2

Keep the Shiny side up

I'm interested by Prof. Altemeyer's definition and use of the term "Right-wing Authoritarian".

Quote:
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said.

So the folk who supported Pres. Wilson's Espionage and Sedition Acts by turning in suspicious neighbors and listening to their conversations on party lines might be termed "Right-wing Authoritarians" in Prof. Altemeyer's terms, as might the supporters of Hugo Chavez or Kim Jung Il.

So why not just call them "Authoritarians" or "Traditional Authoritarians"? The term Right-wing seems awfully loaded, especially for a book written for the North American market.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 6:11 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

My bad; I should have put his explanation up first, for those who didn't know it. You conveniently left out the rest of his explanation. Here it is, IN TOTO:

Quote:
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then, maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, “You got that riht, pilgrim!”)

In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was apolitical left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey.

You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean People’s Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago. Similarly in America “the Weathermen” blew away in the wind. I’m sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of “authoritarian followers” in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA scale.

I hope that clears it up; it is, indeed, in a way unfair to attribute these personality traits only to Conservatives, but I happen to agree with his rationale, so I accept the delineation. He mentions throughout the book where it might refer to left-leaning people, by the way.

Just out of curiosity, did you not read the explanation in its entirety, or did you merely quote the part you wanted to make your point? Just curious.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 7:31 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem, you'll get NO argument from me! I'm pretty rabid on the subject. Especially observing the mentally-ill community, one can see SO much damage done to people by their parents, damage that will follow them the rest of their lives.

Given that childhood abuse (of all kinds) is what generally causes the genetic propensity for a mental illness to manifest, many, many of us have backgrounds we can thank for the struggles we experience...not to mention the subconscious scars from early messages which rule our reactions and beliefs despite our knowledge of the facts.

I'm always quoting Keanu Reeve's line from "Parenthood": "You have to get a license to drive, but any asshole can have kids".

I'll stop there, because if I continued, this would go on forever and be filled with

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 7:48 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Niki,

So whats your answer... you have to have a license to have children?

Funny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 8:04 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

So why not just call them "Authoritarians" or "Traditional Authoritarians"? The term Right-wing seems awfully loaded, especially for a book written for the North American market.

And in a move almost certain to be a signal of the End Times, I find myself agreeing with Geezer for the third time in a week. If this keeps up, we'll have to move to Vermont and get same-sex married! (Kidding)

This definition of "authoritarian" could also be applied to us on the left side of the aisle; after all, now that Obama's "The Man" and the lefties have taken over both houses of Congress, aren't WE the ones in authority, and aren't WE the ones decrying those who would flout that authority?

I try to keep a fairly adversarial relationship with my government, no matter which "side" wins the latest election. They ALL have "my best interests" in mind and in their hearts, but we may disagree quite vehemently about what those best interests really entail, and where their authority over my life ends and my authority over their jobs begins. :)

Truth be told, I tend to lean more libertarian, but it's a decidedly LEFT-leaning brand of libertarianism.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Niki,

So whats your answer... you have to have a license to have children?

Funny.

Is it?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 8:05 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No, Wulf, just that the remark expressed my disgust with how some parents behave toward their children. That you would make more of it than that speaks to you, not me.

Mike, his book is about authoritarianism, those who follow authority and those who lead, a mentality that, as I posted above, can be applied to left or right...the explanation he gives describes why he chose the word "right", and I agreed it's a loaded term, that there are those on the left who would classify as authoritarian followers as well, and certainly those on the left who classify as authoritarian LEADERS. The original question I was seeking an answer for was why the right-wing seems to have more people who are truly nasty, extremists and close-minded--on the two sites I've been on, and in America today.

It has no relationship to which party is in "power", it's a psychological phenomenon among some people which relates to their entire lives, not just politics, which the psychologist who wrote the book was curious about and spent years researching, testing, etc. He cites many testing situations he and others performed to back his theories, and his conclusions fit with what I've observed (IRL and on websites), that I found it illuminating.

You'd have to read the entire book to understand what it's about and how he came to his conclusions; I'm wending my way through and on Chapter 4 at the moment. Too much of it explains the phenomenon by which I was originally confused for me to disagree with his theories, and again, it's not specifically about politics, it's about psychology. It merely pertains to politics insofar as an explanation of what I personally was curious about.

He says about himself:

Quote:
Who am I? I'm a nearly retired psychology professor in Canada who has spent most of his life studying authoritarianism. I got into this field by being lazy. When I took the exams for getting a Ph.D. at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh in 1965, I failed a question about a famous early effort to understand the authoritarian personality. I had to write a paper to prove I could learn at least something about this research, which had gotten itself into a huge hairy mess by then. However, I got caught up in the tangle too. Thus I didn't start studying authoritarianism because I am a left-winger (I think I'm a moderate on most issues)or because I secretly hated my father. I got into it because it presented a long series of puzzles to be solved, and I love a good mystery.

The fact that you wrote "I try to keep a fairly adversarial relationship with my government, no matter which "side" wins the latest election. They ALL have "my best interests" in mind and in their hearts, but we may disagree quite vehemently about what those best interests really entail, and where their authority over my life ends and my authority over their jobs begins" shows that, by his scale, you are a low RWA where politics are concerned, which probably means you are a low RWA in your life in general.

The only way I could fully explain what the book is about would be to quote passages from it, and I'm sure few are that interested.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So whats your answer... you have to have a license to have children?

I have a liscense to beat your ass... what a lot of red tape & money, but I got it.
When should I employ my new priviledge, Wulf?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 8:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This definition of "authoritarian" could also be applied to us on the left side of the aisle; after all, now that Obama's "The Man" and the lefties have taken over both houses of Congress, aren't WE the ones in authority, and aren't WE the ones decrying those who would flout that authority?

I'm not. Are you? Mostly, I find liberals decrying OBAMA. And, if you've ever taken part in a left-wing organization (as I have) you'd know that it's like herding cats.

Quote:
I try to keep a fairly adversarial relationship with my government, no matter which "side" wins the latest election. They ALL have "my best interests" in mind and in their hearts, but we may disagree quite vehemently about what those best interests really entail, and where their authority over my life ends and my authority over their jobs begins.

If you form your ideas in opposition, then your ideas are just as predicated by authority as an authoritarian's, only in the inverse.

Keep your eye on reality. Dig for the truth. Be prepared to listen as well as talk. Hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 8:49 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... and aren't WE the ones decrying those who would flout that authority ..."

I don't see that on the left. I see a lot of people grinding their teeth about Obama and the things he's doing. What I DO see are some people pissed off at a small minority who seem to be trying to foment hatred, and who seem to be trying to prevent the vast majority from being heard.

As for Geezer's attempt to yet again mislead people, Chavez was democratically re-elected in 2006 with roughly 63% of the vote. I suspect he was elected on this basis: "Popular for spending freely on clinics, schools and food hand-outs in city slums and remote villages ..." Hardly the stuff of aurhoritarianism - people voted for him because he measurably improved their lives, not because they were slavish rule-following robots.

Funny, when people get together in LARGE NUMBERS and vote to make their own societies actually work for them, Geezer is the FIRST one to scream - Totalitarianism ! Authoritarianism ! Somehow he just doesn't seem to understand that a majority can democratically run its society just fine - without his ideology.

Hey Geezer - before you make an ass of yourself some more, try reading the book and actually addressing what it says. Give truth and honesty a try. How about it ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I have a liscense to beat your ass... what a lot of red tape & money, but I got it.
When should I employ my new priviledge, Wulf?"

Bring it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
if you've ever taken part in a left-wing organization (as I have) you'd know that it's like herding cats.

Like herding DRUNK cats!
Ever seen an Anarchist protest march ?
Guess who the good shepherd is who keeps them from wandering off (cause bad things happen when the jackboots catch one alone) by their mutual consent beforehand ?

Anyhows, the NON-Authoritarian position comes down to a single question that N-A's are willing to ask, and Authoritarians are not.

"And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?"

That question in and of itself is the very essence of self-realization, and the core of Anarchism.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:40 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I hope that clears it up; it is, indeed, in a way unfair to attribute these personality traits only to Conservatives, but I happen to agree with his rationale, so I accept the delineation.

As long as you realize it's an unfair delineation.

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, did you not read the explanation in its entirety, or did you merely quote the part you wanted to make your point? Just curious.

I was originally gonna quote the whole first chapter down to the RWA Scale section, but it seemed a bit long, and the definition of the term 'rightwing authoritarian' was included in the portion I cited.

I might note that Prof. Altemeyer's historical view (30 years) seems sort of shortsighted, and leaves out American authoritarianism on the left during the New Deal, Camelot, and the New Frontier.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Bring it.

You forgot "bitch."

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:46 AM

DREAMTROVE

Wulf. Put it back in your pants.

Geezer is correct. The left's use of "Right Wing" and similar terminology to apply to either leftist or centrist authoritarianism is completely unjustified propaganda and undermines the credibility of anyone using them.

The author's attempt to justify the use actually hurts, as it shows some understanding that the misrepresentation is being committed. I generally take it that almost anyone publishing anything with any political slant has limited credibility anyway, so I just read it with that filter, but that doesn't mean that a biased source doesn't have good information, it was just a sub-genius tactic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Anyhows, the NON-Authoritarian position comes down to a single question that N-A's are willing to ask, and Authoritarians are not.

"And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?"

That question in and of itself is the very essence of self-realization, and the core of Anarchism.

DADT.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I suspect he was elected on this basis: "Popular for spending freely on clinics, schools and food hand-outs in city slums and remote villages ..." Hardly the stuff of authoritarianism ...

Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes. The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries, on the other hand, might qualify.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 11:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes.

So when the public stands to gain from an official, it's "buying votes", but when the elite stands to gain, it's not??? Quite honestly, I think a government SHOULD buy my vote. That's why I'm voting for them- not??? To improve my circumstances???

Geezer, I believe you are misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the term "authoritarianism". Taking action is not "authoritarianism", and being wishy-washy is not its opposite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 11:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I believe you are misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the term "authoritarianism". Taking action is not "authoritarianism", and being wishy-washy is not its opposite.

The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries seems a good start toward authoritarianism.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 11:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, I see how Chavez is following convention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 11:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I shouldn't have started this topic without the caveat that I'm addressing it to people who have read or understood what the book is about. Yes, it answered MY questions, but it involves far more than politics, and it's become a debate on politics, or so it seems to me.

Geezer, I find nothing wrong with calling it right-wing authoritarianism, because it by FAR describes just that: the mentality of those on the far right wing. It's also a fact that his original use of right as "I'm right and you're wrong, period" is exemplified far, FAR more on the right than the left. If it offends, call it OWA, one-wing authoritarianism, if you wish, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the symptoms, mentality and actions of the OWA are exhibited by the right. It's not propaganda if it's true.

But it's much more than that, it's a mentality that is bigoted, ignores hypocrisy when committed by its own authoritarian figures, dogmatically fights for it's beliefs despite facts to the contrary, and much more. It pertains to social interaction, religion, treatment of fellow humans, ability to debate, self-awareness, questioning of things, and much more.

Yes, Signym, Frem and Rue, you've got it. It's partly about willingness to question/challenge authority, it makes for independent, changeable thought when new facts are recognized, and it DOES make for trying to herd cats. That's LOW OWA, and it's a long-held joke about the democratic party; it's one reason they have such a hard time getting IN power or doing anything once there...note healthcare. I'd be willing to bet that if it were reversed and the right had a 60-seat majority, majority in the House and President in office and they wanted to pass healthcare, it would LONG since have been done. They much more often tow the mark. It works against the dems in that way, but after better understanding it, I'll take it any day.

Oops, Signym, you got me:

Quote:
If you form your ideas in opposition, then your ideas are just as predicated by authority as an authoritarian's, only in the inverse.

You're right, if you look at what he said from that angle. I took it more as his saying he "questioned" whichever party was in power--was that what you meant, Mike? If you meant exactly what you wrote, then I'm wrong and Signym is right.

Frem,

Quote:
And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?

isn't actually the core of non-authoritarian thinking, but politically it's probably appropriate. From what I got, the core of it is being able to question, period. Judging things from facts, being able to change your opinion if facts disprove it, choosing things based on their merits from more than one source, not being willing to see past someone in authority's hypocrisy, not thinking you have all the answers, etc., etc. It's not just about orders, it's how your mind WORKS.

Geezer, Signym is right:

Quote:
The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries, on the other hand, might qualify.

I haven't gotten to authoritarian LEADERS yet, so I can't speak to that specifically. But the whole book is about psychology, not about actions per se, so I think the world "authoritarian" is being misunderstood here to a degree. For the people ACCEPTING all those actions, yes, it's blind following and avoidance of hypocrisy, illegality, etc. of their leader, but it's not "authoritarian" on the part of those who turned away from him when he did them.

The author is using the term "authoritarian" in a specific sense, whereas we tend to use it in more than one sense. Webster says:

1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority *had authoritarian parents*
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

The author is using the word in relation to the first definition--and far more--to describe a specific psychological mentality, not in its more general usage. It's a way of thinking, and includes far more than blind submission. I'm not sure if I'm saying that right, or if the book can even be properly debated, without reading it. For me, it was a political illumination, so I guess it's okay to stick to that in debating it, but there's far more to it; the aspects of it just fit radical right-wingers I have encountered that I shared that aspect of it. Mea culpa; it's not really fair to the author or the book to dissect it in only one venue, as it leads to "debating" only one aspect of the mentality.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 12:47 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I see how Chavez is following convention.

So you do agree it is an authoritarian regime? Thanks.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:17 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I find nothing wrong with calling it right-wing authoritarianism, because it by FAR describes just that: the mentality of those on the far right wing.

At the present time. In the United States.

Consider how "Rightwing Authoritarianism" manifested itself in the Soviet Union, The Peoples Republic of China, and the Democratic Republic of Korea. Hardly Republican strongholds.

I don't disagree that many on the political far-right are way less than savory - and personally repugnant to me. A good proportion of the Religious Right comes to mind. I'm just leery of branding Authoritarianism as exclusively, or even predominantly, a politically right-wing artifact. Prof. Artemeyer's study was done in a period when most Authoritarian leaders and followers in the U.S. were politically conservative, so I'm not surprised he found more conservative Authoritarians. In the 1930's, or in another country, his findings about left/right Authoritarianism might have been different.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I suspect he was elected on this basis: "Popular for spending freely on clinics, schools and food hand-outs in city slums and remote villages ..." Hardly the stuff of authoritarianism ...

Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes. The seizure of private property, media censorship and providing military support for insurgents in other countries, on the other hand, might qualify.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

The seizure of private property like, say, Saddam's palaces? Didn't we seize a bunch of those in the not-too-distant past?

Media censorship? Is that another euphemism for not granting "access" to the media you don't like, and granting it to the media you DO like? Or would "media censorship" involve things like "free speech zones" which are located entirely behind chain-link fences miles away from the actual Presidential appearance? Or would it involve arresting people who deign to show up wearing a "Kerry for President" t-shirt to a Bush rally?

Providing military support for "insurgents" in other countries? I thought people were SURE that "the surge" was working? Now you're saying that we were just being authoritarian in Iraq?

So by any rationale, couldn't Chavez lay as valid a claim to be "spreading democracy" as the U.S. could? What's he done that we haven't done here and abroad in the last 8 years?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:26 PM

BYTEMITE

I have an issue with using "right wing" as well, and also compare this to the class on politics I took in college that put fascism on the right wing as well. It's an indication of bias.

What I see here is this statement: "you see far more right wing authoritarians then left-wing authoritarians, so the description of 'right wing authoritarians' to describe the phenomenon is apt."

It's not, because you could just call them authoritarian. Calling a left-wing authoritarian "psychologically right-wing authoritarian" is a contradiction, the generalization does not apply, and this idea of "right wing authoritarians" describing a particular mindset is quite simply contrived to make a political statement about the right wing.

I consider Fascism and Authoritarianism, which have a number of elements in common (mostly the expectation of loyalty to country), to exist OUTSIDE of the normal ideology as an extreme position of two things 1) complete unquestioning faith in and a submission to an ideology, person, or nation, and 2) Defending and arguing for the correctness/naturalness/greatness of the ideology/person/nation despite any evidence to the contrary. People who have this sort of unquestioning, rabid faith are PROGRAMMED, not born, not mentally subpar or a psychological case study.

Every ideology can have elements of Fascism and Authoritarianism in it, INCLUDING Anarchism and Libertarianism, and this must be VERY CAREFULLY guarded against. Surely there are Anarchist and Libertarian demagogues.

I am going to completely undermine my credibility here by using a piece of fiction and pop culture. Please forgive me for this. Hopefully I can make it up to everyone.

The movie Fight Club. Tyler Durdan is an Anarchist, not just because he decides to bomb things, because that's not the point of Anarchism, but he wants to see an end to the government and economic system of control.

He is also chillingly, horrifyingly Authoritarian, only he is an example of an Authoritarian Leader, not a follower. The enclave he builds, of slaves who have renounced their other lives and sources of income to work to bring about the reality of his violent ideals that he is looking to force onto the broader public, who do not question Tyler Durdan or his message or his orders, they are an Authoritarian society, and they are Authoritarian followers. I also note, that Tyler Durdan doesn't seem to have any idea in mind for a new society after he brings about this fall, and seems to just want chaos to reign, and so he is both a piss-poor Anarchist AND a douchebag.

Quote:
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

I disagree with this. You can have Authoritarians who ARE constitutionally responsible to the people, and they are usually the worst. Because what they do, they think they're doing for the good of everyone. Or, at least, the greater good, the population LEFT OVER after they've done whatever culling they deem necessary. But hey, more food for everyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Not authoritarianism for the folks who got the money, just good old buying votes.
So when the public stands to gain from an official, it's "buying votes", but when the elite stands to gain, it's not??? Quite honestly, I think a government SHOULD buy my vote. That's why I'm voting for them- not??? To improve my circumstances???

Geezer, I believe you are misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the term "authoritarianism". Taking action is not "authoritarianism", and being wishy-washy is not its opposite.

Signy, Signy, Signy... [shakes head sadly] When will you ever learn?

A politician shouldn't have to buy YOUR vote - a lobbyist or special interest group should have to buy HIS vote! And the way they do that is by getting YOU riled up enough to do the dirty work and convince that politician that he NEEDS to sell his vote to that special interest, all in the name of keeping YOUR best interests close to his heart. Remember, if YOU sell your vote to a politician, it's wrong. That's corruption. If, however, you GIVE your vote and voice to a special interest, and they bundle it together with others and then THEY sell it, that's called "democracy". Or at least that's what they're calling it here nowadays. And it's not about what you want, it's about what they can convince you that you NEED.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:33 PM

Quote:

Anyhows, the NON-Authoritarian position comes down to a single question that N-A's are willing to ask, and Authoritarians are not.

"And I am takin orders from YOU, exactly.. why ?"

That question in and of itself is the very essence of self-realization, and the core of Anarchism.

Heck, I never really considered myself an anarchist, exactly; I just called it my inate smartassedness. I just cannot abide people who say "because I told you to!" as a reason to do something. And my usual response is along the lines of, "And who made YOU pope of this dump, anyway?" Or, in the case of the cops, something along the lines of "And don't YOU work for ME, civil servant? After all, I'm a taxpayer, and you're on my dime, right?"

Yeah, they don't tend to take it very well, either. :)

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:38 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, this took some time, but perhaps it will put us all more closely together in what we're discussing. I apologize for presenting this in a political vein; that was what struck me about it and obviously that's why I posted it as I did. But I took some time and selected some relevant material from the part of the book dealing with authoritarian FOLLOWERS, because that's what I found most illuminating. And it does apply to right or left, so I have removed RWA and replaced it with "high authoritarian" or "authoritarian followers"...please note that it only required replacing about half his references, the other half WERE to the two above nouns.

If anyone's still interested, here it is. Personally, I found it fascinating, and have observed it so precisely in some people--yes, in my lifetime mostly the hard-liner right wingers--that it impressed me. There are MANY things left out, and he offers tests he and others performed to reference his findings, but I left all of those out too:

According to the High Laws of Science (you do not have to genuflect here), ideas must be repeatedly tested to see if they fail. So the next (and extremely important) question is, does the Authoritarian scale really measure what it says it measures? Are the test scores valid? If they are, we should find that high scorers submit to established authority more than most people do, aggress more in the name of such authority, and are much more conventional. What’s the evidence?

Authoritarian Submission.
Everybody submits to authority to some degree. But some people go way beyond the norm and submit to authority even when it is dishonest, corrupt, unfair and evil. We would expect authoritarian followers especially to submit to corrupt authorities in their lives: to believe them when there is little reason to do so, to trust them when huge grounds for suspicion exist, and to hold them blameless when they do something wrong. We don’t expect absolutes here; people are much too complicated to completely, always, blindly 16 submit, no matter what.

But IF the authoritarian scale truly measures the tendency to be an authoritarian follower, those who score highly on it should tend to do these things, right? So do they? Well, they will tell you that people should submit to authority in virtually all circumstances. If you give them moral dilemmas (e.g. should one steal an absurdly expensive drug to save a life?) they’re more likely to say, “The law is the law and must be obeyed” than most people are. but high authoritarians trusted President Nixon longer and stronger than most people did during the Watergate crisis. Some of them still believed Nixon was innocent of criminal acts even after he accepted a pardon for them. (Similarly the Allies found many Germans in 1945 refused to believe that Hitler, one of the most evil men in history, had ordered the murder of millions of Jews and others. “He was busy running the war,” Hitler’s apologists said. “The concentration camps were built and run by subordinates without his knowing it.”)

To pick a more current example, authoritarian followers believed, more than most people did, President George W. Bush’s false claims that Saddam Hussein had extensive links to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And they supported the invasion of Iraq, whereas less authoritarian Americans tended to doubt the wisdom of that war from the start. Caution No. 1. On the other hand, authoritarian followers did not support President Clinton during his impeachment and trial over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So as I said, the support is not automatic and reflexive, but can be trumped by other concerns. In Clinton’s case his administration not only had advocated for groups anathema to authoritarians, such as homosexuals and feminists, his sexual misdeeds in the White House deeply offended many high authoritarians.

Regarding authoritarian submission, it concerns authoritarian followers’ willingness to hold officials accountable for their misdeeds. Or rather, their lack of willingness--which catches your eye because high authoritarians generally favor punishing the bejabbers out of misdoers. But they proved less likely than most people to punish a police officer who beat up a handcuffed demonstrator, or a chief of detectives who assaulted an accused child molester being held in jail, or--paralleling the trial of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley--an Air Force officer convicted of murder after leading unauthorized raids on Vietnamese villages.

Authoritarian Aggression.
When I say authoritarian followers are aggressive I don’t mean they stride into bars and start fights. First of all, high authoritarians go to church enormously more often than they go to bars. Secondly, they usually avoid anything approaching a fair fight. Instead they aggress when they believe right and might are on their side. “Right” for them means, more than anything else, that their hostility is (in their minds) endorsed by established authority, or supports such authority. “Might” means they have a huge physical advantage over their target, in weaponry say, or in numbers, as in a lynch mob.

Which suggests authoritarian followers have a little volcano of hostility bubbling away inside them looking for a (safe, approved) way to erupt. This was supported by an experiment I ran in which subjects were (supposedly) allowed to deliver electric shocks to someone trying to master a list of nonsense syllables. The subject/teacher could choose the level of shock for each mistake the learner made. Since the punishment was sanctioned by the experimenter, this opened the door for the authoritarian. The higher the subject’s authoritarian scale score, the stronger the shocks delivered.

Unless you think that conservatives (as opposed to authoritarians) are inclined to follow leaders no matter what, pitch out the Constitution, attack whomever a government targets, and so on--which I do not think--this too indicates that the items are not revealing conservatism, but authoritarianism.

Conventionalism.
By conventionalism, the third defining element of the authoritarian, I mean believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs that your authorities have decreed. Authoritarians get a lot of their ideas about how people ought to act from their religion, and they tend to belong to fundamentalist religions that make it crystal clear what they consider correct and what they consider wrong. For example these churches strongly advocate a traditional family structure of father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the husband’s begotten, and kids as subservient, period. The authoritarian followers who fill a lot of the pews in these churches strongly agree. And they want everybody’s family to be like that. (A word of advice, guys: check with your wives first.).

The Instigator.
What sort of bad feelings are likely to be burning away inside high authoritarians that would create an urge to attack? Authoritarian followers score highly on the Dangerous World scale, and it’s not just because some of the items have a religious context. High authoritarians are, in general, more afraid than most people are. They got a “2 for 1 Special Deal” on fear somehow. Maybe they’ve inherited genes that incline them to fret and tremble. Maybe not. But we do know that they were raised by their parents to be afraid of others, because both the parents and their children tell us so. Sometimes it’s all rather predictable: authoritarians’ parents taught fear of homosexuals, radicals, atheists and pornographers. But they also warned their children, more than most parents did, about kidnappers, reckless drivers, bullies and drunks--bad guys who would seem to threaten everyone’s children. So authoritarian followers, when growing up, probably lived in a scarier world than most kids do, with a lot more boogeymen hiding in dark places, and they’re still scared as adults. For them, gay marriage is not just unthinkable on religious grounds, and unnerving because it means making the “abnormal” acceptable. It’s yet one more sign that perversion is corrupting society from the inside-out, leading to total chaos. Many things, from stem cell research to right-to-die legislation, say to them, “This is the last straw; soon we’ll be plunged into the abyss.” So probably did, in earlier times, women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, sex education and Sunday shopping.

The Releaser.
What releases the aggressive impulse that comes from fear? What slides off the safety on the gun? This, it turns out, is a no-brainer.

How good, how moral are you, compared to other people? (You get to say what is “good” and “moral.”) If you’re an average human being, you’ll think you’re a better than average human being. Almost everybody thinks she’s more moral than most. But high authoritarians typically think they’re way, way better. They are the Holy Ones. They are the Chosen. They are the Righteous. They somehow got a three-for-one special on self-righteousness. And self-righteousness appears to release authoritarian aggression more than anything else. Chronically frightened authoritarian followers, looking for someone to attack because fighting is one of the things people do when they are afraid, are particularly likely to do so when they can find a moral justification for their hostility. Despite all the things in scriptures about loving others, forgiving others, leaving punishment to God, and so on, authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name).

Fear can increase submission as well as aggression. This was illustrated by a series of studies in which I asked people to answer the authoritarian scale while imagining their country was undergoing some internal crisis. A violent left-wing threat featuring a general strike and urban guerrilla warfare understandably caused authoritarian scale scores to soar. But so also did violent right-wing threats, such as a military-aided coup in the halls of power, or “brownshirt” violence in the streets. Most people seem spring-loaded to become more right-wing authoritarian during crises.

The Personal Origins of Right-Wing Authoritarianism

If we line up the usual suspects for explaining anything we do, viz., our genes and our experiences, we have to wonder, “Do some people get born authoritarian followers?” Maybe they do. Much of the social interaction within animal species is shaped by who submits to whom, and we know from breeding experiments that one can turn out increasingly dominant, or increasingly submissive offspring by controlling who mates with whom. That’s where pit bulls came from, on the one hand, and gentle laboratory rats, on the other.

The more obvious expectation that our level of authoritarianism is shaped by our experiences and environment has more support, but it still may not work the way you’d suppose. We might expect parents to be the chief determiners of their children’s attitudes. But even though parents supply the genes, and have the first crack at their children’s learning, they seldom turn out carbon copies of themselves in their offsprung. If you think it’s that mortal enemy of good parenting, other people’s children, that’s a great idea but one also basically unsupported by research. University students show much greater sensitivity to their peers’ dress style than to the issues raised on the authoritarian scale.

Why then aren’t we clones of our parents? Because life has taught us many lessons besides theirs (and our parents may have taught us some they didn’t intend). By and large the students were probably pretty authoritarian as children, submitting to authority, learning whom to fear and dislike, and usually doing what they were supposed to do. But when adolescence struck with all its hormones, urges, and desires for autonomy, some of them began to have new experiences that could have shaken up their early learnings. If the experiences reinforced the parents’, teachers’, and clergies’ teachings, authoritarian attitudes would likely remain high. But if the experiences indicated the teachings were wrong (e.g. “Sex isn’t bad. It’s great!”), the teen is likely to become less authoritarian.

I have discovered in my investigations that, by and large, high authoritarian students had simply missed many of the experiences that might have lowered their authoritarianism. Take that first item on page 59. Authoritarian followers who often agreed about fathers being the head of the family said they didn’t know any other kind of families. And they hadn’t known any unpatriotic people, nor had they broken many rules. They simply had not met many different kinds of people or done their share of wild and crazy things. Instead they had grown up in an enclosed, rather homogeneous environment--with their friends, their schools, their readings, their amusements all controlled to keep them out of harm’s way and Satan’s evil clutches. They had contentedly traveled around on short leashes in relatively small, tight, safe circles all their lives.

Interestingly enough, authoritarian followers show a remarkable capacity for change IF they have some of the important experiences. For example, they are far less likely to have known a homosexual (or realized an acquaintance was homosexual) than most people. But if you look at the high authoritarians who do know someone gay or lesbian, they are much less hostile toward homosexuals in general than most authoritarians are. Getting to know a homosexual usually makes one more accepting of homosexuals as a group. Personal experiences can make a lot of difference, which is a truly hopeful discovery. The problem is, most authoritarian followers won’t willingly exit their small world and try to meet a gay. They’re too afraid. And “coming out” to a high authoritarian acquaintance might have long-term beneficial effects on him, but it would likely carry some risks for the outgoing person

Those who go to a fundamentalist Bible college featuring a church-related curriculum, taught by a church-selected faculty to a mainly High authoritarian student body that lives in men’s dorms and women’s dorms separated by a moat with alligators in it, will probably graduate about as authoritarian as they were when they went in. If, however, they go to a different kind of school, their education may well lower their authoritarianism.

How Authoritarian Followers Think

Authoritarian followers have mainly copied the beliefs of the authorities in their lives. They have not developed and thought through their ideas as much as most people have. Thus almost anything can be found in their heads if their authorities put it there, even stuff that contradicts other stuff. A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high authoritarian can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.

So can everybody, of course, but research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a wouldbe dictator. As Hitler is reported to have said,“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”

1. Illogical Thinking
To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high authoritarians would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.

This is not only illogical, it’s quite dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for a lot of high authoritarians, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted. Now one can easily overstate this finding. A lot of people have trouble with syllogistic reasoning, and high authoritarians are only slightly more likely to make such mistakes than low authoritarians are. But in general high authoritarians seem to have more trouble than most people do realizing that a conclusion is false.

Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in. So if you tell them that archaeologists have discovered a fallen wall at ancient Jericho, they are more likely than most people to infer that this proves the Biblical story of Joshua and the horns is true--when the wall could have been knocked over by lots of other groups, or an earthquake, and be from an entirely different era (which it is).

Not only do authoritarian followers uncritically accept conclusions that support their religious beliefs, they have a problem with evidence in general. They are more likely than most people to think that, since airplane crashes sometimes occur when the pilots’ “biorhythms” are at a low point, this proves biorhythms affect our lives. They think that any time science cannot explain something, this proves mysterious supernatural forces are at work. True, they are less likely to believe in Bigfoot than in the Shroud of Turin. But they do not in general have a very critical outlook on anything unless the authorities in their lives have condemned it for them. Then they can be extremely critical.

2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds
As I said earlier, authoritarians’ ideas are poorly integrated with one another. It’s as if each idea is stored in a file that can be called up and used when the authoritarian wishes, even though another of his ideas--stored in a different file-- basically contradicts it. We all have some inconsistencies in our thinking, but authoritarians can stupify you with the inconsistency of their ideas. Thus they may say they are proud to live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, but another file holds, “My country, love it or leave it.” The ideas were copied from trusted sources, often as sayings, but the authoritarian has never “merged files” to see how well they all fit together.

It’s easy to find authoritarians endorsing inconsistent ideas. Just present slogans and appeals to homey values, and then present slogans and bromides that invoke opposite values. The yea-saying authoritarian follower is likely to agree with all of them. Thus I asked both students and their parents to respond to, “When it comes to love, men and women with opposite points of view are attracted to each other.” Soon afteauthoritarianrds, in the same booklet, I pitched “Birds of a feather flock together when it comes to love.” High authoritarians typically agreed with both statements, even though they responded to the two items within a minute of each other.

But that’s the point: they don’t seem to scan for self-consistency as much as most people do. Similarly they tended to agree with “A government should allow total freedom of expression, even it if threatens law and order” and “A government should only allow freedom of expression so long as it does not threaten law and order.” And “Parents should first of all be gentle and tender with their children,” and “Parents should first of all be firm and uncompromising with their children; spare the rod and spoil the child.”

3. Double Standards
I have found many instances in which authoritarian followers show a double standard in their judgments of people’s behavior or the rightness of various causes. For example they will punish a panhandler who starts a fight with an accountant more than an accountant who (in the same situation) starts a fight with a panhandler. They will punish a prisoner in jail who beats up another prisoner more than they will punish a police officer who beats up that second prisoner. High authoritarians will go easy on authorities, and on a person who attacks someone the authoritarian wants to attack. On the other hand I have found it difficult to catch low authoritarians using double standards. In all the cases above they seem to operate by principles which they apply in even-handed ways.

4. Hypocrisy
You can also, unfortunately, find a considerable amount of hypocrisy in high authoritarians’ behavior. For example, the leaders of authoritarian movements sometimes accuse their opponents of being anti-democratic and anti-free speech when the latter protest against various books, movies, speakers, teachers and so on. They say they impose restrictions for “political correctnesss”. So I wondered if ardent low authoritarian’s desire to censor ideas they disliked was as strong, or stronger, than that of authoritarians.

Would low authoritarians want to censor the things they thought dangerous as much as high authoritarians would in their areas of concern? It turned out to be “no contest,” because in both studies authoritarian followers wanted to impose more censorship in all of these cases--save the one involving the sex education teacher who strongly believed all premarital sex was a sin.

How can this be? It happened because the lows seldom wanted to censor anyone. They apparently believe in freedom of speech, even when they detest the speech. Some low authoritarians may insist on political correctness, but the great majority seemingly do not. Authoritarians on the other hand, spring-loaded for hostility, seem all wound up to clamp right down on lots and lots of people.

5. Blindness To Themselves
If you ask people how much integrity they personally have, guess who pat themselves most on the back by claiming they have more than anyone else? High authoritarians think they had lots more integrity than others do. Similarly when I asked students to write down, anonymously, their biggest faults, authoritarian followers wrote down fewer than others did, mainly because a lot of them said they had no big faults. When I asked students if there was anything they were reluctant to admit about themselves to themselves, high authoritarians led everyone else in saying, no, they were completely honest with themselves.

In fact, despite their own belief that they are quite honest with themselves, authoritarians tend to be highly defensive, and run away from unpleasant truths about themselves more than most people do. I once gave several classes of students, who had filled out a booklet of surveys for me, personal feedback about how they had done on a measure of self-esteem. Half the students were told they had scored quite high in self-esteem, and the other half were told they had scored quite low. High authoritarians were quite interested in finding out the test was valid IF they thought they had done well on the scale. But if they had been told they had low self-esteem, most authoritarian followers did not want to see evidence that the test was valid. Well, wouldn’t everyone do this? No. Most low authoritarian students wanted to see the evidence whether they had gotten good news, OR bad news about themselves.

6. A Profound Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism means dividing the world up into in-groups and out-groups, and it’s something people do quite automatically. As natural as this is, authoritarians see the world more sharply in terms of their in-groups and their out-groups than most people do. They are so ethnocentric that you find them making statements such as, “If you’re not with us, then you’re against us.” There’s no neutral in the highly ethnocentric mind. This dizzying “Us versus Everyone Else” outlook usually develops from traveling in those “tight circles” we talked about, and whirling round in those circles reinforces the ethnocentrism as the authoritarian follower uses his friends to validate his opinions. This is especially important to authoritarians, who have not usually thought things out, explored possibilities, considered alternate points of view, and so on, but acquired their beliefs from the authorities in their lives. They then maintain their beliefs against new threats by seeking out those authorities, and by rubbing elbows as much as possible with people who have the same beliefs.

It essentially boils down to, “I know I’m right because the people who agree with me say I am.” But that works for authoritarians. And it has lots of consequences. For example, this selective exposure is probably one of the reasons high authoritarians do not realize how prejudiced they are “compared with most people.” If you spend a lot of time around rather prejudiced people, you can easily think your own prejudices are normal. Because authoritarians depend so much on their in-group to support their beliefs (whereas other people depend more on independent evidence and logic), high authoritarians place a high premium on group loyalty and cohesiveness.

Authoritarian followers want to belong, and being part of their in-group means a lot to them. Loyalty to that group ranks among the highest virtues, and members of the group who question its leaders or beliefs can quickly be seen as traitors. Can you also sense from these items the energy, the commitment, the submission, and the zeal that authoritarian followers are ready to give to their in-groups, and the satisfaction they would get from being a part of a vast, powerful movement in which everyone thought the same way?

The ethnocentrism of high authoritarians makes them quite vulnerable to unscrupulous manipulators. Suppose your city is electing a new mayor and the big issue becomes how to handle urban crime. Suppose further that a poll shows the citizens of your fair burg strongly favor a “tough, law and order” approach to the problem. After the poll is released, one of the candidates steps foauthoritarianrd and fearlessly endorses a “tough, law and order” approach to crime. Can you trust him? I’d say there’s room for doubt, since he might simply be saying whatever will get the most votes. It would be more convincing, wouldn’t it, if he came out for law and order after polls showed only half the voters favored that course, while the other half wanted a “community development” approach aimed at eliminating the causes of crime.

If somebody comes out for that during an election, but only after polls show this is a popular stand, authoritarian followers still believe him. It doesn’t matter whether the candidate really believes it, or might just be saying it to get elected. High authoritarians tend to ignore the many devious reasons why someone might lie and say something they find agreeable.

You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups.

7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense
By dogmatism I mean relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty. It’s easy to see why authoritarian followers would be dogmatic, isn’t it? When you haven’t figured out your beliefs, but instead absorbed them from other people, you’re really in no position to defend them from attack. Simply put, you don’t know why the things you believe are true. Somebody else decided they were, and you’re taking their word for it. So what do you do when challenged? Well first of all you avoid challenges by sticking with your own kind as much as possible, because they’re hardly likely to ask pointed questions about your beliefs.

But if you meet someone who does, you’ll probably defend your ideas as best you can, parrying thrusts with whatever answers your authorities have pre-loaded into your head. If these defenses crumble, you may go back to the trusted sources. They probably don’t have to give you a convincing refutation of the anxiety-producing argument that breached your defenses, just the assurance that you nonetheless are right. But if the arguments against you become overwhelming and persistent, you either concede the point--which may put the whole lot at risk--or you simply insist you are right and walk away, clutching your beliefs more tightly than ever. That’s what authoritarian followers tend to do.

You can often find elements of dogmatism in religion. Thus I have asked people who believe in the traditional God, “What would be required, what would have to happen, for you to not believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God? That is, are there conceivable events, or evidence, that would lead you to not believe? Virtually all high authoritarians say there simply is nothing that could change their minds.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:42 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Prof. Artemeyer's study was done in a period when most Authoritarian leaders and followers in the U.S. were politically conservative, so I'm not surprised he found more conservative Authoritarians. In the 1930's, or in another country, his findings about left/right Authoritarianism might have been different.

I agree. Hence I will think in the terms I mentioned above from now on. Truly it can be on either side--or something else. I don't think he was trying to slant it deliberately, as some have suggested, I think it's more a reflection of the time he was writing and the fact that it was the power he observed on the right which was worrisome to him at the time. We are all, after all, fallible, yes?

On the other hand, a number of the symptoms of what he calls "authoritarian", DO more often describe people on the "right wing"--dogmatic religiosity, blatant bigotry, aggresssive defense of conformity, blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly, etc. So there IS some validity to the term "right wing", despite the fact that it CAN occur on either side.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 3:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So authoritarianism is a process, not a goal. It is the process of defending what the authoritarian believes to be "the authority", which also includes the process of holding "the authority" to different standards than everyone else.

Couple of things I find fascinating, which the book might reveal:

HOW do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures? Why choose Nixon and Bush but not Obama and Clinton? Do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures on the basis of who presents the scarier world-view? Do they choose on the basis of fear and stasis rather than hope and change? Do they choose their authority figure because that particular person presents things in a very black-white manner? Pulls the SPECIFIC strings of the follower that says safety is in numbers[/]?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 4:17 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The seizure of private property like, say, Saddam's palaces? Didn't we seize a bunch of those in the not-too-distant past?

Media censorship? Is that another euphemism for not granting "access" to the media you don't like, and granting it to the media you DO like? Or would "media censorship" involve things like "free speech zones" which are located entirely behind chain-link fences miles away from the actual Presidential appearance? Or would it involve arresting people who deign to show up wearing a "Kerry for President" t-shirt to a Bush rally?

Providing military support for "insurgents" in other countries? I thought people were SURE that "the surge" was working? Now you're saying that we were just being authoritarian in Iraq?

So your point is that there has been Authoritarianism at work in the U.S. in the past eight years or more? Duh. My point is that it's been at work under administrations of both "liberal" and "conservative" bent - in the U.S. and abroad. Saying Bush set up "free-speech" zones doesn't make Chavez closing opposition media any less Authoritarian.

Mike. The folks who want to stop abortion and the folks who want to take your guns are both Authoritarian. So are the folks who want to ban gay marriage or trans-fat. Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is Authoritarian.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 4:59 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
On the other hand, a number of the symptoms of what he calls "authoritarian", DO more often describe people on the "right wing"--dogmatic religiosity, blatant bigotry, aggresssive defense of conformity, blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly, etc. So there IS some validity to the term "right wing", despite the fact that it CAN occur on either side.

Let's restate those symptoms in more neutral terms.

Dogmatic belief in a system of values (doesn't have to be religious, does it? Folk can be as fervent about Socialism as Catholicism.).
Blatant prejudice against non-conformers with the system of values (You know...the "other", like those gun-nuts/gays/meateaters/abortionists/etc.).
Defense of the system of values(God/Marx/Science/History/etc. says it must be true. It's so obvious.).
Blindly following and excusing their leaders unquestioningly (so - this one stays the same. Sure Stalin/Lincoln/Mao/Bush/etc. got a lot of folks killed, but it was for the best.).

Let's take another step and decide that the authoritarian leaders don't have to be politicians, but can be anyone with a bully pulpit; for example The Christian Coalition, or PETA, or National Right to Life, or Handgun Control.

I'd suspect that you could find authoritarian followers for all these organizations, and for most any other - right or left - that want to tell other people what to do, or how to live.

Basically, authoritarian followers want to tell you how to live - because they have received the revealed truth from God or Marx or Jerry Fallwell or George Soros - and can't imagine you wouldn't agree with them 100%. They will force you to follow their leader for your own good, even if you resist. If you resist too much, they will make you "the other" who isn't really a person, but an obstacle to be removed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 5:33 PM

Whoah, good post, Geeze!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 5:49 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HOW do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures? Why choose Nixon and Bush but not Obama and Clinton? Do authoritarian followers CHOOSE their authority figures on the basis of who presents the scarier world-view? Do they choose on the basis of fear and stasis rather than hope and change? Do they choose their authority figure because that particular person presents things in a very black-white manner? Pulls the SPECIFIC strings of the follower that says safety is in numbers?

Simply, they choose the leader that treats them the way their abusive father treated them when they were young. It has to do with brazen abuse, self-righteous even. Public humiliations in front of the family. The kind of abuse that is practiced in plain sight. Physical abuse is only the most obvious, there are plenty of ways for a parent to make a child feel small and defective, to create an abusive system.

This is why so many who blindly follow these guys do so to their economic disadvantage. The "rich" represent the mythical "good child" who would never have needed to be abused as they'd been, the favorite and the strong child to whom they could never measure up. Economically unsuccessful authoritarians see themselves as disappointments to their Father figure and they feel they deserve whatever poverty they get. The abuse has trained them to blame themselves for all their misfortunes. The more abuse they suffer, the harder it is to maintain the image of the benevolent father and the harder they work at it. Logic is an early casualty, as is self-respect, as is self-knowledge.

It's a very patriarchal family system and requires the complicit cowardice of the mother to keep it going, or her effective impotence if she too becomes a victim of the abuse. So authoritarians tend not to have any real respect for women or their attributes, kindness to the undeserving and empathy, for instance. They may incorporate such language if it makes the father look good, but actually acting upon these ideas is distasteful, even ridiculous.

The family system was weighted against these authoritarians as children, and the social system they support as adults is also weighted against them. It all comes down to protecting the false/benevolent image they hold of their abusive parent or parent culture. We see them going to the most extreme lengths to protect that image. To such people, Obama, a black man, represents an escaped bad child who can mean the family nothing but harm. Obama's success, after centuries of being at the bottom of the social/family hierarchy, can only mean revenge and harm to Papa's good name. His mere existence is a threat to their entire way of life, you see?

Obama and Clinton very imperfectly, if at all, represent the image of the aloof, withholding, abusive father that these people recognize and feel they need. Obama and Clinton don't respect the kind of "children should be seen and not heard," "speak when you're spoken to," "don't make me do this" style of domination they're used to. And if they make gestures in that direction, they tend not to be trusted.

On the contrary, Obama and Clinton act like they care about our needs more than their own, they act as if they want us to make our own decisions and think. What is particularly damning to the authoritarians, is that such men ACT upon their kind words--they see it as shameful and womanish. Citizens who come from the sort of absolutist, patriarchal and abusive family systems I'm talking about won't recognize genuine empathy or mercy as anything but a pack of lies. They distrust the image of kindness, fearing the punishment that's to follow. And when it doesn't, they don't thank the Obamas and the Clintons of the world, they simply lose all respect for them--to them, the Clintons and Obamas of the world go from being mere liars to liars and wussies.

This may sound cartoonish, but you hear this kind of patriarchal cartoon language from the likes of Rush and Beck every day. This is the inner world of the authoritarian.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 7:07 PM

DREAMTROVE

HK

Clinton does not deserve to be coupled with Obama. IMHO, there's not a stone throw dif between Clinton, Bush, and any tin plated dictator. The unelected unchecked executive that goes outside the law and directly enacts extremist policy...

That said, this is drifting a little from the thread...

Niki, sorry about the threadjack, I don't think that people will have read the book, it's probably not a logical assumption. Everyone gets to participate in the debate, and if these forums have a point it's to boil down core ideas into the shortest text and then discuss the implications, expound upon those...

...And also to have the partisan tools bop each other over the head like cartoon mice until they sink under the sea.

Yeah, they're still watching to see if banghead will get through the wall to stop bash.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 8:16 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Signym...you got it precisely, as I see it. I'll defer to Cavalier's response about leaders, as he recommended the book in the first place and I haven't gotten that far yet. His response is admittedly depressing...sigh...but it makes sense. I'll be interested to read the rest.

Geezer: You nailed it beautifully. You're right...taken on a smaller scale, ANY group can gain authoritarian followers; certainly that's the definition of cults, as well as all those you listed. Thank you for helping me to see it from a wider perspective!

Dream, I disagree. I think Cavalier's got it right, insofar as how Clinton and Obama come across, especially to the authoritarian follower. It's not about how someone who ISN'T an authoritarian follower sees them or what political beliefs such a person (like yourself) holds; it's far more basic than that and I think he pegged it perfectly.

Yes, of course I know all you said about threads; I felt it important to clarify what I was talking about, as I had put it in political perspective initially and it's unfair to only put forth that view. I think it was great, actually, Signym and Geezer got the concept right away, and of course Cavalier understands it 'cuz he read the book.

I actually find discussing the FULL concept of authoritarian followers and leaders is more interesting than just the political aspects...I was in the throes of "yeah, that's it!" about my confusion regarding right-wing radicals, which is why he suggested the book, when I initially posted the thread. But it's so much more than that, and more interesting to read what they had to say and to look at the wider perspective.

I was just trying to set the record straight, out of fairness to the author and the subject, but they've really got it and it enhanced the discussion, for me at least.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:48 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
HK

Clinton does not deserve to be coupled with Obama. IMHO, there's not a stone throw dif between Clinton, Bush, and any tin plated dictator. The unelected unchecked executive that goes outside the law and directly enacts extremist policy...

DT, I think you and Geez are missing the point and in not dissimilar ways.

Who Clinton IS is not as important to the authoritarians, or to this discussion, as how he comes across, how he is accepted by his supporters and hated by his enemies. Authoritarianism is defined by the followers, not the leaders they give their fealty to.

Also, I think Clinton represents a different culture from the culture that the Bush's embody--a right-wing culture, reflecting right-wing values. Clinton himself may be a corrupt bastard, but he does not appeal to the authoritarians for the reasons I gave in my previous post. The extraordinary prominence of his wife in his administration, the partnership model of power they embody, marked him as clearly to the authoritarians as Obama's skin does.

This is why "right-wing authoritarianism" is not a misnomer. The core of the Republican party right now is solidly, psychologically authoritarian. They approve of violence against the weak, extreme violence against those they consider evil, and violence against those who threaten patriarchal power as such. The core of the Democratic party (is there even a core to the Democratic party?) is considerably harder to pin down--the whole herding cats thing.

There is a creeping authoritarianism in the Dem party as well, but it is the same authoritarianism, a right-leaning authoritarianism that tolerates the same abuses of civil rights, the same violence against the weak, the foreign and the effeminate.

And Niki, just to be clear: The book doesn't go into developmental psychology, the origins and causes of authoritarianism. For that you would be well served to seek out the works of German psychologist, Alice Miller. She has made that study her life's work.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So your point is that there has been Authoritarianism at work in the U.S. in the past eight years or more? Duh. My point is that it's been at work under administrations of both "liberal" and "conservative" bent - in the U.S. and abroad. Saying Bush set up "free-speech" zones doesn't make Chavez closing opposition media any less Authoritarian.

Doesn't make it any less authoritarian, but it does shine a little different light on it. My point was to get people thinking, get them questioning: Why is it wrong when THIS guy does it, but it wasn't wrong when this other guy did it and I supported him?

Seems a "despot" is someone we've been programmed not to like, even though he's only doing things that, if done by someone in our own particular party, would be "patriotic" or "for our own good". The deeds don't change; our names for and perceptions of those deeds do. One man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter", and heinous deeds are often done by both.

Quote:

Mike. The folks who want to stop abortion and the folks who want to take your guns are both Authoritarian. So are the folks who want to ban gay marriage or trans-fat. Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is Authoritarian.

Keep going. Follow that logical train and ask the next question:

Are they wrong? Is being "authoritarian" automatically wrong, always? Is following them a bad thing? Or, more likely, are there grey areas?

I find traffic laws authoritarian. Often, the best "line" through a curve carries me across the yellow lines and into the oncoming lanes. Is that okay, or should I follow the lines of authoritarianism for the safety of my fellow commuters?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 2:24 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I hope that clears it up; it is, indeed, in a way unfair to attribute these personality traits only to Conservatives, but I happen to agree with his rationale, so I accept the delineation. He mentions throughout the book where it might refer to left-leaning people, by the way.

I'm just curious Niki.... what do you consider your own political leanings? A lot of your posts lead me to believe you're quite an independent thinker, yet you seem to refer to yourself as a Liberal quite often since I've seen you in here (which has only been a few days).

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 3:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER:

Quote:
Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is authoritarian.

Have you even READ the book? That's not the point I got. I think you're confusing Altemeyer's ideas with your pro-capitalist Libertarianism. As I recall from skimming the book, the author set up a number of "test trials" with groups of people in a "rule the world" scenario, which had a number of realistic stressors. Authoritarian-heavy groups quickly reached nuclear Armageddon. The NA created policies and "implemented" them (in game-playing mode, of course). Their goals WERE "for our good", and they managed to solve the problems and bring the world back from the brink. In other words, non-authoritarians DID set up a "government for our own good", and I would imagine (non-authoritarians being the way they are) that not everyone agreed with the plan of action!

So the essential distinction is not whether there is a government and whether or not that government is able to act effectively "for the good of the people", or even whether or not the government reaches complete consensus. The essential distinction appears to be HOW those actions were arrived at, and whether the goals REALLY are for the common good, or whether that is simply a smokescreen for a power-grab.

So strangely, Geezer, everything is NOT reducible to your anti-government world-view! Non-authoritarians are not libertarians. They seem to be able to act very well collectively, thank you. But if you want to see a great example of an authoritarian power-structure, just look at modern corporations: Driven by a top-down structure in a fierce competition for territory (markets), guaranteed to make its minions feel like undeserving pieces of shit, and set uo for the benefit of a few. And, quite honestly, anyone who shakes that model gets a very authoritarian reaction from you: Don't question it. It's worked for so many years. Don't change. With you, it's all about fear and stasis, not hope and change.

BTW- Does Prof Altemeyer have a better name for "non-authoritarians" than that? Can we reduce it to something simpler to type, please??? How about NoA??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 3:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
My point was to get people thinking, get them questioning: Why is it wrong when THIS guy does it, but it wasn't wrong when this other guy did it and I supported him?

That's my point too. But the liberals I'm addressing here already think the U.S. is authoritarian, so I have to try to illustrate that not only the political right can be labeled such.

Quote:
Keep going. Follow that logical train and ask the next question:

Are they wrong? Is being "authoritarian" automatically wrong, always? Is following them a bad thing? Or, more likely, are there grey areas?

Now that is a good question. Was America's wholehearted support of the war effort in WWII an example of RWA followers? This calls for more thought.

BTW, I'm always in favor of grey areas. I suspect that a lot of the folk who see it as all black or white would rate high in the RWA survey.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 3:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
GEEZER:
Quote:
Pretty much anyone who will support the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" is authoritarian.
Have you even READ the book? That's not the point I got.

Actually, that was my opinion, not what I gleaned from Prof. Altemeyer's book, which I'm still reading as I get the time.

However, if you'd read the sentence above in the context of the entire post containing it and my following post, you might notice the assumption that the folk mentioned as "support(ing) the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" are pretty clearly identified as RWAs, not non-authoritarians, already.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 3:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But the liberals I'm addressing here already think the U.S. is authoritarian, so I have to try to illustrate that not only the political right can be labeled such.

NO, they don't. Geezer, you're good at putting words in people's mouths. You've been speaking for Altemeyer and getting it all wrong. (Try reading the book, 'mkay?) And now you're speaking for liberals, and getting it all wrong.

You're neither a NoA nor a liberal. You speaking for them is laughable, so stop speaking for either. You're a pro-capitalist libertarian, so speak for them, or speak for yourself and be honest about where you're coming from and what your motives are.

I would say that Liberals don't have the blanket anti-government stance you paint them with. In fact, liberals and NoAs tend NOT to take "blanket" stances about pretty much anything. There are things about this government which are tending to be authoritarian. (As HK put it: creeping authoritarianism) There are things about this government that could be effective and useful in managing our common problems.

Quote:
you might notice the assumption that the folk mentioned as "support(ing) the power of government to stop you from doing something either "for the good of society" or because "God want's it" are pretty clearly identified as RWAs, not non-authoritarians, already.

Bull. IF we outlaw murder for the good of society, does THAT make us authoritarians? Again, you keep speaking for Altemeyer without understanding what little you HAVE read. You keep twisting his conclusion to fit into your anti-government, pro-capitalist world view. That is not his viewpoint at all. So STOP presenting your viewpoint as if it were his. Man up. Speak for yourself.

Peace out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 5:40 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

You didn't outlaw murder....

One of the 10 commandments.

Whether you want to believe or not, that was there long before any of us.

I believe in the Constitution for the same reason even though it was manmade.

Minimum laws, minimum Government.

I believe in Government, but not centralized Government which controls and knows everything about everyone.

Don't keep fooling yourself. No matter who's in office, you're loosing your ass in terms of freedom everyday.

Any way you look at it you lose.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 7:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm registered Independent, as of the last election, because I'm sick to death of both "parties"...partly because I DO see authorianism in both. Eight years of Bush has made me a pretty rabid liberal at this point, but (and she says this in a very small voice) I actually worked and voted for Goldwater. Thank GAWD he lost! --hey, I was young; that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Signym, you nailed it. And I doubt few here have read the book, which is why I posted some relevant passages, to let those who haven't better understand the concept. WIthout understanding the whole concept, it's easy to slip into the very "us v. them" he talks about, when it comes to politics especially.

Wasn't that "rule the world" thing fascinating? I know about the Stanford trials that had to be cut short, so the "shock" trial didn't surprise me, nor did many of the others. But the "rule the world" thing was SO telling, it surprised me.

I liked the corporate model; you're right, and it explained something else to me. How those that advance in the corporate world are most likely authoritarians or authoritarian followers, and why I got in so much trouble when I complained about inequalities! Duh...

He refers half the time to high and low RWAs, but to avoid the prejudice against "right wing", I changed all his RWAs to "authoritarian"--low and high. NA works great for me, tho' I'd like to find something that replaces "authoritarian" completely, for the same length reason. Given that's what the book is ABOUT, that's hard, tho'.

Geezer:

Quote:
Is being "authoritarian" automatically wrong, always? Is following them a bad thing? Or, more likely, are there grey areas?

that one is easy to answer. Yes it's wrong, no, following them is not a good thing, because authoritarians DON'T HAVE grey areas. It IS black and white, that's part of the mentality. So while having an authoritarian LEADER may have it's good points, following one without questioning them isn't healthy.

As for WWII, did I forget to add the part about when in crisis, more people act as authoritarian followers? If I did, my apologies, that was an important point to make. Even NAs become more authoritarian followers in a crisis, which explains both WWII and 9/11--and our giving away so many of our civil rights and giving Dumbya so much power following it!

Damn, Sigynm, I admire you, again you nailed it again:

Quote:
I would say that Liberals don't have the blanket anti-government stance you paint them with. In fact, liberals and NoAs tend NOT to take "blanket" stances about pretty much anything. There are things about this government which are tending to be authoritarian. (As HK put it: creeping authoritarianism) There are things about this government that could be effective and useful in managing our common problems.

Kewl. However,

Quote:
stop you from doing something either "for the good of society"

was, as he said, an ASSUMPTION. That he assumed something that wasn't actually said means he misunderstood it, not said it was fact. Tho' it is an indication of the murky thinking of an authoritarian follower, it's not something I think he did deliberately, do you get my drift?

I'm going to try and bear in mind a lot of what was written about the psychological aspect of it, which MAY help me stop being so angry with authoritarian followers' points of view...help me realize that they're not deliberately changing things to fit an agenda, they're actually not understanding it as it IS, but as it fits their beliefs. That makes a big difference in how I view them and interact with them, for me. IF I can keep it in mind, which admittedly is difficult when they rant and rave (not referring to this debate or what he wrote).

Jack, the Ten Commandments may have "outlawed" murder initially, but that didn't make it LAW until it was outlawed by the government. Otherwise people of different faiths wouldn't have felt it necessary. For example, there are societies where if someone is murdered, the family of the victim is allowed--expected--to take the life of one of the family of the murderer, etc. Tenants of religion aren't automatically "law" to everyone (thank gawd!), the government makes the laws, and punishes people for breaking them.

If that were not so, how would you deal with the executioner? I know "an eye for an eye", but if Christianity said "no murder" at the same time, it gets murky.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:02 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Thou shalt not murder... NOT... Thou shalt not kill.

Huge difference.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:03 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Basic point still stands. Besides, I thought it WAS "thou shalt not kill".

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:09 AM