John Dean: Authoritarianism Rules Republicans

Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean of Watergate fame (or better, infamy) isn't very happy with the direction the Republican Party is headed under its current leadership. After studying "decades of empirical research," he thinks he understands why, authoritarianism, and says that "I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring ...[this] work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done." Here's a start:

Triumph of the authoritarians, by John W. Dean, Commentary, Boston Globe: Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest -- none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical.

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

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

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

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

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

I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater... Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today's professed conservatives -- their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation. From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do... Sadly, the senator's declining health soon precluded his continuing...

For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work.

What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.

Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians.

Given his background and role in Watergate, a description of this White House as "a Nixon "imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra," and other such statements catches your attention.

Comments

[reason]

I read this is basically a call for more research. But who would publicise such research - the authoritarian MSM?

[Stormy]

Dean documents another authoritarian thrust in his examination of Bush’s signing statements, which are a direct attack on the institution of Congress.

These signing statements in effect eviscerate laws passed by Congress. They are, as he asserts, a direct attack on the institution of Congress itself—aided and abetted by party that now controls Congress.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060714.html

“This summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held hearings on President Bush's uses and abuses of signing statements. Technically, these are statements by the President accompanying his signing of legislation. In this Administration, however, signing statements have been used as a dodgy practice of telling the Congress to go to hell. “

The signing statements cover a wide range of legislation.

My own personal sense is that Bush can now tailor make the laws to precisely what he wants while at the same time giving is conservative allies in Congress some PR cover.

As far as research on this particular “authoritarian” issue, apparently the Bar Association will soon be forth-coming with a study of this practice.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Who cares what John Dean thinks? Even if he is right, he was always a sniveling self-serving little rat.

Ask G. Gordon Liddy! :-))

[true conservative]

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

[Blissex]

«and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe.»

And this is the key: because ''authoritarian'' republicans would not matter much if they did not get the votes. But they do. The USA is not governed by enlightened philosophers, but by whoever gets the votes.

Now the big problem is how to persuade increasingly older, paranoid, wealthy voters to vote for non-authoritarian policies. Not an easy task.

[Nelson]

This is just a political rant and doesn't really say anything constructive. Any voter/political party who doesn't want a smaller Federal government is in favor of "authoritarianism", Republican or Democrat.

[Holly W.]

Does anyone actually describe themselves in such unflattering terms as "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral"? I'd like to see that research for myself!

[Holly W.]

I've talked to people who tell me quite seriously that they always vote Republican because the Democrats just want to implement a police state. I always find this a bit mystifying, since the Dems sure aren't organized enough to manage any such thing -- but the Reps are! And why these people don't think that a healthily divided government is the best way to stave off authoritarianism is beyond me.

[piglet]

This piece is very well written (if not 100% accurate - "Ronald Reagan believed in "conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business", really?). The question is why Conservaives are still following those non-conservative Authoritarians like a flock of sheep. Is this simply denial of reality, or do they actually share the authoritarians' values? The conclusion is surprisingly weak - as if social scientists could change the political tide by publishing some more articles. I wonder whether this is actually a (somehow coded) encouragement to read Adorno's classical 1950 study 'The Authoritarian Personality' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_Personality). Dean doesn't mention the word "fascism", maybe doesn't dare pronounce it, but his implciation is clearly that this is where Authoritarian Republicans are heading.

[Bruce Wilder]

I suppose that Dean is making a reference to the long line of research, which followed the 1950 publication of the Authoritarian Personality, written by Theodore Adorno et alia.

That book was tremendously influential for academics of the 1960's and 1970's, but I think it tended to fade into obscurity in the 1980's.

I seem to remember James Q. Wilson writing some dismissive articles, labelling the Authoritarian Personality as a "debunked" attempt to psychologize or medicalize legitimate conservative viewpoints and attitudes.

The most compelling aspect of the Authoritarian Personality was the demonstration of how readily some people were to irrationally accept rank stupidity as part of a political program, which pushed the right emotional buttons.

[Richard]

I also saw Adorno written all over this article. I remember reading a few years ago about a resurgence in interest in Adorno and measures of authoritarian personality and that instantly came to mind as well.

Watching Bush the Action Figure has made me think of Adorno at times.

[Devang]

arg!

piglet, he did mention proto-fascism in his Daily Show interview when asked about fascism.

[Devang]

Blissex, Nelson, wile you're partly right, I think you're missing the bigger point of the Millgram experiments and Terror Management Theory. John Dean's new book deals with these two parts of modern conservatives in quite a bit of detail (those who call into c-span saying the NYT editor should be in jail while Rove should be free).

The scientific material isn't new by any means, and has been mentions of the Millgram experiments in many non-mainstream leftist documentaries (Enron: The smartest guys in the room was the latest one) in the last 10 years. Al Franken made a big point out of Terror Management Theory in his last book (The Truth: With Jokes), when he said there were 3 reasons Bush/Cheney won. Fear, Queer, and Smear.

I would strongly suggest googling the two and finding out more. The research experiments produced emperical data, which the social-scientists have yet to explain fully. Is it the authoritarian tendency? Where does it come from and why? Perhaps I need to read more as well.

[Devang]

He mentions the fascist word again, on Countdown. when asked of a threat to democracy.

The main missing thought here as I see it, and Jon Stewart mentions, is that the authoritarian strain does show up on the left with communism. So, in an ideal democracy the media (to prevent propoganda) and the populous should be aware of those parts of the human psyche.

[Sarah]

Everything needed to know about Nixon's character was on full display when he trashed Helen Douglas. A vivid update came in his assosciation with Roy Cohn and the Army-McCarthy hearings. Mr. Dean seems a slow learner. And he still does'nt appear to be familiar with Benito Mussolini's definition of Fascism: Corporatism.

[Tom Saunders]

Liberal Democracy v. American Legalism
by
Thomas Saunders, Founder of the Bill of Attainder Project, Advisor to the National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Consulting Editor to Diogenese Magazine. www.njcdlp.org

Judicial Activism, is when judges, deviate from the 'stare decisis,' of former cases, or ignore established precedent and rules based upon their own sense of justice or injustice, using the cloak of ''judicial immunity.'' Politicians can deviate from the established use of law in much the same way. The judicial and legislative branches of the government, can corrupt and deviate the law, to their own whim, unless they are called on this kind of corruption.

Levin's quote below can be shown as a known part of linguistic science, called synchysis, and when judges and politicians use it, not with just words but whole idealisms, citizens and politicians have a duty to stop this kind of corruption.

''In both Judicial, and Legislative acts; One of the most effective ways of diluting of a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less restricted in meaning..." (Statement from Justice Black on Douglas' decision that "turned constitutional law into semantics, by replacing the language of actual rights with the phrase, "Right to Privacy." See "Men in Black" Levin, Regnery, 2005, p. 58)

Synchysis: ''A disorderly placing of a word in a sentence to indicate or cause confusion
of thought. Or a word dislodges from the common usage in a lexicon and becomes, Obsolete: No longer in general, current use, and therefor its meaning may become
questionable.'' (Dictionary of Linguistics, Pei and Gaynor, Littlefield, 1975, p. 209.)

The act of replacing a law, or placing '' intent,'' which is based upon liberal democracy, or legalism can be demonstrated. Laws come from two places, the legislature and the judicial.

''A statute is a law made by the legislative branch of the government.'' Constitutional law, is ''a body of statutory and case law that is based on, concerns or interprets of the constitution.'' (See also, mandate.) Therefor, a Constitutional Mandate, is in effect a statutory order, or doctrine set forth in the body of the constitution, or its amendments. Case law; is ''law established be judicial decisions in cases, as distinguished from law created by legislation.''(Websters, p. 469. 470.)

The law is determined from the aspect of what the court has ruled before, on both statutory, and case law. This concept is called, Stare decisis: (To stand by things that have been settled.) The doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on the questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons, ( as to prevent the perpetration of injustice). (''Webster's Dictionary of Law,'' Webster, 1996, p. 467)

The rights and privileges of the constitution should be stable if the general population, the legislature, and judicial know the concept of ''liberal democracy.'' Clearly, America was meant to be a 'liberal democracy,' and any deviation from that idea should be considered traitorous. { I am inserting the term republic into this definition as it applies to both.}

"In order for democracy {or a republic}, to be effective or meaningful as 'rule by the people,' there must be constitutional limits on government and, guarantees of civil and political rights of citizens. This will ensure, or at least encourage freedom of expression, opinions, and publications, and the free and frequent and informed elections which are necessary for democracy to be other than a formal title. " ( "Liberal Democracy'' David Held Model of Democracy, Oxford '87' p. 310.)

Too many laws today violate the premise of liberal democracy, and fall into the destructive category of being acts of ''legalism.'' The destructive force of legalism was recognized hundreds of years before America became a republic.

"Legalism" is when a culture implements the idea that the 'state' assume full totalitarianism over the culture. The term comes from the Chinese phenomena in the Zhou Dynasty. Han Fei Tzu, is credited with causing the first known socio-political move to Legalism. Chao Kao, in the Ch'in Dynasty can be credited with a second bout, where the state sought total control over the people. Legalism in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to the imposition of excessive conformity to religious rules of behavior." (Wikipedia)

A more modern term for legalism is Authoratarianism. ...Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures. The term may also be used to describe the personality or management style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building consensus.

In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism See also John Deans comments... http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072206X.shtml

One Constitutional mandate is in ''Article One, Section Nine, Paragraph, 3., which states, No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law shall be passed.'' Several cases involving bills of attainder have been adjudicated. Two distinct meanings of the phrase 'bill of attainder' have been established, one being a bill of attainder proper, which is a law permitting the death of a person, without a trial.

The other aspect of a bill of attainder is related to the aspect of the ''doctrine of pains and penalties.'' This type of mandate virtually strips a citizen of rights, outlawing him, confiscating his property, and denying 'due process' under the law. In the words of Frederic Bastiat, bills of attainder are, ''laws that plunder, life, liberty and property.'' (See; ''The Law, Bastiat, Foundation for Economic Education, 1996.)

The U. S. Code, cites one particular case as stare decisis for the scope of the meaning of bill of attainder, and how Congress should regard this type of law.

Cummings v. Missouri (1867), states "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment." (Cited in the U.S.C., as defining cases.)

The growing corruption in the legislature, and judiciary reflect a trend to base all American law upon the tyranny of 'Legalism.' The right of private property for the people to retain property above the right of the government to take it without permission, has been systematically stripped from American rights.

Asset forfeiture laws, both state and federal are used as common punishment for hundreds of acts decreed as crimes. The case of Kelo v. New London, the Court has ruled that private property can be seized by local and state governments and sold to private enterprise. Americans virtually have no right to private property....

What the minions of 'American Legalism' propose, is to strip American rights of a 'liberal democracy all together, and turn the United States into a relative 'Police State.' The intent of bill of attainder mandates, was to help prevent the abuse of 'Legalism. With the right of private property gone, attempts being made at both the judicial and legislative levels to strip citizens of other rights of free speech, free press, and the right to congregate, is gaining ground. American rights based upon liberal democracy are almost gone.

The shrinking protections of the rights provided by the U. S. Constitution, reflect the historical legacy of tyranny left by ''McCarthyism,'' and other 'knee jerk' legal reactions to the 'politics of fear.' The trend toward 'legalism' shows ignorance of, or disregard for the protection of American to be a 'liberal democracy,' and the sworn oath to protect the Constitution.

It is time that the American people, the judiciary, and the legislature recognize this dangerous and adverse tyranny in U. S. law. In short, a minion of American legalism, and the disregard of American rights based upon 'liberal democracy' shows himself as a traitor to American liberty.

[Prorgressive]

Adorno's study is brilliant, as empirically sound as it is theoretically sophisticated. It uncannily predicts the current dilemma--the current horror--we are experiencing. I am referring to the trampling of the constitution and of liberty itself by a relatively small cadre of dedicated authoritarians and their larger groups of like-minded, lemming-like followers, led by the Christian Right.
Those who read the study by Adorno, et al (Paul Lazarsfeld was also a contributor to the research work) might also find Adorno's Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life interesting.