Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience"

Great Debates
1

I’ve just finished John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience, the first book I’ve bothered to read in a single sitting in quite a while. It was definitely worth it for the peer-reviewed, AAAS-awarded social science involved, even if little of it was surprising.

The first thing you must understand about this book is it’s title. On first blush, it would probably appear to the average reader to be a vitriolic attack on conservatives in the line of Coulter’s attacks on liberals. But you would be quite (if understandably) mistaken. No, Dean’s title takes off from the title of Barry Goldwater’s famous book, The Conscience of a Conservative (in fact, Dean dedicates his book to Goldwater, who was actively working with Dean on this new book until he died). Dean is still a conservative, yet he can read the writing on the wall at least as well as anyone and knows how dangerous and ultimately anti-American the authoritarians within the ranks of conservatism have become and how they’re riding higher and higher on that dubious vehicle into American despotism.

This book is above all a rational, scientific book with Dean adopting the role of Carl Sagan in popularizing the too-little known political social science involving authoritarianism, which is predominantly conservative (Stalinism was, social-scientifically speaking, conservative authoritarianism, regardless of the labels one applies to its other elements). It desperately needs to be read by all who wish to be politically aware and those who wish to examine their consciences. Sociology has much to tell us about this complex subject, and John Dean is a direct witness to how conservative authoritarianism can lead us to disaster.

The key points Dean brings out are what social science has discovered about the bulk of conservatives, especially the social/religious conservatives (of whatever party). The leaders generally possess such key attributes as:

  • typically male

  • dominating

  • opposes or discredits equality

  • desirous of personal power

  • amoral/Machiavellian

  • (up to approx 20 more)

While authoritarian followers’ key attributes include:

  • submissive to authority (e.g., Milgram obeyers-- see this thread I started)

  • aggressive on behalf of authority

  • conventional

  • prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals, women, or different religions)

  • uncritical toward chosen authority

  • (more in Dean’s book)
    There is even a category of people who score high on both authoritarian leader and follower scales, nicknamed “Double Highs”. These are, of course, the most dangerous.

But even just the followers, the “RWA’s” – the Right Wing Authoritarians – are frightening enough. One of their most common attributes is their vehement self-righteousness, which (perhaps ironically) is often harmfully facilitated by their religious beliefs. For example, when they act contrary to their consciences (for the majority of conservatives who actually possess one), their guilt does not keep them from acting similarly in the future because, (1) in the case of Catholics, they just go to confession and feel (at least somewhat contrary to what I understand Catholic teaching to actually be) that their sins and guilt are gone, or (2) in the case of evangelicals and “born-agains”, that they can just pretty much repeat the magic mantra of how they’ve “accepted Jesus into their hearts” and all the guilt is completely gone, allowing them to feel and act as self-righteously as before.

Dean discusses this and other issues relating to how this rapidly expanding glut of authoritarianism is leading us farther and farther away from the democratic ideals we used to cherish just decades ago.
An aside: I noticed something many times while reading this book; I kept asking myself: “What about liberal authoritarianism? How wide-spread is it? What role does it play in American politics? What does social science have to say about them? Am I a liberal authoritarian? Do I have a conscience?”

And then I realized that by merely asking myself these questions it suggested that there are few to no liberal authoritarians (note my comment above regarding Stalinism), that the phrase at the very least approached a contradiction in terms. For one of the key social science elements of authoritarianism is the lack of self-reflection and the asking of self-challenging questions!

I encourage you to read the book and discuss.

2

See also “Frankfurt School”, and Theodore Adorno “The Authoritarian Personality”; this isn’t anything new, just standard leftist/marxist dogma wrapped up with a pretty new bow, but the thesis goes back to at least the early 1930’s and cultivated here in the U.S. with startling success. Dean must need money? In any event, leftists are certainly no strangers to authoritarianism, that’s why trying to pigeonhole conservatives is such a howler.

3

There are leftist authoritarians, but they are far less common than rightwing authoritarians. They usually take the form of Green Party Vegan Larouchies.

4

Can somebody name a liberal authoritarian? I can’t. (FYI, I don’t consider Communist dictators to be liberal, so don’t bother naming them. Socially, they’re fascists. There’s no such thing as a totalitarian liberal.)

I think Dean’s point about the correlation between religiosity and lack of conscience is the most insightful. People who feel they can absolve themselves of moral accountability by chanting some magic words are extremely dangerous when they have any power.

5

Well, numbers 1, 2, 4, and arguably 5 fit all major political parties this country has ever seen. I suppose if you changed 4 to be “desirous of personal power for its own sake” you could point to movements and leaders that don’t fit it. But then again, you could point to many non-authoritarians who did.

Also, one of the things you mentioned about followers - they’re Milgram obeyers - fits most people in general.

Having said that, it sounds like an interesting book I’ll have to pick up, and the current leadership in the Republican party makes my spidey-sense tingle.

6

Aren’t you sort of defining yourself out of an answer to that question?

7

But, ok. If you want a liberal authoritarian, how about LBJ? He had an authoritarian personality.

8

If someone wants to assert that authoritarians aren’t “liberal”, I would heartily agree. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people have been hoodwinked over the years. As just one modern example, - gun control and anti-tobacco legislation. Oh, and they outlawed the Easter Bunny, Mennorahs, etc., in many locales. So in that macro sense, I would agree both parties are essentially fascist. Dean’s gaffe is try and pin this exclusively on “conservatives”.

9

No. I’m preempting the inevitable bogus definition. The OP is talking about SOCIAL conservatives. I’m talking about social liberals. Stalin was a quintessential right-winger in every way but the economic. I don’t think economic philosophies are any longer a good way to define “conservative” and “liberal” as those terms are popularly used and understood in American politics.

10

LBJ was a liberal? Maybe relatively speaking, for his day. Today he would be a moderate conservative at best.

Also, what was particularly authoritarian about his policies?

11

Do you think that any kind of gun control is authoritarian? What kind of anti-tobacco legislation are you talking about?

Cite? What do you mean by “outlawed?” Who is “they?”

12

No, they outlawed forcing unbelievers to pay for it. That’s typical conservative rhetoric; unless you pay them to propagandize you, they are the ones being oppressed.

13

I certainly don’t think that Right Wingers have a monopoly on self-righteousness. IMO, more than anything, self-righteousness comes from being in the majority. If everyone you know backs up what you believe, it becomes a pat-each-other-on-the-back-and-congratulate-ourselves-for-being-so-damn-smart festival. I am a first-hand observer of how this happens just as much in strongly liberal communities as it does in strongly conservative communities.

Wow. This is the most biased thing I have read about Catholics in a while. You are right…this is very contrary to Catholic belief. An important aspect of Confession is the intention NOT to commit the same sin again. A Catholic cannot decide that they are going to commit the same sin repeatedly, and think it is OK because they just plan to keep going to confession afterwards. Any Catholic or ex-Catholic will tell you that one of the hard things about being Catholic is that you end up feeling guilty for everything (even bad thoughts are sinful, not just your actions). Most Catholics have already done something else they are supposed to feel guilty about by the time they drive home from Confession. So, I do not accept this explanation as to why Catholics supposedly do not have guilt feelings.

I am not an evangelical, but I’m willing to bet that this is an extremely simplified explanation of what it means to accept Jesus. I think most people would say that accepting Jesus means they are trying to live a better life, as they believe Jesus would want them to do. The point isn’t “I’m a Christian now, so whatever else I do doesn’t matter.”

Does Dean explain how liberals and non-religious types justify committing the same wrong or immoral acts over and over? Because I highly doubt this is a trait only of religious people.

14

Maybe not any kind, but what about the kind there is in my highly liberal town, where ALL guns are outlawed? Is that authoritarian enough for you?

15

How about a cite for this?

16

::Blink:: LBJ’s record is by far the most liberal of any President we have ever had. Yes, even more than FDR’s (most of FDR’s more liberal policies were intended, and were in fact, temporary measures to deal with the Depression. With the obvious exceptions of SSA, TVA, and REA, very few survived).

Sua

17

Well, LBJ’s programs… his “Great Society” was definately liberal. The Great Society guaranteed civil rights to blacks, banned discrimination in private buisinesses, services, and housing, made immigration easier, created food stamps, created Head Start, the Job Corps, poured federal money into public education, created Medicare and Medicaid, established the National Endowment for the Arts, created the Department of Transportation, gave lots of money to localities for mass transit, created and extended environmental protections, and consumer protections

With that list of programs, he’d even be on the left of a lot of Democrats today.

And as for him being authoritarian, his policies weren’t particularly authoritarian. But Dean’s book isn’t talking about political authoritarianism. He’s saying that modern conservatives have authoritarian personalities, which is seperate from political authoritarianism.

18

I don’t think we’re talking about what Catholic confession is actually supposed to mean in spirit but how it’s psychologically misused by some people to make themselves feel less guility.

You’d be surprised how many people think that being born-again absolves them of all past guilt or accountability. Many of them also think of getting saved as being something like an oil change – it’s something they can do periodically and start over with a clean slate. They think that as long as they keep asking Jesus for forgiveness, they’ll keep getting forgiven. As a result, they never really feel like they’re actions will have any consequences. They can just pray it away later.

I know this isn’t how it’s SUPPOSED to work but that doesn’t mean that lots of people don’t use this kind of thinking as a way to relieve themselves of moral accountability.

Most liberals are religious, and Dean wasn’t really talking about religion anyway. He was talking about the way a certain kind of personality USES religion.

As to how liberals justify committing the same immoral acts – I think you’ll have to be specific about what kind of repeated immoral acts you’re talking about. There are some things which religious conservatives would call “immoral” that liberals would not.

I’m also not sure that liberals are so quick to absolve themselves. As a non-religious liberal, I would say that when I do something that I feel is “immoral”, I accept psychological responsibility for it and try not to repeat it. If I can make amends to a person I’ve harmed (and causing unnecessary harm to other people is the only thing I consider to be immoral), I will attempt to do so but I won’t ask them to forgive me and I never think my guilt has gone away.

19

A cite for what? The local ordinance, or the fact that my town is overwhelmingly liberal?

20

“Quintessential” in what way? Certainly not the way the OP is defining American social conservatives. Stalin was anti-religion and “pro-choice”. Can you show me one American social conservative who fits that mold?

Still, I think the dichotomy between social and economic athoritarians is not very useful. Look at China today vs the USSR. The former is economically liberal (in the “free” sense) and the latter was economically authoritarian. If I had to choose between the two as a place to live, I’d pick China any day of the week.