# Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2006, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313 "2006-07-13T09:53:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/101 "2006-07-14T04:09:14Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] Another poster who hasn’t read the book. Sigh. [/quote] You’re killing me with this statement. Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t comment on your outlandish claims if we haven’t read the book? Are you suggesting that we know nothing about what goes on in the mind of conservative if we haven’t read the book? > [@ambushed](#): > > Why do you think Dean and his sources refer to “Right Wing Authoritarians” and not just “right wingers” and not just “authoritarians”? If they did refer to “Right Wing Authoritarians,” then why didn’t you? You referred to “the bulk of conservatives.” Were you misrepresenting the contents of your book? What personality trait allows you to do that? > [@ambushed](#): > > I accept that that is your opinion. However, it does not jibe with social science. Cite? I’d love to read a scientific paper providing conclusions on where self-righteousness comes from. Although I have a feeling that this particular statement comes not from science, but from your ass. > [@ambushed](#): > > Then your experience is contrary to social science and directly contradicts both my personal observations and those outlined in the book. I’m going to need a cite for the “social science” please. > [@ambushed](#): > > I am merely reporting the fact (I am a former Catholic) that self-righteous Catholic RWA’s tend to see confession as a kind of moral “reset” button that allows them to retain their sense of sinlessness and over-upright moralistic sense of superiority. Yeah, I’m going to need a cite for this, too. Because I strongly believe it’s your _opinion_ on what other people were thinking and feeling. But if you’ve got something that proves it’s a _fact_, I’m all ears. > [@ambushed](#): > > It is in no way a slur on Catholicism that too many Catholics – especially the RWAs among them – do not adequately understand their own faith. Then I hope it’s in no way a slur that you don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about. > [@ambushed](#): > > Only that RWAs and their leaders are much more likely to be self-righteous and others, be they conservative or moderate or liberal, and further that relgion far too often aids in the self-justification of self-righteousness. “Hello, chicken.” “Hello, egg.” You don’t have to be much of a sociologist to recognize a little “post hoc ergo proctor hoc” action. Even if Dean’s studies actually show that most religious people are conservative (a stat many Dems would deny, especially since most Catholics are Dems), that doesn’t mean that their personality traits are formed or reinforced by their religious beliefs. If Dean said this, then he’s not reporting social science, he’s making it up … and poorly. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/102 "2006-07-14T04:15:27Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] Ahem. From the OP (emphasis added):So it wasn’t applying so much to a small subset of conservatives, as implying that most conservatives are authoritarian, and thus have terrible character flaws. [/QUOTE] Nice selective quoting. But it doesn’t help your case. As I explained, the book is mostly about Wight Wing Authoritarians and the social science that has identified and measured them. It is a **fact** that they are but a segment of the conservative spectrum. However, it is also a **fact** that they represent a majority of conservatives (i.e., the bulk of them). So I never said, nor does the book, that conservative = RWA, which is what you keep bogusly trying to imply I said. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/103 "2006-07-14T04:27:41Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] What I found funny was your implication that there was such a thing as “science on authoritarianism.” At best, these studies were based on polling data, which isn’t exactly “science” in the Newtonian sense (I’m a former psychology major, so I’ve had my fair share of experience with sociology). [/QUOTE] What I think is funny is how some massively underinformed people will attack a book they’ve obviously never read! You were obviously a poor psychology student if you think the only thing social scientists can do is conduct polls. [QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] At worst, Dean’s book has divorced these studies from any truth that existed in their original context. [/QUOTE] You’re right, that’s at worst that he might have done. But if you had read the book you’d know he didn’t do that. Why, oh, why, don’t you read books before attacking them? I mean, how ignorant an activity is that?? [QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I mean, do you really think the sociologists who performed these studies used words like “un-American” and “dangerous” to describe conservatives? [/QUOTE] First, they were _my_ words. Read the book to see if Dean or his sources used anything like them also. Second, not even _ **I** _ used any of those or similar words to describe ALL conservatives! READ THE OP AGAIN! I used them to describe RWAs and SDOs, which are a subset (if the largest subset) of conservatives! When will you decide to read the book and read the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/104 "2006-07-14T04:41:20Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] What I found funny was your implication that there was such a thing as “science on authoritarianism.” [/quote] Science, yes. The organized study through development of hypotheses, operationalization of terms, development of measures, data collection, inferential statistical analyses… Haw Haw Haw! Science are real funny! > [@](#): > > At best, these studies were based on polling data, which isn’t exactly “science” in the Newtonian sense (I’m a former psychology major, so I’ve had my fair share of experience with sociology). Polling data? Where do you get the idea that that is the source for this data? I’m fairly certain that that is incorrect. If this is one of those “social sciences aren’t like physics” arguments, I think we can hie to another thread to hash that out. (By the way, I was a psychology major once, as well. What the hell were you doing in sociology classes? Your advisor was fucking with you.) > [@](#): > > But what’s especially hilarious is the fact that you take this study so seriously. As if you’ve now got scientific proof that conservatives are bad people. “It’s science!” This research is not exactly my forte. Dammit, I’m a clinical psychologist, not a sociologist or social psychologist. However, I did do a very brief review of some of this literature for a [post in another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7061923&postcount=36) here back in February. Now, as you can see, that post went completely unnoticed, which led me to the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship between the time one spends in constructing a post and the impact that it has on a thread. Please, however, take a look at it, as it is directly relevant to our discussion, despite that thread topic including racism. You’ll see that there is quite a bit more to that research than “polling data.” I’m assuming that for his book, Dean did a fair bit more thorough review of that literature than I did in 30 minutes or so. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/105 "2006-07-14T04:51:32Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] Whether or not I believe Liberals are self-righteous or not has nothing to do with this book. I don’t have to read it or anything else to know that Liberals are self-righteous. [/QUOTE] I see. You’re essentially saying: “Nyah, hyah, I don’t have to read a book to attack it!” How nice for you to be omniscient. What’s worse is that, unlike Dean’s and my qualified statements, you, in your most authoritarian voice, deny science and evidence and blindly assert: “Liberals are self-righteous”! Nice logic, there, dear. Nice non-authoritarianism. :smack: [QUOTE=Sarahfeena] And when people are in the majority, they are much more likely to feel as though they are undeniably right…because their POV is constantly validated by those around them who feel the same way they do. I know a little something about social science, since I have a degree in Social Psychology, but anybody can figure that out with a little common sense. [/QUOTE] In other words, ignore the science folks, and just take my word for it! :smack: More non-authoritarianism, I presume? Furthermore, what you unscientifically believe in a way confirms the scientific findings; i.e., that RWAs feel an unjustifiably, irrationally strong sense of self-righteousness because it is in their psychological nature to do so (and is abetted by their religious beliefs) is co-reinforced by the fact that they are in the majority. I submit that you unscientifically believe what you see in regard to the fact that these people are in the majority merely because the people in the majority are Right Wing Authoritarians. In other words, you’ve fooled yourself; mistaking causes and effects. [QUOTE=Sarahfeena] As **Age Quod Agis** points out, it’s highly unlikely that the sociologists specifically condemned conservatives. [/QUOTE] And I never said they did!!! :smack: Why do you keep asserting that which is obviously false? Why do you keep asserting that I’ve said things I haven’t? What the hell is wrong with you people who think you can damn a book you’ve never read?? To damn science you’re unaware of? AAAS-awarded social science you’re unaware of? Where do you people get the balls to vilify a book you’ve never read? [QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I would prefer to go to the source material and draw my own conclusions. [/QUOTE] **Then READ the BOOK!** [QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I haven’t heard any data that leads me to believe that any of this is based on anything more than prejudice and a complete misunderstanding of both conservatives and religious people. [/QUOTE] **Then READ the BOOK!** :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/106 "2006-07-14T05:23:15Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] No, it’s social science; I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference. [/quote] Oh, I have a feeling I know a little bit about social sciences. Shall we compare? Me: B.S. in psychology; B.A. in Political Science; JD in the law. I’m licensed to practice law in more than one jurisdiction in the US. I’ve had papers published in psychology, poltical science, and the law. I’ve participated in and conducted sociological and psychological tests, research, and analysis. And I’ve designed and participated in practical counseling courses in psychology. You: read one book by the guy the FBI called the “master manipulator” behind the Watergate cover-up. And you lied about its contents. (How fitting.) > [@ambushed](#): > > Please recall that both authors who worked on this book, Barry Goldwater and John Dean, can only be called conservative themselves. Did Barry Goldwater co-author on this book? Let’s go to Publisher’s Weekly, shall we? > [@Publisher's Weekly](#): > > Goldwater had planned to collaborate on this book **before his death** So I guess in addition to being the “master manipulator” behind the Watergate cover-up, Dean can also communicate with the dead? But that’s wierd. According to [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com), the only author is [John Dean](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670037745/103-5527696-5102223?v=glance&n=283155). No, I’m sure that must have just been an honest mistake. After all, it’s _conservatives_ who are the dishonest ones, right? And that’s SCIENCE, baby! Let’s see what else Publisher’s Weekly has to say about the book: > [@](#): > > Suffused with bitterness stemming from the controversies in which he has been embroiled, Dean’s book paints a thin social science veneer over a litany of mostly ad hominem complaints. Purporting to show that social conservatives and neoconservatives are, on the whole, demonstrably authoritarian, bigoted, irrational and amoral, Conservatives Without Conscience offers helpful hints such as “Conservatives without conscience do not have horns and tails,” and evinces a telling fascination with politicians’ shady book deals. Though there is clearly much to condemn in the policies and tactics Dean deplores, assailing everyone from French political theorist Joseph de Maistre to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to the chairman of Yale University’s conservative association as “Double High” social- dominance-oriented authoritarians undermines his journalistic credibility. Dean’s lurid accusations may be entertaining, but they add little to the reasoned debate that Washington so sorely lacks today. No matter. I’m sure you’ve learned some acronym to explain away Publisher’s Weekly’s dismissal of your new idol. Only a conservative would turn away from SCIENCE. > [@ambusher](#): > > Furthermore, Coulter is as much a stranger to social science (and science in general) as she is to courtesy and mental health. > > On the contrary. Nearly everyone in my personal life is a conservative. And furthermore, these particular conservatives fit the description of RWAs to a tee. And honest self-reflection is totally, totally alien to them. They are submissive to authority, they are aggressive on behalf of authority, they are highly conformist and conventional, they are conservatively religious, they generally have relatively little post-secondary education, they trust untrustworthy authorities, they are prejudiced (at least against homosexuals), they are narrow-minded, they are intolerant, they are dogmatic, they are uncritical towards their chosen authorities, they are awash in contradictions, they are highly suggestive, they become afraid easily, they are all Republicans, and none of them have much, if any, genuine self-awareness. So, you see, I know you and your type extremely well. So let me get this straight – You think nearly everyone in your life is “narrow-minded,” “intolerant,” “dogmatic,” “aggressive,” and lacking in “self-awareness,” but _Ann Coulter_ is the one with mental issues? Have you ever heard of a [Narcissistic Personality Disorder](http://samvak.tripod.com/npdglance.html)? Or perhaps a Paranoid Ideation? … What am I talking about? You’ve read one book that used the phrase “social science.” _Of course_ you’ve heard of these things. :smack: > [@ambushed](#): > > Here’s a tip for you: Go read the book instead of drowning us in empty, self-pitying rhetoric, uninformed by Dean’s actual words and the facts of social science. And try venturing into the “I Don’t Know Who the Hell I Am” section of the bookstore. (Not that you’ll read anything, of course) Well, you’ve certainly proven that you know more about social science than I do (NPD creeping up on you again?). And I probably should go read Dean’s actual words, because obviously I can’t rely on you to relate them honestly. > [@ambushed](#): > > > [@Age Quod Agis (emphasis added)](#): > > > > So it wasn’t applying so much to a small subset of conservatives, as implying that **most conservatives** are authoritarian, and thus have terrible character flaws. > > Nice selective quoting. But it doesn’t help your case. > > As I explained, the book is mostly about Wight Wing Authoritarians and the social science that has identified and measured them. It is a fact that they are but a segment of the conservative spectrum. However, it is also a fact that they represent a majority of conservatives (i.e., the bulk of them). So I never said, nor does the book, that conservative = RWA, which is what you keep bogusly trying to imply I said. And nice ignoring of what I actually said. Because I didn’t say that it applied to all conservatives. I said it applied to “most” conservatives. But I’m sure that was just an honest mistake. Because _conservatives_ are the dishonest ones, right? And that’s not an opinion, that’s SCIENCE. I’m still waiting on cites to back up your statements from before. [holding breath in anticipation] ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/107 "2006-07-14T05:32:02Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Polling data? Where do you get the idea that that is the source for this data? I’m fairly certain that that is incorrect. If this is one of those “social sciences aren’t like physics” arguments, I think we can hie to another thread to hash that out. [/quote] No, that’s not the argument. I was extrapolating based on the conclusions that Dean drew from the work. I haven’t read the studies, but I have a gut feeling that if they say conservatism is the result of a combination of aberrant personality disorders, then they’re probably not particularly good science. > [@](#): > > (By the way, I was a psychology major once, as well. What the hell were you doing in sociology classes? Your advisor was fucking with you.) I can neither confirm nor deny this. My intro to psych prof (and first advisor) was a sociologist, first and foremost. She studied racism and its effects. I liked her class, so I took a couple more by her. Plus, my school was small enough that it had a core curriculum, so I got credit for the classes. > [@](#): > > Dammit, I’m a clinical psychologist, not a sociologist or social psychologist. However, I did do a very brief review of some of this literature for a [post in another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7061923&postcount=36) here back in February. Then I won’t presume to tell you about the studies. Like I said, I haven’t read them. But I’ll be sure and print off your post and read it this weekend. I’m very interested to see what you think. > [@](#): > > Now, as you can see, that post went completely unnoticed, which led me to the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship between the time one spends in constructing a post and the impact that it has on a thread. 😃 > [@](#): > > Please, however, take a look at it, as it is directly relevant to our discussion, despite that thread topic including racism. You’ll see that there is quite a bit more to that research than “polling data.” Will do. And for now, I’ll take your word for it that there’s more to this than polling data. But if it’s all right, I’ll reserve judgment on its conclusions until I’ve read the studies (or at least your post). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/108 "2006-07-14T05:43:08Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] And for now, I’ll take your word for it that there’s more to this than polling data. But if it’s all right, I’ll reserve judgment on its conclusions until I’ve read the studies (or at least your post). [/QUOTE] Don’t wait for the translation! Yes or no! Actually, if you can access the studies, you’d be better informed than simply from my post, as brilliant as it was. :dubious: My review was brief and did skew towards studies that had something to do with prejudice as well. It does make me comfortable in assuming for the moment that there is a larger literature that Dean drew upon, as he claims to have done. However, I’d be honestly interested if you were able to find anything with contrary conclusions (empirically based, that is). To me it makes sense that personality features would shape decisions and thinking about political issues and political affiliation. It seems to be the case that authoritarianism would be one feature associated with conservatives. Actually, I’m not sure why this would be controversial - usually the Republicans, or conservatives more generally, have no problem portraying themselves as the law and order types, for example. I only hope that the association is moderate at best - we’re going to need everyone we can to dislodge the current folks who are pushing for an all-powerful executive, and of whom underlings say things like “the president is always right.” ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/109 "2006-07-14T06:19:48Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] To me it makes sense that personality features would shape decisions and thinking about political issues and political affiliation. It seems to be the case that authoritarianism would be one feature associated with conservatives. [/QUOTE] You know what? I have no problem with either of these assertions. Your personality should reflect your core belief structure about the world and the best ways to relate to it. And the same thing would seem to be true of political ideology. And I agree that most (contemporary) conservatives – especially Bush conservatives (in my opinion, he’s combined both the “law and order” aspects, as well as the “we’re the government, and we’re here to help” aspects)-- are probably more likely to be authoritarian. And for what it’s worth, I’m not a social conservative. I’m actually quite socially liberal (i.e., marijuana, abortion, gay rights, etc.). I’m also economically conservative (less regulation, lower taxes, etc.), and I’m in favor of a strong and projected national defense. I don’t know, that may make me a classical liberal. The hair on my neck doesn’t stand up until we start (a) defining the personality traits that make up conservative beliefs with words like “amoral” and “dangerous;” and (b) making overly broad statements as to what conservatives believe. In my political science classes and studies, we had trouble figuring out what the inhabitants of our city believed in general, let alone deciphering what made most people of a political ideology vote the way they did. If Dean really has tapped into what makes “most conservatives” tick, then he should run for office. Apparently, he’d be able to run on a conservative platform of amorality and being “quick to fear.” ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/110 "2006-07-14T06:31:13Z")
**DtC** : Liberals are a subcategory of leftists: Stalinists are authoritarian leftists. Liberals are non-authoritarian. On the right, can you think of an authoritarian libertarian? [QUOTE=ambushed] 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. [/QUOTE] Last week, there was an interesting example of this. The right wing blogosphere was in a froth regarding the New York Time’s decision to publish a picture of Ashcroft’s residence in a Sunday puff piece (Travel section). Never mind that [nearly identical photos had already been published](http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140001) in the Washington Post last January and that Newsmax, Fox and others had already published this information. And never mind that the New York Times’ photographer had received permission from Ashcroft himself. So what did the bloggers do? They called for “finding and publically listing” the actual addresses of _all_ New York Times reporters and editors. Hm. This seems rather more… threatening, especially considering their lack of permission, never mind Secret Service protection. [Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: The thug and intimidation tactics of the Far Right go mainstream](http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/thug-and-intimidation-tactics-of-far.html) Modern conservatives: all id, no discipline. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/111 "2006-07-14T06:39:54Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] To me it makes sense that personality features would shape decisions and thinking about political issues and political affiliation. It seems to be the case that authoritarianism would be one feature associated with conservatives. [/QUOTE] Again, I suspect that the authoritarian personality might have been attracted to certain far-left POVs before the eclipse of Marxism. It isn’t surprising that both LaRouche and Horowitz started out as Trotskists or SDSers, and ended in the non-empirical right wing. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/112 "2006-07-14T08:09:43Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] It isn’t surprising that both LaRouche and Horowitz started out as Trotskists or SDSers, and ended in the non-empirical right wing. [/QUOTE] Wait, … what? LaRouche is a right-winger? When did this start? Because I believe he’s only run for the _Democratic_ nomination for President. From Wikipedia (always a bit sketchy, but it was the first cite to come up): > [@](#): > > LaRouche has run for the Democratic nomination for President in every election year since 1976, including in 1992 while he was in prison, a record of eight attempts. Generally, electoral support for the LaRouche Movement has been inconsequential, despite the fact that LaRouche has received some support in Democratic presidential primaries; the zenith of electoral support for LaRouche’s movement may have been the 1986 Democratic Party primary in Illinois, in which two of his followers were nominated for statewide office. When did he make the switch to the right? ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/113 "2006-07-14T08:59:12Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] Last week, there was an interesting example of [tighty-righty self-righteousness, supposedly religiously-based - **BoD**]. The right wing blogosphere was in a froth regarding the New York Time’s decision to publish a picture of Ashcroft’s residence in a Sunday puff piece (Travel section). Never mind that [nearly identical photos had already been published](http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140001) in the Washington Post last January and that Newsmax, Fox and others had already published this information. And never mind that the New York Times’ photographer had received permission from Ashcroft himself. So what did the bloggers do? They called for “finding and publically listing” the actual addresses of _all_ New York Times reporters and editors. Hm. This seems rather more… threatening, especially considering their lack of permission, never mind Secret Service protection. [Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: The thug and intimidation tactics of the Far Right go mainstream](http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/thug-and-intimidation-tactics-of-far.html) Modern conservatives: all id, no discipline. [/QUOTE] Not to make excuses for the consheepatives, but _the New York Times is the Enemy._ Fox and Newsmax are their friends, and the WaPo is, at worst, the loyal opposition. Presumably, more disloyal, unAmerican types read the NYT, and will now know what Ashcroft’s house looks like. Shoulda thought of that before giving that permission, John. :smack: As to discipline, the authoritarian type usually abandons all thought of it when in mob mode. Then it’s for those _other_ people. Finally. I just loooo_OOOO_ve the way every political thread (not just on the Dope, but on bboards in general) quickly reverts to strenuous arguing of ever-more-finely-chopped hypotheticals and definitions that strenuously avoid any real issues. Is this, perhaps, a net.weenie version of the proven neocon tactic called “framing the debate”? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/114 "2006-07-14T14:03:43Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] Then READ the BOOK! [/QUOTE] This is an issue. Debates here need responses within a day - at most two days, or they’re dead. I understand your frustration with people criticizing a book they haven’t read, but honestly, did you reasonably expect many people would have already read it, or that they’d read it and respond within hours, as though you had linked an article? I have not read the book yet. I will, as I said in my first post, based on the OP. But by the time I have, this thread will be gone, gone, gone. So I responded to what was in the OP - your outline of his argument. **Would anybody be willing to agree to read political books, then, say, two weeks after that, start a debate on it?** **ambushed** , if you start this thread again in two weeks, you’ll have at least one other person who’s read the book. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/115 "2006-07-14T15:16:24Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] I see. You’re essentially saying: “Nyah, hyah, I don’t have to read a book to attack it!” How nice for you to be omniscient. What’s worse is that, unlike Dean’s and my qualified statements, you, in your most authoritarian voice, deny science and evidence and blindly assert: “Liberals are self-righteous”! Nice logic, there, dear. Nice non-authoritarianism. :smack: [/QUOTE] First of all, I am not attacking the book. I have not read it, as you have pointed out several times. I am disputing some of the things you said about it in your OP. I am basing my opinion on my own experience with social science, and with the liberals and conservatives I know. And, incidentally, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of “authoritarianism.” It does not mean that one has a strong opinion, and is expressing it. That is a far cry from the actual definition, which can be a philosophy of government or simply a personality trait characterized by blind obedience to authority. To call me authoritarian because I have experience with liberals who are self-righteous shows a basic misunderstanding about what authoritarian means. I certainly never said that ALL liberals are self-righteous. What I said was that IMO they are JUST AS PRONE TO IT as conservatives. I am specifically NOT stating what science shows or doesn’t show, because I haven’t read the book. I think it is perfectly valid (and non-authoritarian) to say “this is what I, personally, have observed.” > [@](#): > > In other words, ignore the science folks, and just take my word for it! :smack: More non-authoritarianism, I presume? Again, not “authoritarian.” > [@](#): > > And I never said they did!!! :smack: Why do you keep asserting that which is obviously false? Why do you keep asserting that I’ve said things I haven’t? What the hell is wrong with you people who think you can damn a book you’ve never read?? To damn science you’re unaware of? AAAS-awarded social science you’re unaware of? Where do you people get the balls to vilify a book you’ve never read? **Then READ the BOOK!** **Then READ the BOOK!** :smack:Look, you posted YOUR opinion of this book. You posted it in Great Debates. You gave an outline of what the book said, and people are debating the issues outlined. Granted, it would be a better discussion if people had read the book, and if you give me a week or so, I could do it. But, since I haven’t, I can only go by what YOU said about it, which is what I am discussing. YOU say that you never said that the sociologists never condemned conservatives. Fine. But, somehow, Dean took the studies and worked up a whole book based on those studies that DOES condemn them. So, either you are injecting YOUR opinion into this debate, in which case, does it really matter if I have read the book…after all, outside of the book, your opinion is based on the same things my opinion is based on…your personal observations of the world (and boy oh boy, your opinion of conservatives is a lot, shall we say, _stronger_ than my opinions of liberals). Or, Dean is doing some pretty fancy interpretation of the data. In which case, as I said, I would love to read the **source material** (not the book, the actual studies), in addition to the book, and form my own opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/116 "2006-07-14T15:43:52Z")
Sorry, bad quote tags…the bolded “Read the books” should be included in the quote. ---
**Author:** ![Common\_Tater](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/common_tater/32/13846_2.png) [@Common\_Tater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Common_Tater)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/117 "2006-07-14T15:46:59Z")
So who are the non-authoritarian liberals again? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/118 "2006-07-14T16:10:47Z")
[QUOTE=Common Tater] So who are the non-authoritarian liberals again? [/QUOTE] When it comes to SOCIAL liberals, pretty much all of them. I think maybe I haven’t been clear enough about my own distinction between social philosophies and economic philosophies. I’m throwing out economic philosophies for both sides. People can be fiscal conservatives but social libertarians. I would not consider thiose people to be authoritarian. I think that social libertarians (whether they be fiscally liberal or conservative) are pretty much the polar opposite of authoritarians. I guess I’d even say that fiscal conservatism combined with social libertarianism is the LEAST authoritarian political philosophy. Social conservatives, though, especially when fueled by the high dudgeon of self-righteous religiosity (which is a distinct TYPE of religious personality, I don’t mean that all religious people are self-righteous. “Religiosity” is a term I use to designate an attitude where religion becomes a political banner or a club to bludgeon dissent) definitely fit the profile for both authoritarian leaders and followers, and that particular subsect of American conservatives seem to have become a majority in the last decade or so. They ARE uncritical of their chosen authorities, they ARE aggressive on behalf of that authority, they ARE prejudiced and provincial. They ARE self-righteous and intolerant. Look at their major mouthpieces – Ann Coulter (don’t tell me she’s not representative. Her books routinely go to #1 on the bestseller lists. My inlaws, who I think are extremely representative social conservative, Bush loyalists buy every one of her books as soon as they come out), Bill O’Reilly, Fox News in general. I don’t see how this correlation can be denied and I DON’T see any kind of parallel on the social left. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/119 "2006-07-14T16:46:24Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I think it is more than reasonable for states to have standards for education…that children need to be schooled up to a certain age, or pass minimum requirements for graduation. I don’t think that learning about evolution needs to be a requirement. A much stronger case would have to be made here for a religious exemption, because these skills are much more necessary in life than a working knowledge of evolution. [/quote] Okay, so you agree that the state can force education on kids. Given that, should the standards be set by experts in the field, or by religious leaders? I could argue that evolution is more important than algebra - few people ever have to set up an equation, but a knowledge of evolution might help people not buy germicides that they don’t need, and thus encourage the development of super bugs. > [@](#): > > So, there IS a difference…and a pretty major one. And if they taught about Hinduism in a manner that makes them happy, it would offend **your** sensibilities of social justice…I guess there is always someone whose sensibilities are being offended. The voucher system would really help this situation. In this case it is not a matter of what kids get taught at home, since I don’t think this stuff is in the state standards. The case involves them suing the state to change textbooks to read what they want them to read, not what the consensus of historians agree on. The point is, once you agree that the state can mandate that kids learn certain things, who sets those things? The only reasonable answer is that what gets taught reflects the consensus of a field. If there is no consensus, and offhand I can’t think of high school level subjects without one, either the “controversy” should get taught or nothing. Kids need to learn this stuff, but they don’t have to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313/120 "2006-07-14T16:51:26Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] No, actually I reacted to his saying that there are conservative authoritarians, but not liberal ones. It seems pretty clear to me that there are authoritarians on both sides…at least I am willing to see some conservatives for what they are. [/QUOTE] Still looking for the liberal authoritarians. I don’t buy classifying those fighting for more rights for people as authoritarians. How about those who forced integration of southern schools - would they count for you? Someone pushing for SSM is not requiring anyone to participate who doesn’t want to, or even for those opposed to go to a wedding. Those forcing integration as a side effect forced white kids to sit in classes with black kids [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deans-conservatives-without-conscience/364313.md?page=7)