Login Here
Conservatives Without Conscience
John Dean's book is one of the most important books of the year. It has obviously resonated across the country, as it has remained on The New York Times Best-Seller list since the first week it was released, despite receiving only a fraction of the media attention frequently showered on political books which do not perform nearly as well. My review of Dean's book is here, and I also wrote about it last week at FDL.
I was very excited when Dean agreed to participate in the FDL Book Salon because I knew this would be an excellent venue for discussing his arguments. The discussion here last week was genuinely superb, and one of the experts on whose research Dean relies in his book, University of Manitoba Professor of Psychology Robert Altemeyer, unexpectedly showed up and participated. This is what he said about the FDL Salon discussion: " I just wanted to say that I have not seen a collection of comments as insightful and intelligent as those that have accumulated here. It seems that almost all of the writers have read John Dean’s book, and understood it, and are deeply concerned about the points he made. Reading what you’ve said made my day."
Dean has written an introduction in preparation for his participation here today. He sent it by e-mail and I am re-printing it after the fold.
BY JOHN DEAN
A few brief comments before we get started. Allow me, first, to thank Jane Hamsher for inviting me to visit her terrific FDL site and Glenn Greenwald for his incisive summary of Conservatives Without Conscience. Needless to say, I also appreciate all who have read CWC, and found the book informative and engaging, for like most authors I write because I have thoughts and information I believe is worth sharing and it is a delight when that, in fact, happens.
I will begin by addressing just a few of the many thoughtful comments posted last week, and one of the thoughtless posts.
Several comments expressed some uncertainty about why I have written CWC. Did I write it to distance Goldwater conservatism from contemporary conservatism? Am I trying to rehabilitate conservatism? Or is there some other partisan motive behind this undertaking?
The short answer is that none of these thoughts even occurred to me when working on the book. I no longer consider myself partisan for anything other than good government. Many years ago I registered as an Independent (and I have voted for Democrats, and Republicans) for I do not believe either party has a lock on wisdom, so I look at the candidate(s) and issues, and party affiliation is irrelevant to me.
As I said in the book, I am a Goldwater conservative of many issues. What does that mean? At pages 70-72, I set forth a listing of where I believe conservatives with versus without conscience fall on an array of issues. I believe a Goldwater conservative has a conscience, and falls on that side of my ledger. In fact, in preparing this list I refer to material in Senator Goldwater’s personal papers to see where he stood, and then listed that as a position of a conservative with conscience. (Ironically, I have had any number of progressive and liberals tell me that they can -- or do -- embrace most all those positions. This is not surprising, for Senator Goldwater often said when history looked back on him they would call him a liberal!)
Another bias issue that arose in last week’s discussion was whether I have an axe to grind with my old Watergate gang, more specifically, Chuck Colson and Gordon Liddy, and may be doing so with this book? Colson and Liddy, who are prototypical authoritarians, are mentioned because their activities were among the several experiences that lead me to realize the prevalence of authoritarianism in contemporary Republican politics. I have never been into revenge, finding it a waste of energy, and if I were to ever go after Colson or Liddy I would use the blunt edge of the axe – and no one would have any doubt about what I was doing and why.
Finally, running throughout the posts is a charge that was lobbed into the discussion early, claiming that the book was flawed because it lacked logic; initially nothing specific was offered to support the charge. When the specifics arrived later they were a bit underwhelming. Rather than deconstruct the mischaracterizations of the book by this critic, or his submission of opinion as fact, I believe Molly Bloom corrected the record in post No. 239. She picked up what I discovered shortly after publication, along with a few other errata.
Originally the sentence on 169 read (as close as I can recall its substance without digging out the galleys) that Bush did not “appear” to be a Double High because the public Bush and private Bush are different people; however I had no doubt he was one, but he is not as high as Cheney. The sentence was edited because I sought to not focus on Bush and Cheney, and the public versus private Bush raised material I had addressed in Worse Than Watergate. But I cut too much. I have corrected the sentence to read in future printings: “While Bush does not appear to be a Double High, in fact, he is one; but he is not in the league of his vice president, who is a classic Double High…”
I was not able to follow the proceedings in the salon last week, but I suggested to Professor Bob Altemeyer that he might find the session of interest, and I was delighted to see that he jumped into the discussion at one point. Accordingly, I invited him to follow along today, for I would not pretend to be able to address his life’s work with anything approaching his authority. So I may call on him to address questions about his research work. And I want to add that in my travels with the book, I have had several psychologists, as well as a professor of psychology, tell me that I could not have found a better source on authoritarianism. He holds the esteem of his peers.
So let us begin. If I am unable to answer all the questions – while I type quickly I do so with remarkable inaccuracy so I will slow down to give my words some recognizable semblance to our language – I will review the transcript of both last week and this week later, and try to respond in a subsequent posting to questions still outstanding.
Share This 
Spotlight
Hooray for John Dean!!
Hooray for Glenn Greenwald!!
Hooray for accountability in government and an end to the NeoCons!!
HOORAYYYYY!!!
Mr. Dean, it is a huge honor for us to have you here.
My question is this:
Even if (when?) the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress in 2007, what do you think we can expect in the way of pushback from the right wing?
Do you believe that there are enough real conservatives left who can take the republican party back from the dangerous theocrats and NeoCons or will we just be forced to listen to a bunch of muted whining from the same old Fox News Republicans?
Welcome, Mr. Dean. It’s an honor to have you with us here in our community. I was fortunate enough to see an advance copy of the book. I hold a doctorate in psychology, and I want to thank you for making a compelling argument, a compelling case, in a way any thinking person can understand.
Welcome again to our community.
As always, folks, please confine the conversation and questions to the book and the topic at hand. Thanks! Please welcome John Dean.
I read “Conservatives Without Conscience” with interest and appreciation and a highlighter in my hand. For some time, I have been alarmed by the Republican Right’s obsession with hierarchy (power over), and John Dean’s lucid account of authoritarianism provides a good deal of explanation for it. The part that I still have a hard time making sense of is this: the desperate – and I would say toxic - need for false narratives – as in, Coulter’s remake of Joe McCarthy, the far-fetched “Silent Coup” version of Watergate, fantastic Vince Foster murder scenarios, poor Paula Jones, etc. All “contrary to all known history, contrary to all evidence,” in Mr. Dean’s words. – Could you talk a bit more about how this fits within authoritarian patterns? Isn’t it authoritarianism gone off the deep end in some way that goes well beyond abdication of conscience to the ruler? I guess I am asking, why this need to create/adhere to such gross falsehoods? I can smell abject fear at the center of it; I just don’t get it.
As an individual, I have come to see that my ways of “going out of balance” teach me about myself…they are symptoms that point to cures. I am trying to understand authoritarian patterns in the same way. Is there anything we can learn from this apparent inclination to false narratives that can guide us in more effectively dealing with conservatism- run-amok?
Mr. Dean:
Welcome. I have not had time to read your book, but I will. I followed the discussion last week. I just want to tell you that I was in my late teens at the time of Watergate, and I watched the Senate hearings with great interest. You were a kind of hero to me, not because of your prior service to the Nixon administration, but because you came clean, and in the process helped save the country.
A very warm welcom to Glenn and Mr. Dean. We are thrilled to have you both.
I would like to offer this excellent point, raised by one of Glenn’s posters:
The Paranoid Style in American Politics, 1965
Richard Hofstadter
Left Wing Militia | 09.03.06 - 11:32 am | #
I just finished CWC and was left feeling quite disheartened. The characterization of authoritarianism — particularly the lack of self-awareness — is chilling. Can we just leave this 25% behind? They have become politically strong and as Trex points out above — they’re going to pushback.
Welcome, Mr. Dean, we’re delighted to have you here today. And thanks also to Professor Altemeyer, your comments in the discussion last week were most welcome. I think this book has already sparked one of the most lively debates we’ve had in the book salon, and it really resonates with many of the themes Glenn frequently explores in his work — the mindset from which the authoritarian cultists are operating. I agree with Glenn, this is a powerful and extremely important book. Quite a remarkable achievement.
Hi Mr. Dean:
Thanks for doing your best to save the country — TWICE! Any reflections on what has changed and what has not since I first saw you testifying before the Ervin Committee?
“Can we just leave this 25% behind? They have become politically strong and as Trex points out above — they’re going to pushback.”
As in, “no authoritarians or fascists here, look over there…islamofascists!”
Thanks for being here and for appearing on Olberman’s Countdown show. I bought but haven’t as yet read CWC (still in Fiasco)
Do you think Bush will pardon Libby and if yes, what do you think the timing will be?
neurophius @ 10
Because we know they have the marketing down perfectly to reach (scare) their crowd
TRex @ 2
Greetings to those of you visiting the FDL Book Salon. Let me address the first question. I believe there is a solid chance that Democrats will regain the House. (The Senate right now looks like it will be 50/50.) And if the Democrats gain control of the House I have no quesiton that John Conyers will begin impeachment proceedings.
But given the Bush/Cheney style, they will fight giving them so much as name, rank or serial number.
I’m being brought to tears here two days in a row. And not from laughing as usual, from the incredible humor brought here by so many. Tears of hope, I guess.
Yesterday Ambassador Joseph Wilson thanked us for our support. And now we can thank John Dean for HIS support. Of the constitution. Of the letter AND spirit of our laws. For making courage seem important to attorneys. I could go on. Thank you, John Dean! I’ve been an avid reader of your columns and am looking forward to reading _Conservatives without Conscience_.
When you came out for honesty in the White House, I was so fed up with politics, I felt I’d never trust a politician or political staffer again. You helped keep me from wandering too far off the beaten path. You and Interior Secretary Walter Hickel both spoke truth to some twisted power back then. And you STILL are.
If you’d like, I’ll pass of a “hi” from you to Wally. He’s doing great.
“Control freaks” aren’t just discussed in women’s bathrooms these days, they are the face of the modern Republican party.
My question is this: How much of the fearmongering is based in a genuine fear of The Enemy, as opposed to being merely a cynical attempt to control public opinion through fear. We know that the public message is seen as “product,” so is this fear solely the product of those trying to maintain control?
J. Dean @ 13
Thank you for taking my question.
Mr. Dean: If Nixon hadn’t been busted (if the world you once knew hadn’t imploded), do you think your take on political reality would be markedly different?
John Dean– the voice of reason and a true patriot– I tried as a follower to conjugate a worthwhile sentence and then just decided to let it be and listen.
I thank you, sir.
John and Glenn - Good afternoon! John, I’m interested in your answer to a question I asked Glenn last week: in your opinion, what is the difference between authoritarian governments and fascist regimes?
At No. 4 the following question was raised: Could you talk a bit more about how this fits within authoritarian patterns? Isn’t it authoritarianism gone off the deep end in some way that goes well beyond abdication of conscience to the ruler? I guess I am asking, why this need to create/adhere to such gross falsehoods? I can smell abject fear at the center of it; I just don’t get it.
This might be a good one for Professor Altemeyer. It is my understanding that this type of behavior is very typical of authoritarians — they are so aggressive in pushing and protecting their worldview that they often are quite nasty when doing so. Given the fact they are setting the agenda, it is little wonder the narrative has turned ugly.
Victoria,
Whatever John Dean has to say about the false narratives you point to, I’d like to jump in and say there’s no necessary reason to point to authoritarianism as a driving cause of such narratives.
There are historical reasons/structural reasons going back to the “Illuminati Conspiracy” version of the French Revolution (the people of France lover their God-annointed King, it must have been a hidden Satanic conspiracy that done him in) and beyond, which are, IMHO, much better understood as being passively enabled by authoritarianism, rather than actively caused by it.
It’s one of the characteristics of authoritarian thought (though even more strongly of other forms of cognitive deficit) to want to attribute everything to a single cause, rather than grapple with a variety of interacting causes. We should take care not to mimic authoritarians in this respect, and expect authoritarianism to explain everything for us. It won’t. It can’t. It shouldn’t. It does throw a unique, and invaluable light on things, but it would miss the point to think it can explain everything.
Mr. Dean, are you as afraid as I am?
Edward - I agree completely - being able to communicate with the people we want, about the topics we want, without having to rely on mediation from the media or anyone else, is one of the greatest values of the blogosphere. Discussions like the one last week, the communications directly with Joe Wilson, is just one of the many reasons — though it’s a big one - why the previous gatekeepers are so threatened by the blogosphere.
J. Dean @ 13
Given you mention Nixon chose to follow the law, what do you think the implications for the US are if this happens? I understand better now why there have been so few “whistleblowers” despite the corruption/incompetence/rampant lawbreaking of this Administration.
At No. 11 the following was raised: Do you think Bush will pardon Libby and if yes, what do you think the timing will be?
I doubt he will pardon Liddy, but I will be surprised if he does not pardon Colson. (His brother Jeb pardoned Colson in FL so he could vote.)
At No. 8: Hi Jane, Thanks for your thoughtful words, and it is a delight to join you today.
Mr Dean.
You’ve said on more than one occasion that we are dangerously close to the road to fascism. Isn’t it true that we are much closer than you are willing to admit? If fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, like Mussolini said, isn’t that precisely where we’re at? It seems that the corporate interests of the arms dealers and oil companies outweigh the interests of the common people and we are fighting these series of wars in the Middle East to serve their interests. I think it’s pretty obvious that Iraq has done nothing for our national security and has, in fact, made us considerably less safe by effectively recruiting and converting more extremists.
If possible, would you please respond to that?
Thank You.
Mr. Dean, I want to thank you for a really fine book. I’m not qualified to assess the psychological component, but I wanted to list some of my favorite parts, at least so far. I’ve skipped around a bit. Your entire preface, your experience of being “swift-boated,” was riveting.
From the section on “Conservatism’s Power of Negative Thinking:” p. 23 “Activist Judges are best described as those whose rulings run contrary to the beliefs of a particular conservative faction.”
As I suspect you are already well aware, Judge Bork is on what we call “wingnut welfare,” with Scooter Libby at the Hudson Institute. I was so pleased to see you mention Scooter’s “gainful employment”at the Hudson Institute on p. 182.
Your comments on page 27 on the internal contradiction for Roman Catholics who call themselves “anti-abortion,” and “pro-death penalty,” were brilliant in their simplicity.
I loved your comment on p. 28 that “Jesus was not a conservative.”
Your references to Hannah Arendt were inspiring. If you plan another edition, you may want to consider a footnote about her relationship with Heidegger before WWII and how she really rescued him after the War. She was a remarkable woman.
Again perhaps in a later printing, I was unclear about this at the bottom of p. 181 about James St. Clair: “When he found out that his client had lied to him he had two choices: to resign or to join the new cover-up. He was, as it happened, interested in participating in the latter.”
Bold is mine. From the prior positive statements you made about Mr. Sinclair, I thought you meant to write “former,” but perhaps I just misread or misunderstood some things.
The endnotes are a real treasure. I was very interested in number 75 on page 232 about the “Palace Revolt.”
Thank you so much for all your work and especially for your kind words to Jane in your eloquent opening. Jane has the “voice.” She, like you, is a true patriot and a national treasure.
Hi there, Mr. Dean,
I just finished reading your book, which you were kind enough to sign at your appearance in Berkeley recently.
As a psychologically oriented person, I was very interested to read about the Authoritarian personality — which finally explains my father (a Follower, not a “strict father” in Lakoff’s model — and you’re right that his theory has its limits) to me, after all these years!
Here’s the question that came up for me over and over as I read: don’t you think that JOE LIEBERMAN fits this personality type?
Mr. Dean,
When I was an adolescent, my mother and I would watch the Watergate hearings in the afternoons after I can home from school. We admired your honesty and the steely resolve of your pretty wife Mo sitting behind you in her chic blond chignon. Back then, my mother was a rational person. Since Fox News started broadcasting, she has become the sterotypical authoritarian follower and born-again fundamentalist Christian. She has converted my whole family with one exception-me. They are so different from me that we can’t stand to be in the same room with one another. When this whole thing is over, what is the possibility of getting them back? I’m in favor of a “truth and reconciliaation” commission like they had in South Africa. They still believe the lies and they are unshakeable. Is there any hope or will I have to find another family for the holidays? (I noticed they didn’t invite me for the picnics this summer and it’s starting to bother me.)
My question is a corollary to TRex’s: how does this crop of conservatives respond to defeat, should it come?
We’ve already seen instances of cultish cognitive dissonance with respect to Iraq, whereby failures are rationalised by core supporters and turned into vindications — is that psychology going to be replicated? Does a White House without a captive Congress start behaving like a cornered animal?
Welcome, Mr. Dean. I promise to buy the book when I have a little spare cash (32 months out of work puts a crimp on the budget), but I have to ask because I can’t determine from reading: did you happen to consult Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer in the writing of your book?
So much (although not all) of what Prof. Altemeyer has found was presaged in Hoffer’s book on mass movements.
Cheers.
J. Dean @ 26
Thanks for the response - As a child of a Durth heritage whose parents survived the nazis I think the parallels of the Bush administration to Germany of the 1930’s is frightening.
windje
This is not a question. A few years back I was a fresh kid just out of college. Or perhaps I should rather say, a few decades ago. I had a survivors job working the graveyard shift. Every morning, after my hour drive home down I-80 from Auburn to Sacramento in the morning, I switched the tube on and watched the Watergate Hearings. That was an interesting, but embarrassing time for America. Perhaps it is time for impeachment hearings again. For surely, if it was imperative that Nixon faced impeachment for his transgressions, (not to mention Bill Clinton) where no one died, then President Bush and VP Cheney should also face the American people for the lies which dragged us into Iraq. Where thousands have perished.
As a life long liberal Democrat, let me say, there were four heroes to come out of Watergate. Richardson, Ruckelshaus, Sirica. And last, but surely not least, John Dean. History sir, I believe will treat you with the respect you so richly deserve.
We have often talked here about ways to persuade our RWA acquaintances to try alternative ways to think about political and personal issues. You put the scale for authoritarian leanings in an appendix, and when I read it, I was struck by how obvious it seemed, how transparent it was what was being measured. I wonder if people who take the test are aware of what it is about, and how they would rate themselves before and after answering the questions. How do we go about encouraging that kind of self-awareness?
Welcome Mr. Dean
As a writer of a certain age who happened to be one of the (then) law students who camped outside the Supreme Court for the US v. Nixon oral arguments (and who also happens to still have his copy of Blind Ambition) my question, naturally, concerns the Judiciary.
You have talked at great length in your book about the authoritarian philosophers and followers in the Conservative movement today and about those who have gotten into the Executive and the Legislative branches. However, would you not agree that the biggest threat that we might face would be those authoritarians in the Judiciary? And as a follow-up, I’d like to hear your opinion as to whether we have any on the SCOTUS now and who you think they may be.
thanks much
At 15: My question is this: How much of the fearmongering is based in a genuine fear of The Enemy, as opposed to being merely a cynical attempt to control public opinion through fear. We know that the public message is seen as “product,” so is this fear solely the product of those trying to maintain control?
It is difficult for me to believe that the Bush/Cheney & Co. have not done some serious risk assessment regarding terrorism, and are well aware that this is not as big a threat to the nation as they would make it. This is not to say dealing with terrorists is not important, but it pales in comparison to what the nation confronted during the Cold War. Yet we managed to not toss out the Bill of Rights during those dark days. Rather we learned to live with the bomb.
The fearmongering is pure politics — and it is working very well for them, so far. In CWC I tried to lay out some coldly objective comparisons of risk, and terrorism is not very high on the list.
It is not clear to me why more has not been made of the fact that fearmongering feeds terrorism — and the terrorists win when they terrorize.
Welcome, Mr. Dean, and thanks for your great work. I’d like to ask a question that is the mirror image of this one:
Kak @ 7
What I wonder about is the 25% or so of voters who are not explicitly right-wing authoritarian followers, and yet give the GOP the votes it needs to win elections. What is it they are responding to in the authoritarian message, and how can they be pulled over to a saner point of view?
masaccio @ 35
Altemeyer reports that high RWAs are utterly clueless, and think themselves average. In fact, among the groups of dangerous outgroups they would volunteer to have rounded up is… themselves!
Hello Mr. Dean. I really appreciate your writing on these very important issues. My question: If Democrats regain control of the House and/or the Senate this November, what steps can they take to assert oversight and control over the Bush Administration’s authoritarian impulses?
At 17: Mr. Dean: If Nixon hadn’t been busted (if the world you once knew hadn’t imploded), do you think your take on political reality would be markedly different?
Good question. Obvously we are the product of our experiences and that was a very maturing experience. Had I not gone through it I might have had a rather unrealistic view of the way the world works. At the time I was in my early 30s, and I kept asking myself whether I understood how the game was played in the big leauges (and maybe decieving the public, covering up crimes, lying, and using the powers of the presidency for personal political advantage was the norm.) However, by telling my colleagues I would not lie for them, and being prepared to account for my own behavior, I believe I did find the real world.
EDITED BY SITE OWNER
Please stay on topic during book salon. Feel free to travel to the previous thread if you want to go OT.
Mr. Dean:
My question is about your interview on Reliable Sources this morning.
My impression was that Howard Kurtz: first, didn’t read your book, and second, deliberately misunderstood what you were trying to say about the hypocrisy and lack of accountability of the rightwing - specifically your example of Rush Limbaugh and his braying fans with the ‘drug user’ hypocrisy.
Kurtz seemed to be doing his very best to mischaracterize the points you made, trying to paint you as attacking Rush Limbaugh and rightwing pundits - which of course is not what you were doing and is completely missing your point.
What was/is your impression of Kurtz? And, do you think this inaccurate, uninformed interviewing is typical of the mainstream media today?
(by the way, Mr. Dean, I’m a big fan of your books and your columns - I’m so excited you’re here!)
Mr. Dean I respect you’re work and like much of what you say but you use to work for Nixon how do we know we can trust you?
J.Dean at 37: Thank you for your reply.
When Al Gore gave his speech at the DAR Hall in January, he made this observation:
Mr. Dean- what would you haved advised this President to do when he was crowned way back?
I think diplomacy works better than anything else. Am I wrong?
John - in your 2:26 pm reply (comment 37), you say that “The fearmongering is pure politics…”
Who in the administration do you think is responsible for promulgating the fearmongering you mentioned?
Grayson @
44
Have you actually read the book, or are you just needling?
Mr. Dean,
Delighted to have you here. The book salon has become one of the more important things we do here at FDL.
Your book is amazing. I have it well marked up. A couple of questions:
I would echo the question above about the authoritarians on the SCOTUS and add, what issues do you think we might expect them “acting out” over.
Also, I am almost done reading The Age of Anxiety by Haynes Johnson about the McCarthy implosion. The name James St. Clair comes up there as the first assistant to Joseph Welch in the McCarthy-Army hearings. It would seem that St. Clair was a curious choice for Nixon to pick to defend him. Have you any thoughts about why that happened?
Welcome Mr. Dean. I want to echo other sentiments about watching you during the Watergate hearings. I was absolutely glued because it was a real glimpse into the processes by which our government works, and it was a time for revelation about truth and accountability.
Given how much corruption we’re dealing with in the Bush administration, if there were investigative or impeachment hearings, do you think the truth would come out? And in this day and age, how does the mainstream media restore itself?
At 19: “what is the difference between authoritarian governments and fascist regimes?”
There have not been many true fascist regimes. The most notable, of course, are Hitler and Mussolini’s. Indeed, in my research I found there is little agreement among the experts as to elements of fascism. It is for this reason the term must be used carefully.
Unfortunately, once again, the Bush Administration is being fast and loose with language when they throw out the term Islamofascists. It is a meaningless term as they use it — other than it says we hate Islamic radicals. But it is very sloppy thinking.
My former White House college Pat Buchanan (with whom I occassionally but seldom agree) recently said we should imagine the reaction Christians would have had if FDR had declared Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy to be “Christo- fascist.”
J. Dean @ 13
That warms my heart — I wish I had your confidence. Conyers should just come out and say it. The Republicans including Byron York are as much as daring him to. Part of bringing down authoritarians is standing up to them.
Dear John Dean,
Greetings from a fellow College of Wooster alum! I actually saw you speak there back around 1980 in Lowry Center. I read your columns on FindLaw and am looking forward to this new book. You’ve been a hero to me for a long time. Thanks very much!
Hello Mr. Dean
Under what high crime and/or misdemeanor do you think?
Following up on Mr. Dean’s suggestion that I pitch my 2 cents into the discussion started by Victoria on No. 4, why do authoritarians need to create/adhere to gross falsehoods?
My research shows how well the question was posed, because there are the people who create the falsehoods and then the people who believe them and cling to them.
Authoritarian leaders will say, when answering a survey anonymously, that they are essentially amoral. They say for example that lying is justified if it gets you what you want, and one of the best skills a person should develop is the ability to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly. So I don’t know if the people who perpetrated the falsehoods you mentioned really believed them or not. But I have it from the horse’s mouth that authoritarian leaders will not hesitate to lie if it advances their cause. (We should realize, as Mr. Rosenberg points out, that they are hardly alone in this. But they may still be in first place in the Liar’s League.)
Authoritarian followers are quite a different story. First, they do pretty poorly on various “Can You Think Straight?” tests, compared to most people. They have trouble drawing logical conclusions from premises and from evidence. They are particularly given to wanting simple answers. They are not inclined to critical thinking unless their leaders have told them ahead of time whom to be critical of. And they trust their leaders so much (it comes with the territory when you’re an authoritarian follower) that they will believe the quite unbelievable when one of their authorities says it. They don’t check things that come down from on high, they just believe them. And studies show they are incredibly capable of holding all sorts of conflicting and contradictory ideas and explanations in their heads at the same time. Another thing that helps one understand the followers is that they are more afraid than most people, and disturbing events really disturb them. So they go to their authorities for reassurance, not facts or true explanations. I think this explains something about the current administration, namely how crummy its explanations have become. (”Islamofascism”?) I suspect that the “response teams” in the administration have learned that they don’t have to give sensible explanations of what went wrong, because they know their followers will believe virtually anything. And when people come along and point out the mistakes and misrepresentations and miserable untruths in the latest speech or press release, the last people on this planet who are going to read those criticisms or hear about them on the news they watch will the the high RWAs.
Profs give long answers, don’t they.
By the way, nobody who knows me calls me “Professor Altemeyer.” I’d be glad to be addressed here as “Dr. Bob,” which is my nickname on campus. It makes me feel much younger. I know, that makes me the 137th “Dr. Bob” you know.
Mr. Dean, this is not really related explicitly to the book, but I wanted to express my admiration and appreciation for your “second act” in America.
On the right, people wrap themselves in what is all too often a faux conversion experience in order to experience easy social redemption, and for us in the more reality oriented community, we don’t have such ready narratives for reformation and (social) redemption.
You’ve done your life’s work and learning in public, and travelled your journey of integrity through the hard, steady effort of public service. That’s not easy and it’s not very splashy, but it’s very real. I admire that a great deal.
Many people make mistakes in their lives, and for most of them, those mistakes are not the stuff of national headlines. For all that, you’ve travelled your road gracefully, and I’d like to thank you while expressing my genuine admiration and appreciation.
Jane Hamsher @ 48
I have read the book but the fact that Mr. Dean worked for Nixon has always bothered me and I’d like to put an end to that.
Mr. Dean,
I wanted to mention that during the 1970s I read a number of books about Watergate, and “Blind Ambition” was the most helpful to me in understanding what had happened.
My question is this: Who, if anybody, today, do you see standing as a true, nonauthoritarian conservative in the traditio of Barry Goldwater?
If you answered this in your book, I apologize. I promise to read it.
Dear Mr. Dean - See you in Phoenix in a little bit. Looking forward to it.
Hi Mr. Dean et.al.–
In your book, you make mention of how, as Watergate unfolded, the public was very slow to react. You’ve said many times that you believe the current administration’s actions are far worse than what we saw with Watergate, and we all know how slow public opinion has been to turn this time as well. Do you see any signs, among conservatives and Republicans that you know, that they are beginning to see how dangerous this administration’s authoritarian tendencies are? Is there any chance of seeing Bush, or any of his advisors/cabinet being ousted from office? Or do you predict that most Republicans will continue to remain loyal to Bush and keep attacking those who dare to point out his failed policies and possibly illegal conduct as unpatriotic all the way to 2008? And beyond?
At 21: “…there’s no necessary reason to point to authoritarianism as a driving cause of such narratives.”
Good point. However, I was responding to the question in the context of authoritarianism. But they by no means have a lock on distorted narratives, as you point out.
Pachacutec @ 56
Amen. Well said.
I’ve been picking at this same question in the past few weeks over at Orcinus, and am also very interested to hear any thoughts Mr. Dean might want to share on this point. My posts have been postulating that the current GOP base has a hard core of people who are serious, proabably life-long, RWA followers; and also a much larger and softer core of people like Portia’s mother, who weren’t always this way, but were brought around through decades of propaganda, economic stress, and other factors. My argument has been that, since they made the change once, they may be persuaded to make it again.
Mr. Dean: what do you think can or should be done to begin to move these folks back toward the reality-based world?
I, too, share the interest in the judiciary and its role in the controversies at hand. Watergate would have been far, far different had a judge other than Sirica been on the bench in DC. It would have been far, far different if a SCOTUS had not been unanimous in opposing an overreaching executive that tried to place itself above the law.
With that as background, the shape of the federal judiciary has shifted in the last 20 years, especially in the last six. As bad as an overreaching executive is, as frustrating as a lapdog legislative branch is, my greatest fear is a judiciary that follows in the authoritarian mindset CWC lays out.
Grayson @ 57
This is a book salon, not your own personal therapy session.
At 22: “Mr. Dean, are you as afraid as I am?”
No. Fear is a healthy response to a dangerous sitution but Americans still have control of their government — if they decide to exercise it. I certinaly hope they do. I have written for good reason that the ‘06 and ‘08 election cycles are vital for they will set the agenda for the 21st Century. I say that because we are a divided nation right now, and it could easily tip either way.
Mr. Dean,
We’re living in very frightening times. The Bush administration makes Nixon’s administration look like “so what”!! These people are truly dangerous criminals. Thank you for all you’ve done and continue to do to point that out. We’re very appreciative of anyone who comes forward to speak truth to power.
I watched with interest your appearance before the Senate this year, too. Lindsay Graham seemed a bit confused about your roll in the Watergate investigation. I was a bit surprised by that. Your testimony was courageous and inspiring, btw.
Thanks for that and for writing “Worse than Watergate” - it’s one of my favorite books. Haven’t read your new book yet - but looking forward to reading it soon. Keep up the great work!!!
Thank you for participating today, Mr. Dean, and for your book which lays it all out so clearly.
I think having such a relatively large fraction of the population (and an even larger fraction of the voting and politically-active population) accepting uncritically whatever nonsense focus-groups-well is very scary.
We have a republic if we can keep it (to borrow from Franklin). I’m worried that we won’t. Perhaps Dr. Bob has some insights into persuasion to reach them?
Dr Bob - your comments on the followers lack of need for logical reasoning is very helpful right now as we see the administration’s machine ratcheting up but seeming to have a very tin ear this time around … they know precisely who they need to speak to and how little they need to say to get their desired results. Frightening and fascinating. Thank you.
And special thanks for Mr Dean for visiting, this book and his integrity.
Ouch. Silly, silly question. Read just a small part of Mr. Dean’s intelligent and thoughtful and highly moral writing in the more than thirty years since Nixon.
I’ll ask a question, what do you think of the state of the Plame investigation? There seems to be a push in DC, from Republicans and the press, to say it’s all understood now and Armitage is to blame.
My question for Mr Dean is:
Regarding the present administration and its policies: What do you think history will show down the road? Will this indeed be the worst administration in US history? Can this cancer on the US political/democratic system ever recover? What will be the steps?
What do you see for the future in your crystal ball?
Thanks, Jane…
Mr. Dean:
Thanks for taking the time to be here with us today.
Are you currently doing a book tour, and if so is the schedule somewhere online?
Mr. Dean– can you please try to explain why the administration came up with the silly term Islamo- fascism just about the same time you proved to the world that we are enduring proto- fascism?
Thanks Jane.
In the CWC index, the only occurence of “neocons” is pages 20-21.
Predictably, the sentence described didn’t exist on either page.
Dr. Bob & Mr. Dean:
My question is simple: Research–such as Stanley Milgrim’s–shows that situational influences can be far more powerful than internal predispositions (ala RWA) in generating authoritarian behavior. To what extent do you think that a Democrat Congress (one or both houses) could further alter the national situation to lessen the external drivers of authoritarian behavior, and what sort of actions might do this? (I am, of course, a big fan of the truth and reconciliation model, but obviously we’re a ways away from being able to implement somethign like that.)
Thanks to both of you for a lifetime of public service.
At 27: “You’ve said on more than one occasion that we are dangerously close to the road to fascism. Isn’t it true that we are much closer than you are willing to admit? If fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, like Mussolini said, isn’t that precisely where we’re at? It seems that the corporate interests of the arms dealers and oil companies outweigh the interests of the common people and we are fighting these series of wars in the Middle East to serve their interests. I think it’s pretty obvious that Iraq has done nothing for our national security and has, in fact, made us considerably less safe by effectively recruiting and converting more extremists.”
You points are well taken. Let me address the question of fascism. As I posted early, this is not an esay term to define. But basically (1) it is a philosophy that embraces a dictator, assisted by an organized hierarchy, who regiment society by violence, intimidation, and arbitrary use of power; or (2) a mass-based reactionary movement.
All fascists regimes have played a kind of hardball that we have never seen in this country, so while there can be incipient activities that smell of fascism — they are still a long way from true fascism.
In short, I don’t like to use such perjorative labels unless they truly fit, and that is why I used the analogy. Not only are we not on the road, we have not headed out the door toward the bus that will take us down that road.
The reason I wrote about authoritarianism is that it is, indeed, protofascist. And I worry that another 9/11 will result in more people being swayed by an authoritarian leader, who will say it is time to get in the bus, and head down that road to protect the security of the nation.
I suppose I’ve missed the party, but if it isn’t too late I do have a comment. As I read CWC (excellent book, BTW) my memory kept teasing me with a long comment (or short lecture) by Douglas MacArthur, of all people, in 1944 or so. I never did, though, dig out my copy of Manchester’s “American Caesar” to track it down.
To paraphrase from memory, though, MacArthur was responding to a subordinate named Sutherland (son of the reactionary Justice Sutherland of Schechter fame). Said Mac: even though the army of a disciplined totalitarian society will enjoy initial successes against that of an open society, in the longer run the open society will prevail. The very individualism that makes the early months so chaotic eventually makes the army the stronger, by encouraging innovation and initiative.
In the context of authoritarian Republicans vs. everyone else, what do you think? Will the domestic authoritarians’ inflexibility do them in, as it did the Spartans and the Nazis? Or are they sufficiently flexible to dodge this fate?
Thanks, and thanks for fighting the good fight.
If it weren’t for John Dean courageously doing the right thing, one can’t predict how Watergate would have been resolved. There has been no John Dean in the Bush White House, whihc is one of the reasons they have been able to get away with what they have.
If you judge someone based on what they did 35 years ago rather than recently, that says more about them than you. The dangerous dynamics Dean is describing transcend partisan affiliation — they are real threats to our country — and I think it ought to be welcomed when people of different ideological backgrounds recognize them and work against them.
Mr. Dean,
As I listened to Keith Olbermann’s takedown of Don Rumsfeld, I thought of you and this upcoming book salon conversation. Much of KO’s comments seem to resonate with your picture of CWC in the book. I’m curious about what you thought of Olbermann’s remarks, and (given that you and Rumsfeld were both part of the Nixon White House) how you think Rumsfeld and the Bush White House might be preparing to react to them.
Thanks!
Thank you, Dr. Bob, for your professorial answer. I expect to be dealing with these authoritarian patterns for the rest of my natural-born days, so am deeply grateful for your research and John Dean’s excellent, excellent book.
Couple of quick points before I pose my second question:
1) Jane is hot.
2) Glenn is brilliant.
3) John Dean is a true American patriot.
With that said, I think all this talk of regaining the House, and possibly the Senate, is virtually meaningless until we get control over those corrupt electronic voting machines. I know we don’t like to relive the Florida 2000 and the Ohio 2004 sagas, but what choice do we really have? It’s well known that these machines are extremely vulnerable (see my YouTube channel for videos) and it’s pretty well-documented (Robert Greenwald’s film and Conyers’ Congressional inquiry) that the last two elections were stolen — or to be more PC — highly “irregular”.
My question is: If we don’t get control of the machines that tally the votes, does it really matter who we vote for? 2000 and 2004 have “shown” how “wrong” exit polls can be. When are we going to wake up to this? If we don’t, nothing we say or do really makes much of a difference.
As a last point, Hastert now effectively decides who wins elections regardless of who the voters choose. What can we do about this?
Thank You.
I would like ask a variation on a question posed above:
If the democrats retake one or more houses of Congress, how does the Double High leader respond when challenged by an equal power, like a co-equal branch of government?
If, Bush or Cheney believe as you do, that a Democratic sucess in November, spells the beginning of impeachment proceedings (or at least of what the NYTimes is calling “crippling investigations”)what does the Double High do when facing such a threat to itself?
Glenn Greenwald @ 82
Thanks Glenn, bullseye, as per usual.
At 28: “Again perhaps in a later printing, I was unclear about this at the bottom of p. 181 about James St. Clair: “When he found out that his client had lied to him he had two choices: to resign or to join the new cover-up. He was, as it happened, interested in participating in the latter.”
Bold is mine. From the prior positive statements you made about Mr. Sinclair, I thought you meant to write “former,” but perhaps I just misread or misunderstood some things.”
Good catch. This was also on my errata sheet I sent my editior. (Not sure how that slipped by my eagle-eyed copy editor.)