Sure, these people have been doing sterling work, but is all this gushing respect really necessary? If you didn’t know better, you might even start thinking of them as nascent authority figures, albeit not of of the Bush-Cheney variety. Or is the answer to the rise of authoritarianism the construction of counter-authorities?

Mr. Dean, thank you so much for being here. I had the same question as Angie at 5:09 (whether or not Bush should, or will be impeached) Do you think the relatively recent impeachment of Clinton raised or lowered the bar on impeachment for Bush?

I have read the book and added five posts to my blog, Where Are We Going, The WAWG Blog. One post is about the authoritarian personality and its types, and the other four are about the key Double Highs that are razing our government,

Badick at 355 wonders if there’s a connection between being an authoritarian follower and being a religious fundamentalist. Yeah, a huge one, which a lot of people have already concluded I suspect. Furthermore, it’s clear that being a high RWA can make you inclined to be a fundamentalist, and being raised a fundamentalist can help make you a high RWA. They can feed each other, reinforce each other in someone’s life. The interesting scientific question that then comes up is which is more basic, important? The answer seems to be, rwa is. It correlates with various prejudices, willingness to strike the Bill of Rights, scary submission to authority, and so on better than fundamentalism does. So the problem is not fundamentalism so much as the fact that it is so often connected with being an authoritarian follower. There are many ways of being “religious,” and there are millions of religious Americans who are not high RWAs. But most fundamentalists and evangelicals are.

Incidentally, if you haven’t alread spotted this yourself, we found our measure of religious fundamentalism appears to identify the same pattern of being an authoritarian follower, being prejudiced, and so on in Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism as in Christianity. The Bush administration (and the Republican candidates running for office now who are following the party line) would seem to be much closer to the truth if they said “the enemy” is certain fundamentalist Muslims, or authoritarian Muslims, not Islamofascists! Maybe they’ll try that next.

The good people at Firedoglake may feel it’s time to turn out the lights on this forum. So good night, and good resolve to us all.

Mrs. Robinson @ 3:29 pm

“They see ambiguity as weakness…”

How do they perceive uncertainty? How do they react to the plethora of vicissitudes this fast-paced world has to offer? They seem to react by turning to those who may be least able to adapt to rapid changes – their authoritarian leaders whom they choose to follow.

That’s the whole point, RWA’s respond most to leaders whose points of view don’t change with the facts. Obviously, rational people evaluate new information and assimilate it into their current world view, which may end up altering it. Somehow this is seen as “shades of gray” or “ambiguity” rather than “intelligence.”

Did you mean to say this the other way around?
“…that says more about you than them.”

Speaking of pardons, with reference to earlier postings, the question that occurs to me is, can President Bush give himself a pardon as he leaves office in January ‘09?

Finally, I think the price being asked for that book on Amazon must be a misprint. Or is some social dominator trying to sell his copy?

Bob Altemeyer has a fairly expensive book listed.

Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Jossey Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series)

Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Jossey Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series) by Bob Altemeyer (Hardcover – Oct 1988)
Used & new from $2,210.26