Skip to main content

View Diary: Authoritarians at the Gate (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Heinline got it backwards. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, Larsstephens

    There are some humans who want to control their own kind and their efforts generate resistance by those who want to be free to do their own thing.
    Moreover, the current denizens of the Republican party are not capable of being insurgents, because their whole mode of being involves inaction, not doing anything. They are sticks in the mud. They exploit opportunities like sand spurs that hitch a ride on your sock.
    Given these admitted prejudices on my part, I did not peruse the whole argument presented in the post.
     Perhaps I shouldn't call them prejudices, since they are well-considered conclusions. But, there it is.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:12:39 AM PST

    •  You ought to read it because (11+ / 0-)

      it might change your mind.  Some people do want to be controlled, so to speak, because it gives them sense of belonging, security, whatever....   It may be strange, sick, weird, but it's true.  Think Stockholm syndrome...  

       

      The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

      by Persiflage on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:30:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a difference between being agreeable (5+ / 0-)

        and cooperative and being subject to external direction which is, by definition, contrary to the object's welfare.
        The argument that people want to be controlled is a variant of "blame the victim" logic. It gets the controlling agent off the hook. In sexual abuse, it is manifest as the "she wanted it" excuse.
        It is my contention that "control freaks" are people who become obsessed with controlling other people because they lack the capacity to control themselves. This lack of self-control means that their impulsive behavior often leads them into doing wrong (e.g. McCain crashing four planes) until they arrive at a point where they do nothing (but talk) unless they are told. That the way our political campaigns are now run by a host of managers and consultants makes them an ideal venue for people who have survived to take direction and prefer to do so would seem to be an example of a deficit being turned into an opportunity -- making lemonade out of lemons, so to speak. Movie actors and modern political candidates have much in common. Both professions employ the same skills -- imitation and repetition.

        We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:35:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not arguing. I'm ill equipped in this area. (9+ / 0-)

          I've tried to reason out why some dumb-shits I know seem to consistently fall face down in the plate of conservative horse shit and gobble it up as if it was a plate of fresh warm donuts.  I can't.  

          But this diary helped explain it for me.

          That's all I'm saying....  

          The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

          by Persiflage on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:21:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Both can be true: some want to be controlled (ofte (5+ / 0-)

          n bc it absolves them of responsibility and/or work - never underestimate the power of cowardice and laziness :) ), and some want to control.  Often the former become the sheep of the latter’s movements.  

          It is no coincidence that fascism (which is really authoritarianism as a popular political movement, versus royalism or bolshevism which are non-populist/'democratic' examples) becomes a 'majority' when events like the Depression or prolonged civil war make large numbers of non-authoritarian folks feel fundamentally helpless to affect/control/better their lives.  (To push my non-responsibility/laziness pt, it becomes easier to give up when it seems no amount of responsible behavior or hard work matters.  This is imo why Thugs talk so much about responsibility and hard work while fundamentally undermining and disdaining them.)

          •  Agree, at some point some people want Daddy (6+ / 0-)

            or Mommy or God to fix things... people who are inherently dependent on others older or "wiser" or in special positions that must be respected and deferred to too much for solutions or direction or whatever... these are people who were raised to think in absolutes and to look for guidance on what the borders and definitions of those absolutes are from those designated as the grownup version of parents.

            It is not inherently bad or good to respect and defer to authorities and that was the workable norm for most of human history. Traditional societies had respect for elders who were the encyclopedias, the Wikipedias, the wisdom and the advisers in everything... the place they lived in had been stable for a long time and the older people in the clan/village/tribe were reliable and important resources for continuity and stability. And so are many many older people in our own times in our own local environments... family, or valid and trustworthy authority figures are everywhere... but the trust and verify thing only goes so far and especially when the wisdom and experience are rigid, too local and not very transferable to newer things or other places in a fast paced changing world.

            When people outgrow the simpler life of childhood, there is clearly a residual need for many to have "Daddy" and "Mommy" analogues in whatever form; religious leader or political leader who can "Fix" things when there are bigger, wider problems that are just too scary or hard to understand... but in return the more the "fixers" are required to just make things go away without bothering the desperate, uninformed who need them, the more the fixers will become a problem themselves. The US right wing are continually bemoaning the nanny state and the poor becoming dependent on handouts etc... but what is actually happening here is projection; they themselves are the dependent ones... they outsource the basis of their opinions and beliefs, their understanding of what their problems actually are as well as the solutions to their moral and political leaders.

            Too many problems in the world are a mystery to these dependent citizens and they demand quick formulas for understanding causes, assigning blame and enacting remedies.... or else just want to not have to worry about any of it and the anxiety they feel can be stoked and harnessed to give the "Fixers" in authority positions and license to do as they please to further enrich and empower themselves while going through the required motions and stances to achieve the presumed goals but which only exacerbates the problems that they are supposedly meant to be fixing...

            Yes the sheep in a society do want things fixed for them so they won't be bothered by them too much. They are like an underclass version of old style aristocracies who do not want to be disturbed by elements of the real world and will accept anything however extreme if it helps maintain the fictions they want to live with. The power elite in authoritarian dominated societies draw their power from feeding the fears of those below them. And that power is bestowed on their rulers by the sheep ceding as much moral and physical power as their own ignorance and fear allows. And they cannot understand why others are so horrified at their eagerness to follow their designated leaders so blindly.

            Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

            by IreGyre on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:34:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep, which is why education and NewDeal/GreatSocie (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IreGyre, poemworld

              ty type income-stablization and opportunity programs have been so central to Democats for so long - the latter reduces dispair and increases the chance of control over ones own life and reward for one's hard work (it is no coincidence that its called the 'Making Work Pay' tax credit), while the former provides both the perspective to understand that real Progress is possible (warts and all) and the tools for all of those (as well as shattering the hold of tradition and superstition on human minds, which is why Thugs fear and want to destroy public education, i.e., education for all).

              It really is that simple, and has been for millenia.  Ask Socrates. :)

      •  It's true (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madhaus, mithra, Larsstephens, Persiflage

        Having been in a Christian cult for 15 years in my younger days - it was easier functioning within the box they put us in.  No need to think or have any feelings towards anything. They directed it all as "God's purpose on earth" and we followed all the dictates.    

        Using fear, lies and manipulations, as Fox News, Repugs, et al have done during the Obama presidency, it allows those that want to remain in the bubble to stay there.  It fits the box they exist in.  As Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men," they can't handle the truth.  

        •  It's true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens, Persiflage

          Hi BeadLady - Thanks for bringing this up. A cult is probably the archetypal example of the exploitation of the dynamic between high  SDO leaders and high  RWA followers. Think Jim Jones, Rev. Moon, Scientology, etc. Once you drink the Koolaid . . .

          "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

          by lartwielder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:44:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think authoritarian types believe in (9+ / 0-)

      really strict pecking orders. They want to control those "below" them, but be controlled by those "above" them.

      Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

      by Dirtandiron on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:17:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  strict pecking orders (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        Bingo! I didn't spend any time on it in the post, but one of the defining characteristics of the environment out of which high RWAs emerge is one in which there is a strict hierarchy defined . . . Altemeyer has a lot to say about that.

        "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

        by lartwielder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:46:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The mistake in the characterization (10+ / 0-)

      is to call authoritarians "conservative." The label doesn't fit in general, and certainly not these days when the right wing is so demonstrably radical reactionary.

      It should also be noted that recent research has found that people are BORN to be either conservative or liberal - these psychological leanings are inherent. Liberals are less frightened of change and new things than conservatives. Thus one could characterize right wing authoritarianism as at root a social manifestation of deep insecurity and fear.

      •  Thugs ceased being 'conservative' long ago. As a (8+ / 0-)

        label it still has validity, if only as 'not liberal' (liberal defined traditionally tho, i.e., beleiving in liberty from which pretty much the entire D platform follows, including the New Deal and Great Society - there is no liberty without opportunity).

        But as a workable definition of the Thugs?  Nope.  The Democratic party is both the liberals and conservatives of present US politics.  The Thugs are the rich, fundies and crazies - a perfect medium to grow fascism.

        •  Truly spoken. (7+ / 0-)

          I have little in common with the various groups of socialists, communists, pacifists, feminists and environmentalists when it comes to actual policy. But I rarely pull the lever for the "R" candidate come election day, and I would never consider doing so in a federal election.

          But then these epic battles between the modern GOP and the modern Democratic Party are seldom really about policy in the sense it has always been understood. They don't care about solving problems, they frequently elect to deny that problems even exist (see global warming) so how can they be expected to come up with any policy based solutions to these problems? They don't.

          I might disagree with a liberal about how best to deal with our nation's problem energy. I would favor the construction of new nuclear facilities, whereas a liberal might disagree and suggest wind turbines. The Republican/Authoritarian would start screaming "DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!!!" as if that's not already happening, and it was realistic to think we can afford to continue down that path. Then they'd propose something crazy about abortion and blame sluts for the Cat 4 hurricane about to slam into Boston next March.

          Our politics are now more or less divided between those who are still tethered to reality and those who live in Fox News land.

          You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

          by Eric Stratton on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:57:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep. And the fact that you and a anti-nuker can li (4+ / 0-)

            kely have a far more civil and civilized discussion/debate kind of says it all, no?

            Pretty sad really.  Deliberately destroying the mental health of tens of millions for money, the illusion of power and trinkets...

            •  Well, yeah. And the writer mentions this. (4+ / 0-)

              In the past, the two political parties would get together and negotiate. Based on who had the most leverage, a deal would be hammered out. Maybe the anti-nuke guy didn't get all the wind farms he wanted, but he'd get something. Conversely, the nuclear energy lobbyist might not extract every dime he could from the Ways and Means Committee, but he'd understand that throwing the hippies a bone was good politics and would go a long way toward greasing the legislative gears.

              GOP authoritarians rammed everything they could down our collective throats when they were in power last decade. Now, they adopt a scorched earth policy since they can't get their way. It is indeed sad.

              You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

              by Eric Stratton on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:22:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Reply to Eric and Chris (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larsstephens

                Guys, the conversation between the two of you has restored my hopes for us pulling out of the pit we're in. This is exactly what I was hoping to convey. No two people are alike in their wants, needs, desires, opinions, whatever. But it can't be any other way . . . Given that, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to any problem. The optimal solution to any problem is the one that provides the best return possible for all parties involved. I think the buzzword is "win-win." There are so many advantages to this strategy that it's beyond the scope of this venue to address them all. There is one advantage that I believe trumps all others: Human beings reciprocate. If a person perceives that another is negotiating in good faith and really wants to end up with an optimal solution, that person will reciprocate. If a person believes that another is out to run all over him and stiff him whenever and however he can, he will respond in kind. One's politics have nothing to do with how one approaches one's dealing with others. Where one falls along the RWA scale does. High RWAs treat life and their interactions with others as a zero-sum game and will do whatever they can to "win." It is good to feel like there are people who can respect each other and agree to disagree but still get problems solved . . .

                Oh, and there's this: the payback. It's a motherf**ker. What goes around comes around. Apparently the high RWAs haven't figured that out yet . . .

                "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

                by lartwielder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:50:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Democrats being both the liberals and (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens, lotlizard

          conservatives in US politics. Dead on. I've been doing so much reading on the subject lately that I can't remember the sources right offhand, but that's somewhat a recurring theme among the "watchers." I really wish I could remember because there was one study that showed that along the liberal - conservative spectrum, the peak of the distribution for Democrats is to the right of where the peak for the Republicans was until the late '60s - early '70s.

          WRT "perfect medium to grow fascism," join the choir, brother!

          "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

          by lartwielder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:12:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  you know, J, I read about that research you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, Larsstephens

        mention and until it is repeated by many others and the same conclusion found, I am holding off an opinion about its merit.

        The reason being that there are a multitude of factors that could skew the results that they are seeking, that would have to be definitively proved did not impact the results.

        What was the number in the population pool?  What were the economic conditions of those studied?  Race?  Conditions at home: substance abuse, depression of one parent, etc., etc.  These variables can't be effective tested in just one test.  And then the all time validator:  would another test run by a different group according to their standards give the same results?

        I think it is way too early to latch onto that theory.  It is just from one study....

        On the other hand, the information presented in this masterful diary has come from many studies, many sources, many points of view and there is indeed a remarkable consistency in the findings.

        It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. ~~Joseph Stalin

        by SeaTurtle on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:02:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I saw it several (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lonely Texan, Larsstephens

          places when it came out, first on ScienceDaily. For me, the supposedly newsworthy 'finding' that individuals are innately liberal or conservative was one big laughable 'DUH'. One of those things that are so obvious through the course of life - perhaps especially for mothers/parents - that you've just got to wonder that somebody actually got a research grant to check it out at long last. And deliver the obvious.

          Sure, experience of life on planet earth is going to shape personalities, but each person comes with an innate 'nature' that presents itself from the beginning. My children, born just 14 months apart, had their own unique approaches to the world all along, and grew up to be a strong liberal thrill-seeker and a much more conservative thinker/risk avoider. Have two grandsons that are 4 years apart. The older boy is definitely a free spirit, not afraid of much and full-on for 'new' fun things. The younger boy I call my "little authoritarian." He's all about rules and making sure everybody's following them. I'm not worried about their futures - they'll be fine - but their personalities will most likely play out in how they organize their adult lives.

          None of that means there's no 'crossovers' in the middle of the range from both ends of the spectrum. Just acknowledging that people are born with certain approaches to the world... 'natures'. 2-party adversarial politics is established to represent both ends of the spectrum and be able to do what's best even if it's not optimal to one's embraced liberal or conservative d'ruthers. That is no longer possible in this country because one of the representative parties has gone stark, raving mad. Worse, so have the people they represent. The crazies must be marginalized or none of us will have a future.

          •  reply to SeaTurtle and Joieau (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens, Joieau

            ST and J - I think you (generic) guys have taken the discussion of this topic "out to the edge." To me, that's the really fun place to be. J addresses some of the things I'm dealing with personally around this topic. The Nature-nurture question around this is fascinating and is ripe for research . . .

            "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

            by lartwielder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:10:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You did such a bang-up job (0+ / 0-)

              writing about this subject, I for one would welcome another thoughtful diary (or a few) examining the sideways questions related to nature-nurture, why people are drawn to authoritarianism, how that went so wrong for what's left of the Republican Party, and how the Democratic Party can appeal more routinely across the board.

              Oh... and perhaps get to the question of whether with the demise of the reactionary Rep party, whether we might need a new political party as 'loyal opposition' to represent the left side of the spectrum. The producer of the film Inside Job suggested that very thing would be expected by history and I think it's possible that he's right.

              Great thought-provoking stuff here, lartwielder. Thanks.

          •  Except that it's not that simple. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau, tardis10

            I'll just use myself as an example.
            I am averse to * physically * adventurous/risk-taking activities for the most part. Wouldn't dream of bungee-jumping or parachuting; I don't even like rollercoasters.
            Emotionally and (I hope) intellectually, however, I'm always ready to push limits.
            I do get what you mean about temperament, and that it appears to be innate. Yet the quiet, reserved, watchful baby (per Brazelton's schema) may well grow up to be a tolerant and curious one, interested in seeing how different people live their lives, and not so much interested in having people follow rules.

            I'm seeking to organize DKos members in SE Michigan--roughly, from the Ohio line at Lake Erie NE to Port Huron, W to Flint and back S from there. If you'd like to join our new group, Motor City Kossacks (working title), please Kosmail me.

            by peregrine kate on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 07:51:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I agree that it's not (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peregrine kate, tardis10, poemworld

              cut and dried on HOW one's nature plays out in life, as I've known both liberals and conservatives (by nature) whose politics didn't categorize them as one might expect based on the oversimplified labels pundits put on who joins this party or that one.

              My son the careful 'conservative' thinker type guy - and my oldest grandson who voted in his second Presidential election last month - were/are faithful Democratic voters (even though grandson #1 registered Independent just to reserve his choices). Both have been looked up to by a rich diversity of friends and even teachers as sort of 'wise beyond years'. Conversely, I've a brother-in-law who is a gifted guitarist and notable risk-taker who is so far right on the political spectrum he's almost come back around again. Almost, but unfortunately not all the way.

              It's hard to tell how people are going to side on something so ideological as politics and governing philosophies just by their inherent 'nature' as humans in the world. Things like hatred of others, desire for riches (or just to be a servant of the rich), how the necessary systems of governance are set up and run, etc. are, I think, far more influenced by social group experience than one's basic approach to life is.

              All I think I 'know' for sure about the current political situation is that one of the two objectively important parties in our system has gone completely nutz chasing religio-simpletons and die-hard haters - the reserves of unreasonably fearful and insecure people no matter how they were born - and that's all they've got left at this point. Political suicide writ large.

              •  RE: oh I agree (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peregrine kate, poemworld

                Great comment!

                All I think I 'know' for sure about the current political situation is that one of the two objectively important parties in our system has gone completely nutz chasing religio-simpletons and die-hard haters - the reserves of unreasonably fearful and insecure people no matter how they were born - and that's all they've got left at this point. Political suicide writ large.
                I wish could say that I disagree . . . It's getting really scary out there . . .

                "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

                by lartwielder on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:05:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Re: It's not that simple (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peregrine kate, poemworld

              Hola Kate - I understand what you're saying that you are "selectively adventurous." :) I think what the authors were talking about when they said openness to new experience, etc., they're talking about things on general terms as measured by questionnaires. I think you'd probably end up toward the higher end of the openness to new experience scale . . . :)

              "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

              by lartwielder on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:01:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, probably so. And in general, I think there's (0+ / 0-)

                merit in considering the topics you're raising here. I get a little nervous when we discuss the hard-wiring of social attitudes and beliefs, however, because I think the tendency to simplify differences and to underestimate the possibility of change (let alone figure out ways to encourage such change) then comes into play in unhelpful ways.

                I'm seeking to organize DKos members in SE Michigan--roughly, from the Ohio line at Lake Erie NE to Port Huron, W to Flint and back S from there. If you'd like to join our new group, Motor City Kossacks (working title), please Kosmail me.

                by peregrine kate on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 07:25:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, probably so . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  Hi Kate - I hear what you're saying. It didn't come out in this post because I felt like it was getting too long as it was, and it wasn't germane to the topic, but a big chunk of the research is along the nature-nurture question. It's looking like the main aspect of one's makeup that throws one into the authoritarian side of the equation is the degree to which one is open to new experience. And I don't necessarily mean bungee jumping. I mean, how narrow one's universe is and how tightly they feel they have to cling to it. Take evolution, for instance. For some people, to accept that evolution really does happen, would completely blow up their universe because the only explanation for the creation of the universe that they've been allowed to or been willing to consider is Genesis. That person will score very high on the RWA scale. Take another person who has had the same "exposure level," but is open to new experience. This person would be interested in learning about new things so they would consider the idea. After thinking about it, they may decide that they don't have enough evidence to convince them, but they were open to the idea.

                  Now, just because a person starts out in life on the low end of the openness to new experience scale doesn't mean they have to stay there forever. Occasionally people have "life-changing experiences" in which they were in a situation in which they had no control and life smacked them in the face with a "Hello! Wakey, wakey!" They couldn't avoid it because they didn't see it coming, and even if they had, they couldn't have done anything about it. So there they are in a completely new world. Their core beliefs have been shattered, so now they've got to put their world back together. They are now open to new experience by definition . . .  :) They have to change their cognitive strategy because their old strategy is no longer helpful for them because it leads them back to ground zero . . . At that point, they have to start taking responsibility for their worldview instead of letting it be dictated by someone else . . .

                  So, in the real world, there truly are genetic predispositons, but then, life can get in the way . . .

                  "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

                  by lartwielder on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:45:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  RE: The mistake in the characterization (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, Larsstephens

        Hi Joieau - I don't think you're alone in thinking that authoritarians are "conservative." Matter of fact, in her article "Three Kinds of 'Conservatism,'" Karen Stenner rejects the term "social conservative" for "authoritarian." She pretty much paints authoritarians as being different beasts from the more classical ideas of conservatism.

        WRT the nature-nurture dimension of authoritarianism, I'll have more to say about that in response to another comment, but, certainly there is a "nature" component to it.

        And you're dead on in your characterization of RWA as a manifestation of insecurity and fear. Many a word has been written about that and where high RWAs fall on the Big 5 scales.

        "The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." -- Jim Hightower

        by lartwielder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:05:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Heinlein got it backwards (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lonely Texan, kbman, Larsstephens

      Hola Hannah - I understand your prejudices/conclusions and agree with the sentiment in general. I think, though, that there is a bit more to the picture than you have seen so far. In high RWA followers, we see people who absolutely need to be controlled because they do not have the capability make their own decisions, create their own value system, etc. They need to be a member of a group that can surround them and support them. In the high SDOs, we see people who are just the opposite. They will do anything they need to do to control others . . . It is the high SDOs and Double Highs in the Republican party that are leading the insurgency. They are the master manipulators . . .

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

      by lartwielder on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:38:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A part of this, too, is the need for certainty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        High RWA's tend to be very concrete thinkers, not open to abstractions and contingencies. They want answers, not processes for finding and determining truth. Their religions and authoritarian leaders provide them the answers and certainty they need.

        "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

        See! No need to bother oneself to do the hard work of evaluating and judging facts. Simply accept what your chosen authority has to say about things and you can get on with watching Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. None of that messy weighing of contradictory pieces of information, no soul-searching, no contemplation, that stuff's for weirdos and eggheads.

        Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

        by kbman on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 05:59:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site