NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this article to be both an eye opener, and deeply frieghtening at the same time. Especially the stuff at the end...

link (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm)

Triumph of the Authoritarians
by John W. Dean


Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest -- none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical.

For more than 40 years I have considered myself a ``Goldwater conservative," and am thoroughly familiar with the movement's canon. But I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon ``imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

What true conservative calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary to the degree that it is now possible to determine the outcome of cases by looking at the prior politics of judges? Where is the conservative precedent for the monocratic leadership style that conservative Republicans imposed on the US House when they took control in 1994, a style that seeks primarily to perfect fund-raising skills while outsourcing the writing of legislation to special interests and freezing Democrats out of the legislative process?

How can those who claim themselves conservatives seek to destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate by eliminating its extended-debate tradition, which has been the institution's distinctive contribution to our democracy? Yet that is precisely what Republican Senate leaders want to do by eliminating the filibuster when dealing with executive business (namely judicial appointments).

Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in ``conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.

Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede -- usually only when not speaking for attribution -- that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe. This is what I gleaned from discussions with countless conservative leaders and followers, over a decade of questioning.

I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater, whom I had known for more than 40 years. Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today's professed conservatives -- their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation. From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do, and to author a book laying out what we found. Sadly, the senator's declining health soon precluded his continuing on the project, so I put it on the shelf. But I kept digging until I found some answers, and here are my thoughts.

For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work.

What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, ``enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.

Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians.

John W. Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, just published his seventh nonfiction book, ``Conservatives Without Conscience."

umm yeah, conservatives are authortarian whores who dont want people to be able to live their own lives, and try to force their "christian morals" on everyone else.

note: i am catholic, but do not believe in forcing my views on others.

Goldwater Conservativism died the second Bush took his oath.

Goldwater Conservativism died the second Bush took his oath.

No, they died with Nixon and declined from there. Bush is only the most recent blow.

i have been assured in my thread on the general topic that this is all just a bunch of liberal lies. oh, and also "but clinton..."

This sounds like an excerpt from the introduction of Dean's book, which I'm planning to buy this week. My mom is reading it, and she keeps calling me up to read me the scary parts. His first book, "Worse than Watergate," about the Bush admin's love of secrecy to the extremes of breaking the law and even a paranoid suspiciousness towards the American public (a la Nixon), was also an eye-opener. He's quite up in arms about this new one, in which he apparently goes into depth about the findings of these research studies. He was interviewed by Keith Olberman on MSNBC when promoting it, and Olberman asked him outright if we are facing any actual threat to our democracy at this time. Dean said that, in his opinion, we are not on a fascist road yet, but we are so close to it, that people have to start paying attention right now.

FYI, neocon pundits like Bill Kristal are already shouting that the US should "back up" Israel now by attacking Syria and Iran. Apparently, they think of this as a golden opportunity. Bastards.

however the hitlery chant of "it takes a village" is marxism at it's worst - you think the libs with socialized everything would be better?:sniper:

The conservative movement of America is dead. It has been betrayed by its leaders, and has desintigrated.

I am a Traditionalist and a Nationalist. Most who call themselves "conservative" are really liberals, who don't know it yet, and those in the "Middle" are on the former left, and the "Left" is so far left that they'll pop up on the right in about twenty years from now.

No, they died with Nixon and declined from there. Bush is only the most recent blow.
George W. Bush: Delivering the groin shot to Conservatism since 2000.:D

Most who call themselves "conservative" are really liberals, who don't know it yet, and those in the "Middle" are on the former left, and the "Left" is so far left that they'll pop up on the right in about twenty years from now.

is there something about being a rightwinger that necessarily makes one delusional?

The conservative movement of America is dead. It has been betrayed by its leaders, and has desintigrated.

I am a Traditionalist and a Nationalist. Most who call themselves "conservative" are really liberals, who don't know it yet, and those in the "Middle" are on the former left, and the "Left" is so far left that they'll pop up on the right in about twenty years from now.

What color is the sky in the world you live in?

umm yeah, conservatives are authortarian whores who dont want people to be able to live their own lives, and try to force their "christian morals" on everyone else.

note: i am catholic, but do not believe in forcing my views on others.
Then you're a crappy ass Catholic.

Anyways, conservatives are not nearly as authoritan as you bitch about liberal. They're dem-lite. If conservatives were so authoritan drug use would be at an all time low, abortion would be banned, and there'd be a universal draft.

And none of those have happend yet. So stop making an ass out of yourself God boy. My diety kicked your diety's ass in Gennesis anyway. Which is precisely why you are a horrible Catholic, doesn't get much more totalrian then God.
"See that apple? Don't eat it.."
"Why'd you show us the apple NOT to eat?"
"Cause that way you wouldn't eat it.."
"Why can't we eat it?"
"That's classiefied information, just don't fucking eat it.."
"Hisshisshisshiss God liiies to you.. God is afraaaid of you.. Hisshisshisshiss.."
"...WTF?"
"Just eat the God-damn apple! >: \ Hisshisshisshiss.."
"Ok *crunch!*"
"Damnit! I thought I told you bitchnuts not to eat the apple?!"
"But the snake..devil..thing"
"Hisshisshisshisshiss.."
"That's it, from now on women are going to be barefoot in the kitchen and I proclaim thier husbands to own them like furniture, men are to work long grueling hours and never get any kindof gratitude or emotional fufillment, and the snake's going to have to crawl on it's belly, infact, animals won't even be able to talk anymore!"
"But It wasn't me myself! The Devil possesed me!"
"What did I just say about not talking?"
"Sorry.."

John Dean is a Commie Liberal Al Qaeda Cindy Sheehan sympathizer who will soon be renditioned to Guantanamo to face Real American™ justice :D

----

The Busheviks have such a tight grip on the government and politics they'll completely ignore or turn on the old guard if they say something that make Dear Leader look bad.

It'll be a repeat of Napoleon shipping Boxer off to the glue factory.

Goldwater Conservativism died the second Bush took his oath.
No, they died with Nixon and declined from there. Bush is only the most recent blow.

Just for that wonderful other opinion, Nixion was the 1st nail in the coffin GWB was the last.

It's good to hear that there are those among us who see Bush's policies for what they are, and they certainly have nothing to do with real conservatism. I guess a good portion of us realize this, hence the coining of the label, "neo-con."

is there something about being a rightwinger that necessarily makes one delusional?

No. But there is something about leftists that ALWAYS makes them delusional. (Must be the "medical" marijuana)

No. But there is something about leftists that ALWAYS makes them delusional. (Must be the "medical" marijuana)
Yeah, those damn leftists and their stupid civil rights...

What color is the sky in the world you live in?

Somewhere between BRIGHT Red-Orange, and Fushia, with a little tinge of green.

It's actually quit beautiful.:p

however the hitlery chant of "it takes a village" is marxism at it's worst - you think the libs with socialized everything would be better?:sniper:

Such a short sentence filled with a host of logical fallacies. You obscure the point of the conversation by a weak attempt at self-justification. Rampant socialism is not something the US Democratic party can be accused of in this era, frankly neither party can be. Both parties at their core are moderate left and moderate right by US standards. By European standards, the US parties are moderate right and far right. That's right kiddo, both parties are generally conservative. So stop making this incorrect, fallacious and frankly offensive argument that Democrats are socialists that want to fully rule every facet of American life. It can be said while you and your friends were worrying about this nonsense, your party was infiltrated by hooligans who succeeded where generations of those "evil liberals" didn't.

Dean is, as usual, correct in his assessment. True Goldwater conservatism died with the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, Reagan didn't stray much, but the seeds were already in place for an authoritarian conservative rebellion. The change was neither sudden nor sharp. The authoritarian conservatives (neoconservatives) have been been quietly up until GWB became President, biding their time and awaiting when they could rule the party roost. Now that they have control, you and other Republicans only have yourselves to blame.

I do not envy the fight for your party's soul that you have ahead of you. I have been fighting that battle with my own party for twenty years. Good luck.

Then you're a crappy ass Catholic.

Anyways, conservatives are not nearly as authoritan as you bitch about liberal. They're dem-lite. If conservatives were so authoritan drug use would be at an all time low, abortion would be banned, and there'd be a universal draft.

And none of those have happend yet. So stop making an ass out of yourself God boy. My diety kicked your diety's ass in Gennesis anyway. Which is precisely why you are a horrible Catholic, doesn't get much more totalrian then God.
"See that apple? Don't eat it.."
"Why'd you show us the apple NOT to eat?"
"Cause that way you wouldn't eat it.."
"Why can't we eat it?"
"That's classiefied information, just don't fucking eat it.."
"Hisshisshisshiss God liiies to you.. God is afraaaid of you.. Hisshisshisshiss.."
"...WTF?"
"Just eat the God-damn apple! >: \ Hisshisshisshiss.."
"Ok *crunch!*"
"Damnit! I thought I told you bitchnuts not to eat the apple?!"
"But the snake..devil..thing"
"Hisshisshisshisshiss.."
"That's it, from now on women are going to be barefoot in the kitchen and I proclaim thier husbands to own them like furniture, men are to work long grueling hours and never get any kindof gratitude or emotional fufillment, and the snake's going to have to crawl on it's belly, infact, animals won't even be able to talk anymore!"
"But It wasn't me myself! The Devil possesed me!"
"What did I just say about not talking?"
"Sorry.."
First of all, your little story is about as meaningful as as a long turd on the floor of a rest stop bathroom...

Second of all, modern conservatives would love to see abortion banned and drug use curbed. Unfortunately, a little ruling called Roe v. Wade occurred, much to their continuing dismay. Drug use is banned, just as conservatives and liberals alike wish it to be, but a lot of people...gasp...don't follow the law. And it's not even necessary for a draft to be set up at the current time anyway, let alone a "universal" one, which conservatives would oppose as they believe that men should be the only gender fighting in military conflicts... I don't know who you get this garbage from, but from what you implied in your post, it's Szandor LaVey.

No.

so it's just an extraordinarily common personal problem then?

[BEGIN RANT] Well this is certainly news to me (:rolleyes:), the Republicans (in congress)-like the democrats-are rich fools with MUCH more money than sense (save a select few). They manage to keep their authoritarian @$$e$ in power because the (majority) of American voters are fools who know next to nothing about each parties "real" agenda; they listen to the propoganda and the Bible thumpers go Republican, and (many) supposedly liberal americans (i.e. those who are not bible thumpers, or stupid capitalists) go Democrat. Why, you might ask? Well because bible thumpers are fools who think that every word in the bible is absolutely "grade A truth;" whereas those who are Dems. for the aforestated reasons do so, well because they are complete idiots who know no better. Of course I am not stating that people who aren't bible thumpers and capitalists are all stupid (as evidenced by the number of intelligent people on NS, who are neither), nor are all Christians foolish bible thumpers. Many-if not most-of them have no idea who they should vote for because of the lose-lose situation seen so often in American politics. As such they just decide to listen to the propoganda being spawned from these incredibly rich people and their foolish blind supporters, and choose which piece of propoganda they enjoy the most. But don't believe me just look at who has run for election the past few years. [/END RANT]

Conservatism is in fact alive and well. Noble men like George W Bush are safely in control of our government, the terrorists are in retreat, and erudite and temperate spokeswoman of conservatism, Ann Coulter herself, has recently scored a great victory against the New York Times, bastion of lies and treachery. Due to her heroic efforts in exposing their lack of patriotism, their profits continue to fall:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7BF0C5AF1E-8B29-4AA8-8852-2462573B283E%7D&keyword=

Despite taking great pains to announce on her website that her books have appeared on the New York Times bestseller list, she valiantly leads the war against them and against all that is liberal, in the name of truth, justice, the American way, Jesus, reasonable restrictions of civil liberties and sport utility vehicle enthusiasts. Freedom is on the march, ladies and gentlemen.

Conservatism is in fact alive and well. Noble men like George W Bush are safely in control of our government, the terrorists are in retreat, and erudite and temperate spokeswoman of conservatism, Ann Coulter herself, has recently scored a great victory against the New York Times, bastion of lies and treachery.

1st point (regarding the first emboldment)- By what stretch of the imagination is that man noble?

2nd point (regarding the second emboldment)- Really could have fooled me, I do believe that we had one of the most bloodly years so far (and we're only six months in). As my source please look here http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/israeli-warplanes-target-bunker-of/20060711185409990027?_mpc=news%2e10%2e1&cid=842#video

Third point (regarding your comment on Ann Coulter)- Ignore everything mentioned before now I know now why you are so misguided. Please listen to someone other then that poster woman for Neo-Conservativeism.

1st point (regarding the first emboldment)- By what stretch of the imagination is that man noble?

2nd point (regarding the second emboldment)- Really could have fooled me, I do believe that we had one of the most bloodly years so far (and we're only six months in). As my source please look here http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/israeli-warplanes-target-bunker-of/20060711185409990027?_mpc=news%2e10%2e1&cid=842#video

Third point (regarding your comment on Ann Coulter)- Ignore everything mentioned before now I know now why you are so misguided. Please listen to someone other then that poster woman for Neo-Conservativeism.
Chill dude, read my sig ...

Chill dude, read my sig ...

How do I know that wasn't sarcasm:confused: . I'm so confused AHHHHHHHH!

Just for that wonderful other opinion, Nixion was the 1st nail in the coffin GWB was the last.

Come to think of it, a "conservative" president who presides over $2 trillion in national debt, another trillion in new entitlements and one of the biggest expansions of the Federal government and its bureaucracy in decades is way more than a nail in a coffin.

It's more like taking the coffin and flinging it in to the sun and the blowing up the sun to destroy the ashes.

How do I know that wasn't sarcasm:confused: . I'm so confused AHHHHHHHH!
I thought I made it pretty clear in the second paragraph ... plus I added the sig, just to be safe. I don't want to get banned again.

I thought I made it pretty clear in the second paragraph ... plus I added the sig, just to be safe. I don't want to get banned again.

Hmmm, I still don't trust you (plus I enjoy going on rants:p).

Bush isn't a TRUE conservative.

He hasn't vetoed much, he hasn't cut spending, he HAS cut taxes (Good) but needs to cut spending also.

Ronald Reagan *DM headbangs hard-rock style*

I miss the Gipper.

:(

Bush isn't a TRUE conservative.

though that does have the interesting effect of declaring that the vast majority of people who identify as 'conservatives' are confused or lying about it too.

It's good to hear that there are those among us who see Bush's policies for what they are, and they certainly have nothing to do with real conservatism. I guess a good portion of us realize this, hence the coining of the label, "neo-con."

Unfortunately, that is, more often as not has been used as a convenient pejorative term describing anyone who disagrees with a liberal. So we are all neo-cons and they consider themselves "moderates". Whatever. I couldn't care less what they call me. As often as not I disagree with G.W.B.'s policies. I only voted for him in 2004 because I considered him to be the lesser of two evils. Still do, in fact. But one thing I have in common with the liberals, is that I am tired of all this business as usual, ignoring the deficit, and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the Bush administration.

GWBush is a conservative, he's just not a Goldwater-ite Conservative. He is, above all, a social conservative who allowed neo-conservatives to direct foreign policy post-9/11. Neither SoCons nor NeoCons are necessarily in favour of small government, both have their own agendas which trump any committment to reducing the size of government: SoCons in using government to do God's will on Earth, NeoCons in using the military to remake the Middle East.

Personally I think the Republicans went wrong when they chose Eisenhower over Robert Taft in 1952. Nonetheless, I still prefer Republicans to Democrats. I disagree with Republicans on many things, I disagree with Democrats on everything (except Affirmative Action).

I only voted for him in 2004 because I considered him to be the lesser of two evils. Still do, in fact. snipped

My thoughts exactly.

It's good to hear that there are those among us who see Bush's policies for what they are, and they certainly have nothing to do with real conservatism. I guess a good portion of us realize this, hence the coining of the label, "neo-con."
Some call it "Neo-Con" I call it a better name, "Facism"

Some call it "Neo-Con" I call it a better name, "Facism"

Then this merely displays your ignorance. Their policies are radical, but labeling them as fascists merely compounds the fact that you understand little to nothing of actual fascism in comparison to democratic principles.

Come to think of it, a "conservative" president who presides over $2 trillion in national debt, another trillion in new entitlements and one of the biggest expansions of the Federal government and its bureaucracy in decades is way more than a nail in a coffin.

It's more like taking the coffin and flinging it in to the sun and the blowing up the sun to destroy the ashes.

Fair enough. Reworded.

Nixon was the first nail in the coffin. GWB is the "Disaster Area" (HHGG).