John Dean; The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism On American Government: Part Three...

[babylonsister]

The Impact of Authoritarian Conservatism On American Government: Part Three in a Three-Part Series
by John W. Dean | Sep 28 2007 -


— from FindLaw (posted with permission)

This is the final part of this three-part series of columns, in which FindLaw columnist John Dean discusses his recent book, Conservatives Without Conscience. Part One and Part Two appeared earlier on this site. - Ed.

The authoritarianism of the contemporary Republican Party has had a dire impact on all three branches of the federal government. This impact is the subject of my new book, Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, and a matter I intend to write about periodically in this space as we approach the 2008 Election.

Authoritarian leaders do not govern when they control the apparatus of government; rather, they rule. And given their worldview, they rule from either the hard or radical right. This can best be seen by looking at the way they operate when in control of the government.

Newt Gingrich: A Prototypical Republican Authoritarian Leader

People who knew Newt Gingrich early in his political career have described him--and because he is a man who still wants to be president of the United States, such assessments remain relevant--in less than glowing terms. David Osborne spoke with many of them when he was preparing his telling profile for Mother Jones, and he was given information that describes an authoritarian leader.

Osborne reported that Gingrich was dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, and amoral; that he can be a bully, hedonistic, exploitive, manipulative, a cheater, prejudiced toward women, and mean-spirited; that he uses religion for political purposes; and that he wants others to submit to his authority and is aggressive on behalf of authority.

When Gingrich took charge of the House in 1995 as Speaker, he imposed authoritarian rule unlike that of any Speaker before him. His bullying, demanding style provoked antagonism and incivility, and made demonizing one's opponents standard operating procedure. Gingrich eliminated the seniority rights of Republicans in the House, and he personally selected committee chairs who would be loyal to him - and who could help raise money, using their posts for the good of the GOP. Gingrich lorded over the House, telling members not to bring their families back to Washington, and even suggesting which books they should be reading.

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10186

[Kagemusha]

1. So it's like a friend said to me - it's not so much a party as a cult.

Not so much a personality cult, as a cult of the Father-Type Authority Figure.

It makes a lot more sense that way, as dismal as the image is.

[katty]

3. yes, from the start I've always viewed them as a cult

[Totally Committed]

2. It's not just Republicans any longer that are "Authoritarians"...

The Trouble with the DLC

Created by glenn_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Monday, August 13, 2007


Excerpt:


For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right. That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.

The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests – oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.

These industrial authoritarians figured out how to dominate Democratic messaging. When DLC chairman Harold Ford lost his cool in his Meet the Press encounter with Markos Moulitsas on Sunday, it was clear just how determined they are to continue their domination.

Most of the messages delivered to voters were delivered in the course of elections, not between elections. It took a good deal of money. They had money. So their movement aimed at influencing those messages, making sure no alternative visions or values were discussed. Hence, the decline in the national and state Democratic parties, and any semblance of a progressive infrastructure. Their monopoly on message was achieved at the very same time the Right was building a message machine – think tanks, radio shows, magazines, local grassroots networks – that was all about delivering message and influencing the opinion environment before election seasons ever arrived.

Entire, totally enlightening blog:

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/08/13/the-trouble-with-the-dlc


Just saying....

TC

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Thanks for that link. K&R -- Dean's book is essential reading. nt

[cosmicdot]

4. Kick

[chill_wind]

6. Shame this only got 5 recs. Dean's writing is vastly worthy

of a much wider audience, both here and in our country at large.

Wish he had far more regular exposure all the time, and not just surrounding his books.

Kicking.