We the People

[H2O Man]

{1} Al Gore is providing Americans with a type of leadership that transcends partisan politics. His leadership is based upon a type of authority that weak individuals, such as George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, can never exercise. While Bush and Cheney can use the power of their political machine in only a destructive manner, Al Gore is showing Americans the path we must take to transform this nation back into the Constitutional democracy that we are supposed to enjoying.

Will Gore eventually enter the democratic primary? Some people speculate he will, while others believe that he is unlikely to become a candidate. Today, I believe that speculating on that issue is less interesting – and indeed, far less important – than focusing on how Al Gore is participating in every race, from school board to mayor to senator to president.

Two things stand out: the earth-consciousness festival, and his book "The Assault on Reason." Both are outstanding. Today, I would like to discuss a few thoughts about the book, and try to do so in the context of the leadership, power, and authority that Al Gore is helping the public to access.

In the book’s introduction, Gore writes, "Whether it is called a public forum or a public sphere or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America’s earliest decades. Our first self-expression as a nation – ‘We the People’ – made it clear where the ultimate source of authority lay. It was universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where people held government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government."

Gore notes that there are three "important characteristics of this marketplace of ideas": First, that it is open to everyone. He recognizes that literacy is an important factor in making it open to all, and that this is the key to the power to both receive and contribute information in the discussion. Second, Gore states that ideas are to be considered on their own merits, rather than the wealth and/or social class of the person advancing them. And third, he states that the "conversation of democracy" is based upon the assumption that those who participate will be "governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement."

He also expresses his concern that the "print-based public sphere that had emerged from the books, pamphlets, and essays of the Enlightenment has, in the blinking eyes of a single generation, come to seem as remote as the horse and buggy." (See pages 11-13.)


{2} One of the most important books for understanding the threat posed to our Constitutional democracy by the Bush-Cheney administration is "The Imperial Presidency," by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (Houghton Mifflin Company; 1973). In it, the former aide to President Kennedy traces the historic tensions between the three branches of our federal government. This includes how the executive branch has attempted to use war to justify claims for increased presidential powers. The book includes the attempts of both democratic and republican presidents to use the threat of conflict to do this.

In the period when Schlesinger wrote his book, Richard Nixon was abusing the powers of the executive office. Schlesinger was an advocate of impeachment. "In that spirit," he wrote, "I would argue that what the country needs today is a little serious disrespect for the office of the Presidency; a refusal to give any more weight to a President’s words than the intelligence of the utterance, if spoken by anyone else, would command; an understanding of the point made so aptly by Montaigne: ‘Sit he on never so high a throne, a man still sits on his own bottom’." (page 411)

It is clear that Schlesinger and Gore are describing much the same concept – a person’s opinions should be judged upon their value, not by the position or wealth of the person uttering them. That is the essence of true democracy. And we find, when we are exposed to the wisdom of a Schlesinger or a Gore, that they value history. They recognize that rational people can take the words of insightful and intelligent people from the past, and apply those words to the current situation.

Compare that to the utterances of George W. Bush: rather than having a president who focuses on the teachings of a Jefferson or an FDR, we have a fellow who constantly speaks of the threats that we face. Rather than attempting to instill confidence, this president sows the seeds of paranoia and fear. He and vice president Cheney do this in an attempt to grab a level of power that goes beyond what Schlesinger called "the imperial presidency," and in fact is engaged in actions that are those of a "revolutionary presidency."

Bush and Cheney attempt to exercise what is known as "overt authority." It is very different than the type of authority that Al Gore represents. Those who enjoy reading recognize the type of thinking that is associated with Bush and Cheney as having been described by John Dean in his wonderful book, "Conservatives Without Conscience." Although Dean does not seem familiar with Erich Fromm’s 1941 work, his book addresses many of the same issues that Fromm covered in "Escape From Freedom." The truth remains constant, and can be applied in 2007 just as it was 66 years ago.

Overt authority does not seek to expand individual citizens’ right. It uses fear, anxiety, and paranoia to justify its attempts to restrict those individual freedoms we recognize as being provided by our Bill of Rights. On August 9, 1975, FBI Director Clarence Kelley said, "We must be willing to surrender a small measure of our liberties to preserve the great bulk of them." This is the constant untruth that avert authority attempts to convince the public of. It’s no different today than it was in the summer of 1975.

Many citizens are concerned by the administration’s moves to have federal police agencies spy on civilians. This is the same concern that Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson expressed in 1955: "I cannot say that our country could have no central police without becoming totalitarian, but I can say with great conviction that it cannot become totalitarian without a centralized national police …. A national police … will have enough on people, even if it does not elect to prosecute them, so that it will find no opposition to its policies" (The Supreme Court in the American System of Government).


{3} When we witness any person say that we can no longer afford the full Constitution of the United States, and that the Bill of Rights is out-dated and needs to be somehow restricted, that they are agents of avert authority. They may mean well, but their minds have been poisoned by fear, anxiety, and paranoia. As Al Gore points out in his book, the dangers we face from externalenemies is no greater today than it was in the past. The greater danger we face are from "leaders" who fear the essence of democracy, and who seek to reduce our freedoms and restrict public debate on important issues.

Yet as others have noted in the past, we can not afford to see all of the weaknesses and dangers as coming from the republican Schlesinger points out democratic administrations who have attempted to expand executive power. And Erich Fromm wrote of another type of authority that is not restricted to any one party. It is "anonymous authority," and it has the same potential to reduce the public discussion and debate at the local level as at the state of national level. It tends to be found in groups and organizations that run as machines.

"Overt authority is exercised directly and explicitly," Fromm wrote in the foreword to A.S. Neill classic "Summerhill." He continues, "The person in authority frankly tells the one who is subject to him, ‘You must do this. If you do not, certain sanctions will be applied against you.’ Anonymous authority tends to hide that force is being used. Anonymous authority pretends that there is no authority, that all is being done with the consent of the individual. While the teacher of the past said to Johnny, ‘You must do this. If you don’t, I’ll punish you’; today’s teacher says, ‘I’m sure you’ll like to do this.’ Here, the sanction for disobedience is not corporal punishment, but the suffering face of the parent, or what is worse, conveying the feeling of not being ‘adjusted,’ of not acting as the crowd acts. Overty authority used physical force; anonymous authority employs psychic manipulation."

We must be on guard for those who attempt to employ the type of manipulation that Fromm speaks of. Again, like those who are agents of avert authority, these people may be sincere in their beliefs. But their beliefs are too often the type that would restrict the public discussions and debates that people like Gore and Schlesinger, and Dean and Fromm, recognized as essential for a healthy democracy.

We do well, instead, to read and learn from those leaders who exercised that other type of authority that does not require that anyone’s rights be restricted. We need to apply those leaders’ teachings to today. The great thing is that our nation has produced many such leaders. We can benefit from the works of our Founding Fathers, and from the great leaders from the generations that followed.

Those who tell us that we should not listen to the powerful message of Al Gore today, are the same types as who have said in the past that we should not listen to Robert Kennedy, or Martin Luther King, Jr. They are the same people who have always tried to restrict the national discussion that Al Gore notes is so important to a healthy democracy. We should never allow them to restrict the national marketplace of ideas. We can not allow them to define the boundary of debate on issues regarding the need to end the war in Iraq, Schlesinger’s recommendations on impeachment, or what candidates or platform we must accept.

And when we do that, we begin to exercise the force of democracy that Al Gore advocates: We the People.

[Drum]

1. Recommended!

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

5. Thank you. n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. The whole point of public education

was so that we would have an educated electorate who could inform themselves of the issues. The NCLB act, among other "innovations" has made it more difficult to educate our youth.

[H2O Man]

7. Two hundred

years ago, my relatives were "hedge masters" in Ireland. It was far more difficult for them to educate their children, than it is today in the United States. I am convinced that progressive internet discussion sites are our modern hedge schools. Done properly, we are all teachers, and all students. I think it is essential that we appreciate the things that teachers like Fromm and Neill taught about education. I believe it is the same basic message that Al Gore is delivering today.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Actually public education is about training workers

It's never been about an educated electorate. But you are correct about NCLB.

[ms liberty]

3. K&R - excellent essay, as usual. n/t

[H2O Man]

8. Thank you.

I usually try to put some thought into my essays on DU. This is something I feel strongly about, and I appreciate hat DUers are reading it.

[proud patriot]

4. Shoulder to Shoulder

:patriot:

[H2O Man]

9. Shoulder to shoulder.

And pleased to be on the same team.

[malaise]

An important essay

lovely reading as usual.

[H2O Man]

10. Thank you.

I think it is an important topic for discussion, as we move towards the '08 elections.

[Me.]

6. It Is Way Past Time For

'a little serious disrespect for the office of the Presidency'. Starting with the impeachment of Cheney and moving on from there.

I'd say there is a plethora of anonymous authority these days. Another version is the time honored 'they say' or 'people say' without ever backing it up with data.

Why, one wonders, do people feel so inclined to do the bidding of their masters? I think you pointed out this phenomena in an essay you did on Malcolm X. How servants who are treated better will identify with and the defend their master, as if it was themselves.

I was so impressed with Gore and his organization yesterday. It was a massive undertaking, beautifully executed. I couldn't help thinking that if he were in charge, NO would be rebuilt by now.

[H2O Man]

12. When I was

making an outline in my mind today, before writing this, I was thinking about the threats that we face. Now, I will admit freely that what I am about to say is only speculation -- it is nothing more, nothing less.

But I honestly feel that the tragic events that we call "9/11" would not have played out the same way, had Al Gore been in the office that I know he was elected to by "We the People" in 2000. If nothing else, I believe that had Al Gore been given a report titled something like "Usama bin Laden intent on striking on US soil," his reading skills and level of comprehension would have made his response far different than George W. Bush's. I think it is possible that our intelligence agencies could have prevented the events of that day, had this nation had real leadership.

[il_lilac]

16. I was surprised he covered some of that in his book

In Assault on Reason (which I admit I am only half way thru) he does explain how a well run security could and should have been able to stop the attacks.

[H2O Man]

21. I'm not even

that far. I'm in the middle of a couple other books, and have only read the beginning of Gore's. But I'm really enjoying it, and now am looking forward to getting to the part that you mention.

[Me.]

17. I'll Not Dispute That Supposition

From what we know Popeye could have done a better job, and Gore certainly would have.

As for impeachment. it seems the idea is gaining ground without Nancy Pelosi's approval.

Poll: Impeachment talk gains steam after Libby move

‘The ARG poll found a remarkable 45 percent in favor of the U.S. House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush.’

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1277837&mesg_id=1277878

[H2O Man]

23. Right.

I think that, if it were to actually begin, the impeachment of VP Cheney would provide a healing experience for the nation. I think that it would bring those democrats and republicans of good will together, in a united effort to regain the balance of powers that are required at the federal level for our nation to be democratic.

[mmonk]

26. I think of impeachment of Cheney in those terms as well.

I also think we have much further to go to heal if he is not impeached.

[Senator]

35. It Must Be Both

It's not clear by what you said if you think impeaching "only cheney" or "cheney first" would provide some healing benefit, but without dealing with both men the bleeding won't even be stopped.

The reality is that cheney's ability to run his operations would not be diminished a bit by tearing off his "I'm The Veep" badge. His influence and power are real -- not just some artifact of "skillful bureaucratic manipulation" as it is trivialized by the Euphemedia.

As I said, it's not clear if you are proposing this half-measure. But as I recall you suggesting that option in the past -- and because I see it springing up among others -- I just wanted to identify the "only cheney" option as the dangerously wishful thinking that it is.

---

[H2O Man]

37. In my opinion,

it is more likely that a larger number of people will be open to starting with VP Cheney. I believe that it is a good starting point, not a finish line, on the journey back towards being the Constitutional democracy that we can and should be. Were the House to begin serious investigations of the criminal activities of the OVP, I think that the majoriity of Americans would be shocked -- because I am convinced that things are as bad as many of us on DU have been saying for years. And if the American public were to find out how bad the problems we face actually are, I am confident that the vast majority of people would join together and take the next step.

I also am fully aware that this is just my opinion. I'm always interesting in what other sincere people think .... and participating in that marketplace of ideas that Gore writes about.

[Senator]

63. Sure, "cheney first" is just fine

But with no illusions for it being anything more than merely prerequisite.

My concern is with modes of thinking that can -- and often do -- render our efforts insufficient or impotent. And the "only cheney" option is just such a counter-productive notion. As much a mirage as "cutting the funding" for Iraq.

Another is the notion that the public/electorate is in need of any more "teaching," or convincing about the horror that is this regime. They're already there. These recent polls being touted as "growing support" are actually the opposite -- a slight slippage from the higher pre-election rates, due to the active impeachophobic intransigence of DC Dems and their Euphemedia compeers.

The public's already done, and continues to do, their part. They handed over congress, marched, petitioned, emailed, and answered every oblique poll question with "majority impeach now" numbers. The current number is roughly 60% -- that's with an expectable cap of 70% -- all in the face of stonewalling, ridicule, and active blowback from their own, patronizingly sympathetic, "leaders." They are standing at the finish line looking at their watches. What would really shock them would be for the chattering class to emerge from their coma.

The same is true for "investigation." We're past that. The public record is copious. The regime happily stipulates to the facts and circumstances (i.e., "confesses"). They simply (and falsely) claim legitimacy for their monarchical agenda.

All that is left is indictment and verdict. And that is what the regime is doing their all to "gum to death."

Sadly, the current reality renders that phrase quite literal.

--

[w8liftinglady]

11. recommend-and I'm saving it for my next letter to the editor.

we need to shove this info down the uneducated sheep throats(sp.)

[H2O Man]

15. Thank you.

I think that we need the type of national discussion and debate that Al Gore speaks of in his book. I only recently got a copy of it, and I have to say that it is every bit as good as other DUers have been saying. Have you read it yet?

[il_lilac]

13. Imagine

a leader who actually believed he/she should listen to "We the People". I am constantly dumbfounded by the notion that once one is elected, they need no longer do as their constituents demand. Instead the money rules, or even worse, some written in stone ideology such as the PNAC set forth. I truly believe that Al Gore would listen to all of us if he were president. And then it saddens me to realize this is no longer the norm.

[H2O Man]

18. Exactly.

I agree 100%.

The other day, I was listening to Tucker Carlson on MSNBC. And he was, for a brief moment, not trying to insult Al Gore. Instead, he said that he thinks Al Gore is a really strange man.

I had two thoughts: First, that the type of human being Al Gore has evolved into really is someone who others on the family tree -- and there are a lot of Tuckers out there -- would simply not understand. What Al Gore is saying is absolutely outside the Tucker frame of reference.

Second, it reminded me that the author Mari Sandoz titled her most important book "Crazy Horse: The Strange Man of the Oglalas." The Lakota people considered the term as one of great respect, and used it for a leader who evolved as he worked for the good of his people.

[Swamp Rat]

14. United We Stand

:patriot:

[H2O Man]

19. Thank you.

I'm always proud to be on the same team as you.

[Swamp Rat]

20. Likewise!

And thank you! :hi:

[WilliamPitt]

22. Outstanding.

[H2O Man]

40. Thanks, Will. n/t

[rosesaylavee]

24. Thank you again!

Your essays always have great 'meat' for me to come back to again and again. I appreciate the time you take to write them and share them here.

I have been thinking alot about We the People since I read Gore's book. I think we have the tool here - the internet - to accomplish even more than we have already. Blogs are good. Discussion forums are informative and there is some semblance of community. Alternative news sites are essential to getting a multitude of views of any event.

BUT, in most cases - and I think DU, dkos and FDL are the exceptions - there is very little human to human communication. And what there is on these sites is anonymous - we don't really know each other. We can respect each other and choose to communicate either civilly or uncivilly. There is no structure other than the rules of the forum.

What our founding fathers had were small, close-knit communities where people recognized a person personally or by their name because they knew the 'family'. Due to our expanding human community, this is seldom the case.

I think the time has come for us to step out into the community and become better known. Some of us have done this - but many here may not have felt comfortable doing that before. You have inspired me in these thoughts as well as Gore - you have advocated the LTTE as one mode of stepping out into the community, one way to start a dialogue in our local communities.

Perhaps a smaller step, but just as important step, is email. I had thought that others were sending emails out regarding important items but after reading a few threads here earlier this month, I am now thinking we DUers are not spreading the news as we can. We the PEOPLE here on DU have access to information and ideas not readily available to friends and family. Most of us have email lists - what trouble would it be to send the occasional or even regular email out with information of what we know is happening but not reported in the corporate media? For instance, yesterday, I was surprised that many educated and well-meaning friends of mine were not aware of the LIVE EARTH event or maybe were not aware that it was happening yesterday. A quick email alerted them and they were pleased and grateful to participate by internet and cable.

Let's not forget ALL our tools for communication. We need to continue to look for ways to connect with like-minded individuals if we are to fix what's been broken here.

[H2O Man]

42. Between now

and the 2008 election, it is important for people to recognize the value of their contributions at the grass roots level. We all have different talents and abilities, and so our contributions will be reflections of that individuality. Some of us will write LTTE; others will contribute money to a candidate; others may take part in the activities at their local party HQ; some will go door-to-door, helping to register and educate voters. Every contribution is unique, and an important part in bringing our nation back on to the correct path. True democracy results from the activities of dedicated men and women at the grass roots level in the communities across this nation, far more so than from the actions of the few in DC.

[bleever]

25. Thank you.

The night before Live Earth began I wanted to write a post saying that I officially absolved Al Gore, in my own heart, from any obligation to run for the office he deserves (perhaps more than any other person in our history).

It was because I was fully struck by the realization of how his work was transcending politics, and the power it had to reshape American politics from the outside.

You have expertly laid out the essence of the real story here: the division between those for whom American government is a board game to be won, versus those who see the Constitution as a living document designed with multiple redundancies to keep political power vested in We the People.

It seems that we need once again a revolution in consciousness lest the flat earthers wrest away the promise of freedom that is America.

As an agent of that revolution, Al Gore has placed himself in the realm of the visionaries who created our country. The power of his stance and his actions offers Americans (and people worldwide) a choice far beyond that between two political parties. He has my undying gratitude.

Should he be willing to do the custodial work required of the next president, I will be thrilled. Should he decline, and continue to be the vanguard of a new global paradigm of citizenship and responsibility, I will also be happy.

But if I were to speculate, I'd say that Gore would take a third path: he would not only undertake the custodial dirty work of restoring our broken country, but he would in the process bring a visionary energy and direction that would have echoes through our future history, like those of FDR and JFK.


Thanks again for this outstanding exercise in understanding the foundational questions we are facing.

[H2O Man]

43. Thank you.

When one person changes, everyone around them changes, too. This is as true for each of us, as for Al Gore. And this is the way in which we all Change The World.

[thegreatcause2]

27. AMERICA'S REBIRTH

we are just like the founding fathers. fighting a power-obsessed cretin named george. the people's interests must be the ends of the government. to use the apparatus of government to pay-back political cronies and supporters or to create "a self-aggrandizing legacy" are odious and impeachable offenses. we need a pro-americans, yes pro-americans president. KEEP PREACHING! AMEN!

[bleever]

28. Welcome to DU, thegreatcause2.

Thanks for speaking up and speaking out.

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

29. Excellent! I remember reading Fromm's "Escape From Freedom" some years ago.

It's a part of the essential repertoire, I believe, just like "Majority Rule and Minority Rights" by Henry Steele Commager which forms the core of my concept of liberalism in a democracy.

I think you nailed it. The active danger we face in this current adminstration is frightening in the scope and extent of the corruption. Clearly, it is not merely a "Republican problem" and is, instead, a metastacized cancer in our body politic.

[H2O Man]

44. I read the

foreword in Summerhill before reading Fromm's books. A teacher in high school had suggested Neill's book, and it remains one of my favorites. I began reading Fromm after Summerhill, and count Fromm's books as among the most important things I've ever read.

[TahitiNut]

51. I couldn't agree more... and it probably explains much of why you impress me.

To Have or to Be?
The Art of Loving
The Sane Society
Man for Himself: An Inquiry Into the Psychology of Ethics
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
Escape from Freedom
The Art of Being

... essential Fromm ... from decades ago. (Many on DU might benefit from him, I think.)

I don't know whether it's when I grew up or my somewhat Jesuitical education or just the gift of having thoughtful people touch my life ... but Fromm had a seminal impact on my thinking. I don't suppose anyone who's read my DU posts would be at all surprised that a(t least one) psychoanalyst has greatly influenced my LIBERAL outlook ... from my view of Smirky McCodpiece to my support for Kucinich to my advocacy for Universal National Service to my support for Impeachment.

I can only be in awe of your written ORGANIZATION (and the mental organization and habits implied) ... your ability to draw upon your readings, with cites and references, and draw together the allied themes and perspectives from those readings to present the synergy gleaned from such works.

The mark of true intellect, imho, is the ability to bang together two (or more) ideas and construct a whole that's more than the simple sum of its parts. To then be able to present that to others cogently is truly remarkable. I think you'd be a terrific teacher - extraordinary. Bravo!

[H2O Man]

58. I have probably

mentioned before (perhaps a few times) that I used to work in a defense industry as a young man. I read a lot of Fromm during that period, and it was one of the things that convinced me to change jobs. I got into human services, largely due to Fromm's influence.

More, one of the best supervisors that I had at the clinic where I was last employed, had been influenced by Fromm as well. (He had been an English teacher when I was in grade school, and though I didn't have him, we knew of each other.) One of the things that I admired about him was his ability to put the same information that everyone had, into a sequence that changed the way that people viewed that information. I think that is one of the things that he, you, and I respect with a mind like Erich Fromm's. It's not that he is presenting new information per say, but rather that he helps to shed another light on it. And I think that is something that both you and I attempt to do on DU.

[swimmernsecretsea]

30. You know what makes me proud?

I've seen such a rise of pride and optimism. I've seen people happy and read posts that reaffirm their faith in their fellow citizens. I've seen people thrilled and ready from the energy and it's a contagious thing. Everyone is excited to be alive. I am as happy as I've ever been to see this.

I watched "Sicko" for the second time yesterday. A part of the film that chilled me to the bone was during the discussion of democracy, and the means of keeping us submissive and unquestioning. This weekend, people threw that aside, seeing the unity of the world and what it can do.

This is amazing to witness. Al Gore showed us what a unified world looks like, and what having a real leader feels like. Remember this feeling, everyone. I know everyone is as moved as I.

[H2O Man]

45. Yes.

I think people are feeling like they are coming out of a storm cellar after a severe storm. There is a heck of a mess all around us, and it's going to take a big effort to clean it up. But if we make a cooperative effort, we will not only have survived the Bush-Cheney years, we will come out okay.

[loudsue]

31. What an inspiring post, and great responses!

All I feel this thread needs now is another rec & a kick.

:kick::kick::kick:

[H2O Man]

46. Thank you. n/t

[wiggs]

32. Nice post. I had hoped someone would come along to right the ship. Whether

that's done from the oval office or not, I think Gore can be that guy. Thoroughly impressive.

I think back to the congressional hearing on global warming, in which he testified. When he spoke it was clear he had the attention and respect of everyone in the room, including republicans (excluding inhofe who is a dinosaur). This man is a leader.

[H2O Man]

47. I know that Gore's

friend Robert Kennedy Jr says that he gets some of the most impressive responses from republican audiences. Both Gore and Kennedy know that the environmental crisis does not threaten families based upon their party registration.

[Emit]

33. Fully in line with Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" (Dean's book is based on his work)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1269324&mesg_id=1269324

He has it online for free so that we may all learn from it. A must read resouce, IMHO. And, he has a google discussion set up for questions and answers. He puts out a ton of info on these personality types, and offers some input in what to do to deal with them -- which is totally in keeping with what you are proposing, H2O Man -- learn about them, be on guard, spread the word, act for change.

From my previous post:

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

The psychologist whose studies were highlighted in John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience, at Dean's encouragement, has written his own book and has put it online for free.


OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

“Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” ...

~snip~

Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us, as I did.

If, on the other hand, you’re way ahead of me, and believe the extreme right-wing elements in America are poised to take it over, permanently, I think you can still get a lot from this book. The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?

I think you’ll find this book “explains a lot.” Many scattered impressions about the enemies of freedom and equality become solidified by science and coherently connected here.

You think I’m pulling your leg? Push the button.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey /


Chapter 7
What’s To Be Done?

...

If illogical thinking, highly compartmentalized ideas, double standards, and
hypocrisy help one to be brutally unfair to others, high RWAs have extra helpings in
all those respects. If being fearful makes one likely to aggress in the name of
authority, high RWAs are scared up one side and down the other. If being selfrighteous
permits one to think that attacks against helpless victims are justified,
authoritarian followers have their self-righteousness super-sized, thank you. If being
able to forgive oneself and forget the evil one has done make it easier to attack over
and over again in the future, right-wing authoritarians know all about that kind of
forgiving and forgetting. If being defensive, blind to oneself and highly dogmatic
make it unlikely one will ever come to grips with one’s failings, authoritarian
followers get voted “Least Likely to Change.”

~snip~

The Short Run Imperative: Speak Out Now or Forever, Perhaps, Be Silenced
If they work, most of these suggestions will only produce changes in high
RWAs in the long run. But we may not have a long run. We have to contain
authoritarianism now lest it destroy us. We’ve got to act immediately.

I say this with some hesitation. I’ve been studying authoritarianism since 1966,
and I’ve been publishing my findings since 1981, but you never heard of the results
presented in this book before, right? Partly that’s because I’ve always gotten an “F”
in self-promotion.15 And I’ve always worried that publicity would invalidate my future
studies. But I’ve mainly laid low, sticking to academic outlets,16 because what I’ve
found is alarming, and I know that raising this alarm can horrendously backfire. We
do have to fear fear itself. Thus I took pains in my previous writings to present my
findings in a concerned voice, but I tried hard not to sound like Paul Revere. Here’s
how I put it in 1996 at the end of what I intended to be my last book on the subject:

“I am now writing the last page in my last book about authoritarianism. So, for
the last time, I do not think a fascist dictatorship lies just over our horizon. But I do
not think we are well protected against one. And I think our recent history shows the
threat is growing...We cannot secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, and our
posterity, if we sit with our oars out of the water. If we drift mindlessly, circumstances
can sweep us to disaster. Our societies presently produce millions of highly
authoritarian personalities as a matter of course, enough to stage the Nuremberg
Rallies over and over and over again. Turning a blind eye to this could someday point
guns at all our heads, and the fingers on the triggers will belong to right-wing
authoritarians. We ignore this at our peril.”17

Eleven years later, as I am now definitely writing the last pages in my last book
on the subject, I believe circumstances such as “9/11" have nearly swept us to disaster,
the authoritarian threat has grown unabated, and almost all the protections I saw in
1996, such as a “free and vigilant press,” are being eroded or have already been
destroyed. The biggest problem we have now, in my view, is authoritarianism. ...

So what’s to be done right now? The social dominators and high RWAs
presently marshaling their forces for the next election in your county, state and
country, are perfectly entitled to do what they’re doing. ...

If the people who are not social dominators and right-wing authoritarians want
to have those same rights in the future, they, you, had better do those same things too,
now. You do have the right to remain silent, but you’ll do so at everyone’s peril. You
can’t sit these elections out and say “Politics is dirty; I’ll not be part of it,” or
“Nothing can change the way things are done now.”The social dominators want you
to be disgusted with politics, they want you to feel hopeless, they want you out of their
way. They want democracy to fail, they want your freedoms stricken, they want
equality destroyed as a value, they want to control everything and everybody, they
want it all. And they have an army of authoritarian followers marching with the
militancy of “that old-time religion” on a crusade that will make it happen, if you let
them.

more: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/chapter7.pdf

edit typo

[H2O Man]

53. Right.

The "Authoritarians" pop up in the strangest places. They inhabit space beyond the republican party. We need to be aware of them, even when they are sincere and have the best of intentions when they attempt to define what we should, and should not, think.

[Me.]

54. Why, why....

We might even find a few on DU.

[H2O Man]

55. A few.

Now, this is just speculation on my part, and I'm not talking about just DU, but rather, progress sites in general. And places where democrats are prone to hang out and discuss issues.

A few weeks ago, I posted about my experience with a couple democratic groups/campaigns calling me, and asking for donations. These are groups/campaigns that I have donated to in the past, but am electing not to donate to right now -- because of their positions on the funding for the Iraq insanity, and on impeachment.

I haven't closed the door on them. I haven't stopped donating to democrats -- I'm just more selective. I haven't advocated voting for any 3rd party or republican candidates. I'm not looking to divorce or separate from the democratic party.

In fact, I know that I am one of a growing number of democrats who thinks and behaves in this same general manner. I know this, in part from discussions on sites like DU, and in part from the telephone conversations with those who call for the groups/campaigns that I mentioned. The people on the phone said an increasing number of grass roots folks are expressing an unwillingness to donate to groups/candidates that have not strongly opposed the funding of the Bush escalation in Iraq.

More, they said their supervisors are of this growing trend. Now, I've had enough experience with groups that I understand when there are negative trends in public support, there will almost always be a reaction at some higher level. Someone higher up than the person making those phone calls will try to move quietly behind the scenes, and exercise that old-fashioned anonymous authority.

Just something to think about.

[Me.]

59. Excellent Point About Anonymous Authority

I had the same experience with the Obama people last week and stated my position that his lack of understanding about what grave threats to our democracy are. I couldn't in good conscience give to a campaign who doesn't understand that */Cheney are the gravest threat of all.


I saw on another thread the claim that it would be 10 years before the netroots have any real effect. I beg to differ. Progressives did better, % wise, than Rahm Emanuel's group during the election. The big bucks Obama raised are very connected to the netroots. Further, when Lieberman held a fundraiser for Collins in Maine, courtesy of lobbyists, Move-on stepped in and held a 24 hour fundraiser for her opponent, Allen. Lieberman raised 125=150 grand, Move-on pulled in 350 grand. $5/$10 is a sum affordable by most and when contributed by millions can change this country and return our influence to us.

[H2O Man]

60. The internet

sure helped Governor Dean raise a lot of money. And the internet certainly helped defeat Lieberman in the primary. While it will be fine-tuned and become more powerful in the next decade, I suspect anyone who says it will be 10 years before the netroots have any real effect is either ignorant, or means that the money changers have a ten-year plan.

[Me.]

64. Would You Consider Anonymous Authority To Be Contemptuous Of

progressive dems?

[H2O Man]

65. Al Gore has

an important quote in his book that relates to this:

"What is most troubling to me is the promotion of hatred as entertainment. Moreover, they have actyively conspired to fan the flames of a vicious hatred aimed at one group in particular: Americans with progressive views." (page 66)

When we consider this in the context of Fromm, we recognize that both overt authority and anonymous authority frequently attempt to restrict the same people and the same ideas. The difference is in their approach to restricting others. We can also view much of the current attempts to restrict progressives with anonymous authority as being a result of a type of bureaucracy; it is a common symptom of "machine politics" that is associated with primary conflicts.

[Kurovski]

36. K&R. (nt)

[Wetzelbill]

38. you're a freaking stud

that's all that I can say. K&R.

[Me.]

52. I'll Second That

:thumbsup:

[Me.]

39. 54% Of The People Want Cheney Impeached

Ah, Nancy, that would be a majority!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1280403

[mmonk]

41. It's a majority all around.

I just don't know what her thinking is or where she gets it. Pardon the terminology, but impeaching Cheney would be a "slam dunk".

[Irishonly]

48. Thank you

I always gain greater insight whenever I read one of your journals.

[Laurab]

49. K & R n/t

[Cerridwen]

50. K & R and bookmarked for re-reading later.

As always, H20Man, a pleasure to read your work.

:D

[spanone]

56. kick & recommend

[Marnieworld]

57. K&R of course

This reminded me of what RFK jr said the other day at Live Earth- "I will see all of you on the barricades." We do have leaders but we shouldn't forget that we stand with them. We the People indeed. :patriot:

[robertpaulsen]

61. Proud to help make this a 5 star thread!

:hi:

:kick:

[nam78_two]

62. K&R.nt