Question Authority - Democratic Underground

H2O Man

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-15-10 08:15 PM
Original message

Question Authority

In 2006, John Dean published his seventh book, “Conservatives Without Conscience.” This book relied heavily on the work of Dr. Robert Altemeyer, a professor of social psychology at the University of Manitoba. Dean's contribution to the understanding of what makes conservative republicans so repulsive to human beings is valuable, indeed. But as I noted when the book was first out, it is important for people to do further research on this topic, especially the works of Erich Fromm, who wrote extensively on this very topic.

In recent months, I've read an unsurprising, yet disturbing, number of threads on the Democratic Underground, which in effect state that support for all democratic candidates is not only essential, but that even questioning this can cause President Barack Obama to lose to Sarah Palin in 2012. Clearly, the concrete thinking known as “authoritarianism” is not monopolized by rigid republicans. Like rabies, it is a disease than can infect the public at large.

In the field of psychiatry, what is known as an “authoritarian personality” has been identified. In American political history, some toxic examples include J. Edgar Hoover and George W. Bush. It is not hard to recognize them and others as having posed grave threats to democracy. But in sociology, “authoritarianism” can blur any clear lines of distinction. Let's take a minute to look at “authority” in sociological terms, and then examine its potential for abuse.

There are three types of “authority.” They are traditional, charismatic, and bureaucratic. The first type is what was found among all people in early societies, including hunter-and-gatherers, and agrarian cultures. People do as they do, because it is “the way it has always been done.” Charismatic authority comes by way of a person who is respected by others for his or her individual leadership characteristics. And bureaucratic authority comes as a result of a large collection of people requiring a system to meet the needs of the majority of individuals in a systematic way. Both industrial and high-tech societies tend to have bureaucratic leadership.

Because the United States is run, by definition, by way of bureaucratic authority, we should now focus our attention on most common styles of authority within such social systems. The first has to do with the overlap with another type – charismatic authority. And even within this type, there are at least two sub-sets. There are charismatic leaders who are attractive as individuals, but who maintain the status quo of the system. They often challenge parts of that system which they are part of, but they maintain an allegiance to its foundations.

The next sub-set of charismatic leaders are those who opt not to participate in the comforts of the system as it is, but rather, choose to challenge its very foundations. In India, Mahatma Gandhi was such a charismatic force. In the USA, examples would include Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and even Senator Robert F. Kennedy, in his last two years of life. Charismatic leaders tend to initiate change, before being expelled, in one way or another, by the system they are attempting to alter.

Perhaps more important, in the context of this discussion, are the two other types of authority: “overt” and “anonymous.” Overt authority, in a democratic society, can be best illustrated by the example of the police forces. Obey the law, and you are generally okay. Break the law, and you will be punished in any of a variety of ways. However, as we see in the instance of J. Edgar Hoover, when a person with an authoritarian personality is in charge of a policing agency, they tend to advocate illegal procedures to find ways to punish those who obey the law, but challenge the system. And, worse, when a George W. Bush goes far beyond Hoover's wettest dreams, there is the risk of an authoritarian system “changing” the laws, or absolutely failing to punish the criminals – Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al – who openly violated the law of the land.

While overt authority says “do this or be punished!,” Erich Fromm pointed out that anonymous authority takes a different approach. It “suggests” that you do something, because “everyone else is doing it.” And, truth be known, a majority of Americans, hypnotized by electronic gadgets, with their senses dulled by the novocaine administered by the media, “freely” choose to be of the herd.

It is very sad to see parts of these forms of authority infecting the thought processes of good democrats. The idea that people should – indeed, must! – always vote for every single democrat in every single election, advocates a form of generic thinking that defines herds. I do not deny that the democratic product is better than the republican product. In national elections, I vote for the democratic candidate every time. But all elections are not national. Even this year, there were local elections with no democratic candidates in the mix. Should I have been confused? Wrote in the name of a democrat who was not running? No, of course not. While I would never advocate a third party candidate on this forum, I'll still vote for one if they are the best choice.

Likewise, I fully understand and appreciate that a person can be a very good democrat, and not invest time, money, or perhaps even a vote for specific democratic candidates. I'm saddened to see the repeated attempts of overt authority: “then it's your fault if Palin is elected!” Or even the attempts at anonymous authority: “you can be a good democrat, so long as you always and only vote for democratic candidates.”

By their nature, members of the democratic left recognize these crude attempts to bully people into accepting the unacceptable. For if democratic politicians can take for granted that the herd will support them, no matter how many times they betray our best interests, then brothers and sisters, we have tied our own hands, and do not deserve democratic representation. We have then betrayed our own interests, and that of our families and friends. We have chosen to submit to an authority that will capitalize on our ignorance.

In every situation, as adults, we should be thinking for ourselves. You and I should have enough trust in ourselves to trust our own insights and judgment. And anyone who tells you not to think for yourself sure as heck is not your friend. No, do not allow yourselves to be reduced to cattle or sheep, like the republicans that you know, or see on television. Also, have a conscience: help our confused and frightened democratic friends and associates to find the strength to think for their selves That is the best hope for the real Democratic Party today. Nothing less will do.

Thank you,
H2O Man