John Dean op/ed: TRIUMPH OF THE AUTHORITARIANS - fascist psychology

[Nothing Without Hope]

The findings on the psychology of authoritarianism may explain Bush's persistent postive ratings among a solid minority of Americans and meshes well with the methods and agenda of the Bush tacticians. To fight our enemy and to reach those who STILL have their eyes closed to what is really happening, we need to know these things. (By the way, Adolf Hitler's approval ratings were about the same as Bush's are now, a little over 1/3 of the voters (http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman08252005.html)

I suggest that, to get the most out of Dean's op/ed, you watch his superb interview with Keith Olbermann on the same subject first. Links to web discussions, reviews and VIDEO of the Olbermann/Dean interview here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/11/john-dean-on-countdown-conservatives-without-conscience/#more-8839

Here is John Dean's Boston Globe op/ed:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/14/triumph_of_the_authoritarians/

JOHN W. DEAN

Triumph of the authoritarians

By John W. Dean | July 14, 2006

(SNIP)

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.

Here's the Amazon page on John Dean's new book -- released July 11 and currently running 4-1/2 stars -- with with more reviews and information:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670037745/sr=1-1/qid=1152976949/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7816307-8571037?ie=UTF8&s=books

[pepperbear]

1. It's great to finally see someone in the politcal arena stand up...

and say what most of us have known for years: It's the conservatism, stupid!

[omega minimo]

5. It's the Patriarchal Hierarchy, Stupid

[Demit]

2. I put this book on hold at the libe after watching Dean on Olbermann

Can't wait to read it. Loved (if that's the word) Worse Than Watergate.

[Nothing Without Hope]

11. Yes, I've got it on hold in my local library system too. n/t

[Democrat 4 Ever]

22. Lucky you guys - my library refused to buy it and said I would have

to wait six months after the issue date to request it on intra-library loan. The head librarian is a staunch neocon who refuses to open the library on Sundays (even though that would be a good time for working people to peruse the stacks) and closes early on Wednesdays so people can go to church.

I have had countless battles with this battle ax over her decisions on what to purchase to no avail. The minute that a progressive/liberal book is released I am on the phone with the library asking for a hold (even when I plan to buy it). Of course, nine times out of ten they do not have the book and have no plans to get one. I just call so I can keep a record of what books she is not purchasing and then complain to my local representative. No one in town (neocon or otherwise) likes this person but nothing is done about her. Think most people are just hoping to wait her out - she can't live forever can she? She is at least a 150 years old and hateful as all get out. She even fought against the County Commissioners when they debated building a new library building. Didn't need a new building (old one falling down, no parking, etc.). She liked things just fine the way they were. (And wanted to save taxpayers money, yeah, right.) Fortunately they ignored her, built a beautiful new building, loads of new programs, plenty of parking, etc. Now if they could just get someone else delegated to buy the new books. (PS - she bought three (3!) copies of Coultergeist's latest shill.

I donated a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 so the library would have a copy to lend and it ended up "lost."

When I can I try to buy all of the progressive books just because I want to support their efforts but sometimes money is really tight and I would like the option of my local library. I ended up ordering Dean's new book and I am waiting for it to arrive any day. I would donate it to the library when I finish but that would just be throwing the book away if I did. We don't exactly have book burnings around here but it comes pretty close.

[renate]

29. how awful for your LIBRARY, of all places, to be like this

To me, libraries are the ultimate in civilization. It almost moves me to tears when I think about how beautiful the idea is of gathering together information and knowledge for the benefit of all citizens. I would object (though admittedly not quite as strongly) to a librarian's refusal to order Ann Coulter books, though frankly it wouldn't turn my stomach as much as closing the library on Sundays does.

I really do sympathize. I assume somebody in your town has already thought of contacting the ACLU about her tactics?

[tbyg52]

62. First try a letter to the editor, perhaps

It's been my experience that small local papers will print just about anything that's decently written and not libelous. Out the librarian!

BTW, I gave two copies of _Armed Madhouse_ to our county library as soon as it came out. They are now on the shelf! Well, actually they're not--they're checked out, with a waiting list!

Personally, I think the three best things those of us who are too timid to ring doorbells (that would be me) can do are write letters to the editor, donate books to the library, and donate money to candidates. Of course, the first one is free and the other two aren't....

[MissWaverly]

30. I have wondered about this

I suspect Coulter's best seller sales come from government purchases like libraries, there is
no way this woman could have a serious base of fans, her books retail at 3.99 a week after
they're released.

[Nothing Without Hope]

3. It seems to be a human failing: Adolf Hitler's voter support was about

the same that Bush's is now:

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman08252005.html
Hitler, despite huge expenditures and desperately hard campaigns, never received more than just over a third of votes. He was appointed Chancellor, after a long series of backroom manipulations, by the Republic's ancient and exhausted President von Hindenburg. Hitler's rise more closely resembles that of some of America's favorite shady men in Iraq and Pakistan than it does that of a man {Venezuela's Chavez} whose election was closely scrutinized and declared fair by international watchers.

We must find ways to reach those people determined to follow their chosen leader over the cliff and take us all with them. I hope that John Dean's book gives some hints on how to do this.

[Time for change]

52. You're right - We must find a way to reach these people

I just received the book today. I pray it will provide some answers.

[Nothing Without Hope]

57. I hope you will post your own review here when you've finished reading it

I have put in a hold on a library copy, but it will probably be quite a long time before I get the book.

I would very much like your insights on what Dean has to say. As you know well, we need not only understanding but practical things we can use to help turn the tide.

One thing we all can do now: STOP CALLING THE BUSHIES "CONSERVATIVES"!!!!! They are more radical than anyone ever in US government. We have to break this stupid paradigm of "Liberals" being the wild, unreliable ones and "Conservatives" being the only ones that can be relied upon to make the country safe from terrorists or anybody else the bushies can cook up in their fearmongering.

I see posts right here at DU calling Bush's renegade government "conservative." This is madness, and it plays right into their hands. Framing counts.

[Time for change]

59. Well, I will certainly let you know what I think about it one way or the

other.

I don't think I'll be able to post it on this thread when I finish reading it, given the very short active life of threads on GD, and I'm a rather slow reader, but maybe I'll have some interum impressions.

Interesting you should mention the issue of calling Bushies conservatives. I am planning on posting a thread later today that deals with that issue. Also related to what you have to say here, you may not have seen this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2539922

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. Sorry for the unclear language, I didn't intend for you to post it HERE

in this thread, I only meant at DU. A link to this thread would give background, but posting it IN this thread, even if it were not archived by then, wouldn't have any visibility.

Thanks for the link, and tonight I'll look for your thread on naming issues.

[Time for change]

65. Sorry, that was dumb of me to interpret it like that

Sometimes I'm too literal minded :P

[Nothing Without Hope]

69. No, no apologies, please. After I posted that message I realized

that its wording might well be interpreted that way, and I debated going back and changing it. Too bad I didn't.

I am indeed looking forward to hearing your take on that book. You'll be reading it long before I get my turn on the library copy.

[wake.up.america]

4. This should be required reading for anyone wishing to dump the clowns...

in control. Know thy enemy!!!



How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.

Hitler

[ixion]

6. today's so-called 'conservatives' are:

"enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral."

That needs to be posted on every billboard, blog and bus stop in the US, IMO.

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. I imagine this psychology worked well for our hunter-gatherer ancestors

but it's death to a free society that reaches beyond a local tribe leader and conditions where self-sacrificing, unquestioning loyalty to this Great Leader and readiness to destroy any perceived danger to the tribe is ever a good idea.

As a species, we need to grow up. Before we drag humanity down into another dark age or worse.

How do we reach fellow Americans in thrall of the authoritarian, fascist leaders who are destroying us all? We must re-think, re-frame our communication with Bush supporters. They think they are "conservative," and that "liberals" are monsters. We have to show them that the bushies are the opposite of conservative and that they are destroying the country and threatening the future the whole world.

[omega minimo]

12. Compassion

"How do we reach fellow Americans in thrall of the authoritarian, fascist leaders who are destroying us all?"

Compassion for ourselves and others.
We deal with the bullies in our lives, past and present, and try not to be bullies and assholes ourselves.
We be the change we want to see in the world.

Those "in the thrall" may be too far gone for any direct intervention. Only compassion can work there.

We could even try being honest about how we as individuals and as a nation have brought this on ourselves, by letting the authoritarians take over bit by bit, as long as it wasn't OUR ass being kicked, it was ONLY OUR COUNTRY being disassembled before our eyes since 1980......

Now we are at the point where, "......and when (the authoritarians) came for me, there was no one left to speak out..............." (Niemeyer)

Oh, and one more thing.

Listen to women. LIke I said, we have some insight into the "authoritarian" psychology.

:hi: :grouphug:

[undergroundpanther]

15. An authoritarian..

abuses compassion,An authoritarian takes your pity and will use it to hurt people. Compassion does not work on people who lack the ability to feel shame,guilt,remorse or love. Compassion twords these people indicate a lack of boundaries and that,is what gets us in deeper with these assholes.
We need firm unmovable ethical boundaries,and when they are violated by an authoritarian we need to NEVER show them compassion or pity.Ever.
Because they do not feel remorse,shame,guilt,when they hurt others nor give any compassion for others,they FAKE it to get away with the stuff they do.They play a game with us that abuses the hell out of us and all the things that makes a civil society even possible,Authoritarians are are soulless they are a threat to the well being of the non authoritarian,non sociopath world. Too much time has been spent already trying to teach these vicious personalities how to feel compassion offering rehab,therapy etc.And if we keep pretending they feel like we feel,they will kill this planet. If we don't wake up and realize they are not gonna change if we give them MORE love MORE trust,MOre enabling,MORE chances..we are fucked...Thery have no use for love beyond using it as a tool to exploit people, they can't love. They use love like a tool to hurt good people with. Understand? Authoritarians,sociopaths are not like us they are ethically evil.(I know evil is a taboo word but it describes authoritarian /sociopath ethics )

[omega minimo]

20. Right and I wouldn't expect it to reach those "in the thrall" of bullies

either-- not directly. The question I answered was how to reach those "in the thrall" (not the fascists themselves) and let's face it-- that's a goodly percentage of America at this point.

My suggestion was the compassion "for ourselves and others" that is more in keeping with your illustration of the tribe's self-protection.

And we need to quit putting all this "out there." (I "get" your posts and don't contest your points). If all that comes of the Dean article is people thinking they have better bumperstickers for fighting fascists, but in their own lives (and "even on DU") continue to bully others or act out their own authoritarian trips, not much of anything has changed, or ever will.


I don't expect "compassion" to necessarily reach others directly-- like I said, many folks are so far gone in the 'thrall' that their minds can't handle much of a breakthrough-- but maybe on a more personal level in a subtle way................... simple stuff like when you're out shopping and some obnoxious, self-centered, over-caffeinated asshole is yelling into a cellphone and you send em a compassion bomb cuz you know that THE WORLD HAS GONE INSANE AND THESE PLASTIC WRAPPED YUPPIE CLONES ARE TRYING TO ACT LIKE THEY'RE NOT FEELING IT.

Compassion :evilgrin:

[lolly]

40. Exactly.

I agree with #15. Compassion doesn't work with these people.

Can we now finally put to rest the notion that if we just make nicey-nicey with the fundamentalists, they'll eventually see the error of their ways and come rushing over to join with us?

OK, a sore spot of mine. But every time someone posts anything pointing out how vicious, un"Christian," and frankly delusional fundamentalists are, a barrage of posters come on and tell us we're hurting our cause, that those people won't like us if we say mean things about them.

Once and for all--these 23-30 percenters are never going to like us, because the core of our philosophy is absolutely antithetical to their entire belief system. Any deviance from their belief system is EVIL, and cannot be tolerated, and must be wiped out like a contagious disease. And any compassion or understanding we show them is only evidence, in their warped perception, that we MUST be wrong, or we would be as "steadfast" in our defense of our belief as they are.

No, I don't believe we should stoop to their level (I know someone will accuse me of that) and aim to wipe them out, but we can't be polite and tip-toe around the truth to avoid hurting their feelings.

Just as the Germans were forced to march through the camps after WWII to confront the reality of what they had done, wingnuts need to be forced to confront the reality of the disaster their righteous unChristian Christianity has brought to our country.

[omega minimo]

49. Compassion is strength, not "niceynicey" and only "works" if you do

You may agree with #15 but you misinterpreted #12 completely. #20 (my reply to #15) clarifies. And #31 may be more to your liking. Please read with an open mind. #15 may sound less namby pamby to you on a second try.

How do you get through to people who are deluded? was the original question.

You've got your rant, but please don't hang it on my posts as if this had anything to do with what I said. This is all yours:

"Can we now finally put to rest the notion that if we just make nicey-nicey with the fundamentalists, they'll eventually see the error of their ways and come rushing over to join with us?

"...every time someone posts anything pointing out how vicious, un"Christian," and frankly delusional fundamentalists are, a barrage of posters come on and tell us we're hurting our cause, that those people won't like us if we say mean things about them.

"Once and for all--these 23-30 percenters are never going to like us....

"....but we can't be polite and tip-toe around the truth to avoid hurting their feelings."

That's not at all what I said. If the word "compassion" triggered all that, pardon you and if my post/s don't get the idea across, pardon me. :evilgrin:


It sounds like you already have it worked out-- but how does it work for you? There are subtle, one on one approaches (#15) and broader ones (#31) but "in yer face" is not gonna get through to any seriously (or mildly) delusional person.

"Just as the Germans were forced to march through the camps after WWII to confront the reality of what they had done, wingnuts need to be forced to confront the reality of the disaster their righteous unChristian Christianity has brought to our country."

The anger you express is part of the defensiveness that "our side" shows in acknowledging that WE have been had, too. That we LIHOP by going to sleep between Ronald Fucking Reagan and George :nuke: Bush.

:hi:

[IndyOp]

23. You mention Niemoller's poem - it's been rewritten by US Authoritarians

Look at the order of the persecuted groups -> communist, socialists, trade unionists, and then Jews in the poem Niemoller wrote:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The hated & feared groups in Neimoller's poem - I would argue - is the same set of groups that are hated & feared in the US today (except the US also includes African Americans and other ethnic minorities in the list).

Talk about letting the authoritarians take over bit-by-bit: The worst of the bastardized versions of Niemoller's Poem is the rewrite by American Autoritarians to scare American Catholics and Protestants. This version indicates that the Nazis 'came for the Catholics' and then for the Protestants -- this is absurd because the Nazis WERE Catholics and Protestants

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. Do you have a non-bastardized version of Niemoller's poem?

Someone once made this point before at DU and gave both the original German version and a direct translation, but I've lost track of that thread. I have to go out now until late tonight - if you haven't been able to post the unmodified poem, I'll go onto the net and see if I can find it.

How very ironic that Niemoller's famous words have been turned to serve those who resemble to an increasingly frightening degree what he was protesting.

[IndyOp]

33. The first version in my post is the accurate one. Sorry my post

isn't very clear. I put the accurate version at the top so people could compare it to the bastardized version (with Catholics & Protestants) at the bottom.

The accurate version (at top) is poignant because the US had a very similar list of persecuted groups as the Nazis - communists, socialists, trade unionists.

The bastardized version (at bottom) is poignant because the authoritarians have re-written Niemoller's poem to maximize fear in Protestants.

What you say is too, too true: "How very ironic that Niemoller's famous words have been turned to serve those who resemble to an increasingly frightening degree what he was protesting."

[omega minimo]

27. A true Christian

might "get" the concept of Neimoller's (thanks fer the correction) poem without the de-socialism-ized and pablumized version........................ seems to get back to that "compassion" thing too. If people identify with that "because I was a Protestant, I didn't speak up for Catholics" sounds like an indictment of their own religion!

"The hated & feared groups in Neimoller's poem - I would argue - is the same set of groups that are hated & feared in the US today (except the US also includes African Americans and other ethnic minorities in the list)."

An update (with props to the original) would include Women-- women's lives and bodies as the battleground where the Bully Party plants its flag of wedge issues, hate legislation and authoritarian control central.





edit: corrected "correction" :evilgrin:

[IndyOp]

45. The authoritarians would never list women as being a persecuted

group - they do *not* recognize that they treat their mothers and wives and daughters in any way disrespectfully - not even as they rape and beat them.

I agree that women *are* a hated group - but the authoritarians would not list them when rewriting Niemoller's poem.

:(

[omega minimo]

36. Bastard version posted here today!

As if it's the original! Welcome to NewSpeakWorld.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

-Martin Niemoller"

Wrong. Not his original work. Posted by someone who identifies as "centrist" (and has a live and let live approach, no problem there) in a thread about whether "Left-bashing" should be "allowed" at DU.

:wow:

Seems the Socialists don't fit conveniently into the worldview of those who like the Neo-Niemoller "quote." And the Jews get top billing over the Trade-Unionists.



We is screwed. :yoiks:

[glitch]

14. Just what I was thinking. At some point blindly following a leader was an

advantage, at least some of the time in certain environments. Who knows how long ago that was. But today that trait seems well past it's extinct by date.
Unless it's just evolution's trickster way of limiting our species.

[Cleita]

17. No your hunter gatherer ancestors were more equal and free.

If you read anything about the stone age tribes that were discovered and studied by anthropologists in the last century, you will find out that the things all have in common were sharing and the chief was only chief as long as the tribe wanted him to be chief.

When food was hunted and gathered it was shared with everyone from the youngest to the oldest and even those who were handicapped and couldn't work. When times were hard the whole tribe suffered not just the lower castes.

The chief and other members of the council were in those jobs only as long as the tribe wished to follow them. One of the qualities expected of the chief was to be a good listener and the ability to dispense wisdom. Once tribes settle in to city type living, then you start getting the warlord types of chiefs and class separation of the people into haves and have nots who have to depend on the whims of the noble class to survive.

[omega minimo]

8. GREAT OP Thanks for all the info/links. Well done. K&R

btw, it's great that Dean researched and wrote on this in a way that is palatable, recognizable, acceptable to a new audience-- but the people under the thumb of authoriatarians have been saying this for years.

Here's hoping the newly enlightened will have increased awareness of "authoritarianism" in all its manifestations. :toast:

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. We must keep repeating: the Bush Administration is NOT CONSERVATIVE

they are AUTHORITARIANS. Raving hyenas, really, except that even raving hyenas have a useful place in the global scheme.

Traditionally, REAL conservatives have been very concerned with incursions into their personal liberties and also with controlling national spending and foreign "entanglements."

One way to possibly reach the entralled, blinded Bush supporters: show them they are NOT "conservatives" but nation-destroying, power-grabbing authoritarians. The bushies have made "liberals" a hate-word. We have to show how "conservative" is the opposite of what these radical fasicts truly are.

We have to reframe a public discourse in a way that shows the blinded Bush supporters what the truth is. We have to use framing terms that will reach them and open their eyes. We can't talk to them as we would to fellow progressives. We have to find ways to break through the deliberate hypnotic spell of the authoritarians, using language and information that will show them how they have been duped.

[omega minimo]

31. This might help

Following is a simple approach to trying to reach people "enthralled" who might be open to actual facts......

Meanwhile, I :applause: your passion and presentation. And I wish you Good Luck :toast: in opening eyes. In fact it was Limbaugh and Reaganite Dildoheads (not "Bushies" ) that "have made "liberals" a hate-word." And because this has gone on for decades now, I hope you will consider that timeframe as you "find ways to break through the deliberate hypnotic spell of the authoritarians, using language and information that will show them how they have been duped." DU could do with an institutional awareness that this did not start with Bushco. Bushco. is the endpoint of a decades-long effort and agenda. As is the "duped-ness" and "enthrallment" of the American people.

So-- that timeframe does affect the means by which you might "break through the deliberate hypnotic spell of the authoritarians."

"We have to use framing terms that will reach them and open their eyes."

My hope is that Dems will quit trying to sloganize a solution. The Limbaugh/Luntz/Rovian mindfuckers have anticipated and pre-empted every turn of phrase in their dirty bag of tricks that Dems might try to borrow from. As we see constantly, every downfall for Bushco. is spun into dirty gold by Rove's Big Lie machine and trotted out in Big Media as a new Authoritarian Talking Point.

The American people know what is going on. Those who have handed over their own decision making to authoritarians behind a pulpit will never be reached. The rest of us can handle much more plain truth and plain speaking than well-meaning Democrats and cynical Party consultants believe we can. Excuse me I'm gonna yell this:

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE REACHABLE AND POSSIBLE TO DISENTHRALL ARE TURNED OFF BY CONDESCENDING LANGUAGE AND WANT DEMOCRATS TO GET TO THE BLOODY POINT. :bounce:

They also know "It's the Corporatism, Stupid"

Thanks again for a great OP and thread.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=2724998&mesg_id=2724998

www.hightowerlowdown.org

Are You Better Off Yet?
(excerpts from Hightower Lowdown, July 7, 2006 issue)

Tax Cuts
2001 Income Tax Cut
Average cut for people making under $50,000 a year (71% of Americans): $425
Average cut for people making $1 million a year (0.1% of Americans): $59,216
Average cut for people making $10 million a year (0.00004% of Americans): $521,905

2003 Income Tax Cut
Average cut for people making under $50,000 a year: $10
Average cut for people making $1 million a year: $25,450
Average cut for people making $10 million a year: $497,463

2006 Extension of Tax cuts for Capital Gains and Dividends
Average cut for people making under $50,000 a year: $3
Average cut for people making $1 million a year: $59,972

Repeal of Estate Tax
Percentage of US families that pay any estate tax whatsoever……………………………….1.2%
Percentage of estate tax paid by richest 5% of Americans……………………………………99%
Amount of money that repeal of this tax will take from our public treasury
& put in the coffers of the richest families in one decade……………………..……$1 trillion
Number of superrich families that have quietly funded
A stealth campaign for the past 10 years to promote
The repeal of the estate tax………………………………………………………………..18
(including the Waltons of the Wal-Mart fortune and heirs to Gallo wines,
Campbell soup, and M&M candies)
Total savings that just these 18 families would reap if the tax is repealed………$71.6 billion

[undergroundpanther]

10. If we cannot find a way to heal them

And we cannot force them into exile or force them to the fringes or force them to leave us and our freedoms the hell alone...
We have to fight and destroy authoritarians.Or defy their fake authority and crush them wherever they are and NEVER let them get power promotions wealth or anything that could be used to give them control over others lives. Authoritarians to not abuse others must be supervised and controlled and stripped of access to any methods they can abuse like authority,privacy, wealth, key relationships, pr or anything else to get more power.

Tribal solutions were to observe their behavior,The tribe members would see the pattern the rape the abuse theft and bullying of the authoritarian,than say they'd arrange a hunt and take the authoritarian along ,and push said authoritarian into the ice to die and be done with it. Or they'd exile him. The solution of a tribe was to kill these people off,They refuse to respect others person hood,refuse to be fair and honest and play by the rules of conduct that keep everyone well, than they are excluded from society and it's benefits.That is how some of the more egalitarian tribes managed to stay so free ,egalitarian humane and respectful,because they did not want any authoritarians to make their lives hell,,they didn't tolerate or pity authoritarians and bullies either or pretend they were 'sick' they saw them as a threat to the well being of the tribe.

Us we are the sick ones,we have let these authoritarians run companies like Enron and screw up thousands of lives up,and we repeatedly elect these soulless fuckers to positions of power because we get duped by charisma and good looks as if that had JAck Shit to do with good policy,,and we tolerate them and enable them and give them unearned respect and trust,as the family tyrant or the boss,teacher,judge,senator...Authoritarians cannot tolerate freedom for others or democracy ,fairness,respecting others consent,being honest,or anything else that makes living together in a civil society possible.

[omega minimo]

16. Well put UGP and about that "charisma" thing...............

"Us we are the sick ones,we have let these authoritarians run companies like Enron and screw up thousands of lives up,and we repeatedly elect these soulless fuckers to positions of power because we get duped by charisma and good looks as if that had JAck Shit to do with good policy,,and we tolerate them and enable them and give them unearned respect and trust,as the family tyrant or the boss,teacher,judge,senator..."

"Duped by charisma and good looks" is what we tell ourselves-- or what the TV tells us we're thinking-- but the "charisma" and "good looks" of a Ronald Reagan or W. Bush would fall flat if not for the artificial reality and authority of the telescreens. We are "duped" by the power of television to make the obvious phony seem "real."

[undergroundpanther]

19. A mask of Sanity

Though the psychopath is likely to give an early impression of being a thoroughly reliable person, it will soon be found that on many occasions he shows no sense of responsibility whatsoever. No matter how binding the obligation, how urgent the circumstances, or how important the matter, this holds true. Furthermore, the question of whether or not he is to be confronted with his failure or his disloyalty and called to account for it appears to have little effect on his attitude.

If such failures occurred uniformly and immediately, others would soon learn not to rely upon psychopaths or to be surprised at their conduct. It is, however, characteristic for them during some periods to show up regularly at work, to meet their financial obligations, to ignore an opportunity to steal.

http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm
This site is a little different but thier socioipathy authoritarian stuff is good as it gets.


Blaming Ourselves

It is intolerable for us to realise that we were relating to this soul with no footprints. We would, then, need to give up the certainty of closure, of healing in a prescribed and predictable manner; we would need to chart our own course and find answers for ourselves that no one else can give us; we would have to give up the belief that we have any control over our lives and that there is certainty in life.

I think that that is why we need to blame ourselves in some way, and to work to change things in ourselves that may need changing but which did not cause the encounter with a psychopath/disordered N. We want to believe that we had some control. Yet, it is known and proven that if a psychopath/disordered N targets you, no one is immune (Robert Hare). And that if it happened to you once, it could happen to you again, even after you know what there is to know, if you remain uneducated about psychopathy/narcissism. This is also the opinion of Robert Hare. It isn't because you are an "N-magnet" but because you don't know any better, like most of the population.

Even if you are used to abusive relationships, from your childhood, you may tolerate the abuse of a psychopath,/N but this has nothing to do with that person being a psychopath/N- it just means you're even more vulnerable to such familiar abuse, but none of your weaknesses caused you to be the target of the disordered. It is NOT your fault. In our need to control events, even in the past, we blame ourselves, look for faults in ourselves which supposedly made us an "easy" target. We ignore anything which suggests that we have strengths that could have been attractive to the psychopath/N, who usually love a challenge. We pathologise ourselves with impunity, for the world is built on pathologising. We will always find someone to tell us what is wrong with us, rather than what is right with us.

http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/Soul_no_footprints.html

[omega minimo]

25. Everybody knows

The Psychopath targets those that see through their mask

(and if you treat them with compassion, while seeing who they are, the HATE that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evilgrin: )





:yoiks: :yoiks: :eyes: :hide:
that's why people keep themselves blindered "in the thrall"

[lolly]

41. They love it when we treat them with compassion

Because it makes it possible for them to take advantage of us.

Ordinary people who sin, who make mistakes--I feel compassion for them. I show compassion for them.

These are people who feed on the politeness and tolerance of others to hurt people. It's worse than a waste to feel sorry or sympathetic--it enables them to hurt others more.

[Cleita]

13. I read the article last night.

I hope to get the book eventually. It sure makes a lot of the mentality understandable. For the longest time all we could do was call them kool-aid drinkers because their mentality and actions made no sense, but John Dean explains it every well. He does a good job of explaining what a true conservative is as contrary to these neo-cons. I think Barry Goldwater's statement about the leaders of this movement summed it up nicely when he called them thugs.

[undergroundpanther]

18. And what do you do when thugs threaten your life

You have to kill them,escape from thier'control',chase them away, or incarcerate them for your own protection.
There is not many other options here. You cannot trust them or pity them or tolerate them.Once you do,trust them,tolerate them(denial) or pity(enable) they use your kindness and forgiveness to get away with more abuses.

[Cleita]

21. I personally have been more vocal about getting rid of them

from the beginning than most people. I had an impeach bush bumper sticker on my car as soon as they were available and that was years ago. Now I see them popping up all over the place. Better late than never, but what took so long?

[undergroundpanther]

34. Just like why a battered woman won't

Leave the jackasshole..She thinks he'll change if she just changes herself.

If we Dem's just don't act radical,we stop being angry,we stop being so hung up on issues like gay rights or abortion..maybe just maybe the leadership will change.

This is a huge mistake.We radicals have EVERY right to be angry to shout down the bullies to fuck their games up, to rightfully feel victimized by the evil actions of the republicans and the mealymouthed passive aggressive policies of some Dem's. The poor, the gays, the women all us non white-non straight and non compromising second classed citizen people have had our few rights eroded away more. Why? So the moderates among us,the moral cowards that they are,could suck up to the selfish for more votes . To do this they had to change the democratic agenda into something more appealing to narcissists. By changing the dem platform to something less sympathetic to the poor,or gays or women,or disabled people or victims of abuse,would stop the fascists,these compromiser's,"peacemakers" and personnel managers have compromised this country's integrity and founding principles to authoritarian assholes..

The Bush admin are a bunch of thugs. They'd kill us all if they could get away with it. And no matter how we twist ourselves up like pretzels we won't change them one bit by our compromising .We won't get our rights back until we go raging into their little fiefdom and take them back and learn to recognize a thug,as a thug say fuck you to all narcissists and if they don't quit their shit we'll knock the shit out of them.

[lolly]

42. At the very least, expose them

This is why I get so annoyed with Democrats/Progressives who fail to call out the Republican party on, say, its association with Ann Coulter. Her words should be on TV spots with a voice-over--this is what you support when you support the Republican party. Or Falwell's schtick about America deserving 9/11--that should be quoted, and noted that this is what you support if you support right-wing "Christianity." And so on. The right-wing bloggers and their call for ropes to hang the 5 "liberal" justices.

All this should be out there, and Republicans and those who vote for them should be told they have to answer for it.

[FredStembottom]

24. Eric Hoffer's The True Believer

A book I have been recommending for 30 years now.

It spells out the _why_ of mass authoritarian movements. Any of them - nevermind what the supposed theology or politics of any of them.

In a nutshell: Such mass movements are peopled with adherents that feel that they have failed in their own personal lives in some calamitous way. They then seek to lose themselves within a movement that gives them a brand new "them" to be "successful" with.

The supposed ideology of the movement is secondary (or possibly irrelevant).

This book is so well-balanced and dogma-free that it even dares to suggest that such movements do good as well as harm. It's the cancerous ones that don't know when to die or were badly founded in the first place that cause so much trouble!

Written in 1951 and still seems nearly flawless (to me, ennaways!).

(And it's short: 168 pages) Always in print. This one will become a lifelong yardstick for you, I predict. :thumbsup:

[nuxvomica]

28. Thanks for the tip

I remember Hoffer from his Eric Severaid interviews. One of the great thinkers of the last century. Your post spurred me to look up some info on him an I found this wonderful quote, among many other wonderful quotes.

"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them."

[FredStembottom]

43. You're Welcome.

I find his work so unimpeachably wise that I just wait for the day I find out that he beat his children or did bizarre experiments on puppies...or something.

Just kind of what I've been conditioned to expect from "heroes".

:yoiks:

[Nothing Without Hope]

35. So Hoffer's "true believers" are the sheep depended on by Dean's

authoritarian wolves.

The corrupt, amoral leaders are beyond reasoning with, and some of the sheep - like the Rapturite fringe - are too. But the more rational "sheep" may be reachable if we frame our message to penetrate the fog.

[FredStembottom]

44. All I can say is I hope so........

These truly are cult group members. As surely as the "Jonestown" people.

[undergroundpanther]

32. from the planet psychopath...

("N" in this article here...reffers to a Narcissist.)

Subject: Perhaps not in the overt case

Welcome to planet psychopath, although entirely human I was raised here and lived most of my life here so let me be your tour guide.

While some of these people are not true psychopaths most of their mindset is essentially psychopathic in nature.

To tell a beautiful warm loving woman that it is "her loss" if she declines to supplement the usual diet of pornography and cybersex IS VERBAL ABUSE.

Just not of the overt conventional kind. I also find myself wondering how many of the real people here have suffered pretty conventional verbal abuse and ceased to see it as such?

However politely someone tells you you are useless and inadequate when this is not true, you have been verbally abused. When someone lies to you they use words to abuse you, they steal reality from you. That is verbal abuse.

A lot of these people regard being caught, pinned down by the nature of their actions as an error to be avoided.

They are experts at unmissable implication, manipulating the connotations of everything they say. A favourite game is to use covert abuse, playing on your triggers, you worst fears, comparing you (in a completely invalid way) to that which you most despise, all kinds of games that would mean nothing to an observer, they provoke you into what will be seen as overt abuse. In extreme cases to the point where they can use every system intended to protect your rights as a weapon against you and they do.

Never try to interpret them by the standards that would apply to yourself. That is the biggest mistake you could make.

You know the way that someone ineffectual will sometimes try to make themselves feel smarter by putting YOU down as ineffectual?

The overall, really deep grained, agenda of most of them is to prove themselves warm and human by "proving" (mainly to themselves) that you are as bad as they are or worse.

Always focus on the games AS games, sleight of hand, coercion.

Study HOW they are doing it, not WHY. "Why" won't help you at all, and YOUR WELLBEING is too important to waste time in futility.

I think it is possible that their actual motivation does not translate into normal, healthy human terms at all.

There are many different causes. Nature, injury (physical or deeper), learned behaviour....but once a person lives that way they CANNOT change, because they cannot perceive what it is they must change to. The transition would render them far more helpless than other people. Without having a notion what they are to change TO, I do not see that many would physically survive it.

Within this is a hint of another frequent motivation. That of studying you to "BECOME" you. It doesn't work, because they only capable of perceiving the surface behaviours, not the underlying nature that motivates them. So that everything about you genuinely appears "senseless" and self destructive to them.

At heart they BELIEVE you are just like them, because they cannot conceive of anything else, they have no option.

When you care about your child, they THINK you are just ensuring no one can accuse you of being "uncaring"......as they would be.

When you are hurt, they really think you are making a move in a game, raising the stakes.

People often ask, in one way or another "can they be hurt?" I would be more inclined to ask if they can tell the difference between hurting and not hurting. I am not sure they can. They aren't hurting you, they are playing a complex game, your pain is like the reward noise in "packman" or "space invaders" to them, it tells them they are getting ahead. Some get warmer fuzzies than others from it is all. The pain of another is a control point in most games (except they are all played to very individual rules).

They do not communicate information, they manipulate reactions. Even in the smallest ways. Any information that does pass is incidental, not the point, or the focus of their behaviours.

The worst of it is that they GENUINELY believe you are playing the same game against them, because they cannot conceive of anything beyond that, or any other form of motivation you could possibly have.

What would an N think reading this?

Most probably: "That's a neat line, must see how I can use it".

Or if they pertain to me personally: "Ok, nice one, now......what countermove?"

That is how alien they are. It is also why I advocate isolation from the greater society as soon as it is realistically possible. They won't suffer, they'll hardly notice the difference except in terms of the restriction of movement, and stigma. But a far larger quantity of people in the greater society will cease to suffer, and never suffer again.

That objective would, in itself, be completely meaningless to an N. Because at heart they believe everyone is just like them, playing the same game, they just want to be the winner.

In the meanwhile get yourself free, and if you have time after that, protect anyone you can.

In the past, polio, smallpox were a part of life you had to accept and avoid at all costs, until someone found a way to change that.

"Narcissism", "Antisocial" and all other forms of psychopathic mindset should be seen the same way.

If the one you believed you loved with all your heart were a smallpox carrier, you would not let that one raise your children, nor try to share your life fully with that one.

It IS much the same. Except that a smallpox carrier would be unlikely to attempt to entrap or coerce you.

Unless, of course, he were also an N from planet psychopath. ______

http://groups.msn.com/NarcissismSupportGroupMoralandSpiritualStruggle/howpsmnsdoit.msnw

[RagAss]

37. Laughter...they hate being laughed at...it's like sunlight to Dracula...

Let them know at every turn that they are comical - Assclowns...they make us laugh....and we laugh at them, not with them...I've seen more than a few heads explode when I approach them with this response...they begin to doubt themselves...and seeth.....then they come back in a day or two and try a new approach to whatever topic that drew the laughter from me...and I laugh again....it's entertaining and it keeps them in check...of course, on the negative side, they must go home from work and take it out on their families.....

[Emit]

38. Here's a related article on authoritarian, Christocentric mindset

I read it last year, posted here: http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=19363

On "Moral Values"
Code Words for Emerging Authoritarian Tendencies in Americans
By Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS

~snip~

The belief that President Bush's "moral values" helped him to win re-election has led certain political and theological pundits to conclude that the Democrats must "get religion" and bridge the "God gap" if they are to regain the presidency. They are being told to get a grip on God and morality and, like the Republicans, let their light of faith shine for all religiously-motivated voters to see if they are ever to achieve a political resurrection. Those who interpret the presidential election in these terms appear to miss a critical point: rather than faith-based "moral values," the election appears to reveal a growing morality gap in America. We may not be witnessing the ascendancy of "moral values" but the rise of authoritarian tendencies in Americans. It is this apparent phenomenon, and the moral and spiritual crisis it represents, that need to be examined and addressed.

Following World War II, social scientists conducted a landmark study of how great masses of supposedly enlightened, Christian people willingly tolerated the systematic oppression and extermination of millions of their fellow citizens and others (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Black persons, mentally and physically-impaired people, and political dissenters). A related concern was how masses of other people, who profess freedom as a God-given birthright, could stand by for so long and allow such religious, racial, ethnic, ideological and homophobic hatred to continue. The aim of the study was to employ the scientific method to understand what in an individual causes him to be prejudiced, and to use the findings to help in seeking solutions to inter-group prejudice and hatred.

The study revealed that authoritarian tendencies in an individual's personality make him receptive to anti-democratic propaganda and policies that target out-groups for discrimination and destruction. (The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno, et al, pp v-viii, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1950).

The personality tendencies of the authoritarian-disposed individual were found to include...

~snip~

Many White, evangelical churchgoers who were moved by "moral values" to vote for George W. Bush may actually be seen as "Christocentric." Since ethnocentrism is the belief that "one's own ethnic group, nation or culture is superior" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, fourth edition, Macmillan, 1999), these churchgoers appear to be "Christocentric" in their belief in Jesus as the only Son of God and savior of the world.

original link: http://www.counterpunch.com/alberts01012005.html

P.S., Thanks for the post -- my neighbor just lent my Dean's book and I started it last night.

[Time for change]

39. What a great video!!

And such an insightful editorial.

I believe that John Dean has really hit the nail on the head. From the man who was most responsible for bringing down the Nixon administration, now he's trying to do his part to help us get a handle on an even more dangerous administration than that.

I love that man.
:patriot:

[Pierre Trudeau]

46. the article's credibility is undermined by this...

take a look at the fifth paragraph:

"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."

Am I the only one who fails to remember Ronald Reagan's alleged commitment to the environment? As a Canadian, I remember at the time how reluctant he was to acknowledge the very existence of acid rain. And I doubt it would be difficult to find examples of the Reagan administration "relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business."

Furthermore, I also remember that for a long time Ronnie refused to even admit the existence of AIDS, either.

Not to detract from the primary thrust of Mr. Dean's essay, with which I quite agree. But surely he ought to acknowledge the degree to which Reagan paved the way for the Republicans of today.

[omega minimo]

47. Ronald "You've seen one redwood tree you've seen 'em all" Reagan

"President Ronald Reagan believed in ``conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business." :wtf:

You're right-- that is a severely dangerous rewrite of RR's reality

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

50. Or the Reagan who picked Secretary of the Interior James Watt,

who sparked the creation of the bumpersticker "I Know Watt's Wrong"

The fellow entrusted with protecting our natural resources, scenic and otherwise, who got bored on a rafting trip down the Colorado River through the GRAND CANYON?????

[omega minimo]

51. or the Reagan whose Big Lies and 1984 techniques lead right to Bushco

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

53. Yes, first the elder now the junior.

After his election I ventured a guess (mostly only to my liberal friends) that his election could only be the result of a mass psychosis of the electorate, cause I guess it was the first time I saw/noticed a major candidate out and out lie repeatedly and get away with it AND WIN!

I moved to what was a much redder state of AZ not so long after his election.

I sought solace and refuge with other Sierra Club members.

[omega minimo]

55. ..and we knew if the mass didn't awaken from the delusion, we would end up

here.




"his election could only be the result of a mass psychosis of the electorate"

[Nothing Without Hope]

54. I don't think that undermines the credibility of the social research

by others that he reports on. It just shows how he isn't entirely free of delusion either. Ronald Reagan was no hero and Barry Goldwater was, well, not someone you would ever want in charge of the country. I think Dean has done a bit of rewriting of his own history to comfort himself and perhaps to make himself look better. I suspect that's a fairly universal human trait.

I still think what he reports about authoritarianism is worth reading. The studies were not done by him, he is reporting on the work of others. Also, the fact that he is advertising himself as a "Goldwater conservative," clearly separated from "liberals" and also clearly separated from the fascist radicals of the Bush Administration, is a good thing if he's to get any of the bushie sheeple to listen to him at all.

[Pierre Trudeau]

60. sure, the thesis is valid, but the examples are poor

It doesn't diminish one iota the valuable points he makes about the authoritarian personality and the state of modern conservatism.

But inevitably it makes it more difficult to believe him as a spokesperson when he supplies these examples, suggesting his own hero-worship of Reagan whom he posits as a "good conservative", which is not only inaccurate but also suggestive of his own embrace of Reagan and Goldwater as authoritarian figures.

I know John Dean is a very smart fellow and I fully appreciate his well-thought-out critiques of the Bush administration and its various legal jiggery-pokery. But we all know who he is, right? Ultimately, the best thing one could say about Dean is he was one of the less dishonest Watergate crooks.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

48. I just picked up his book this week at Costco. It is fascinating

as it comes from someone familiar with conservatism.

He calls himself a Goldwater Conservative, on many issues.

Barry Goldwater he writes in the book believed in helping people who couldn't help themselves.

I'm only through the preface and the first chapter on How Conservatives Think.

But it is very illuminating.

[Nothing Without Hope]

56. John Dean was also interviewed about his new book by Jon Stewart. LINK:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/07/conservatives_w.html

QuickTime 7 required to play the clip. In my opinion, the Keith Olbermann interview is much more informative. (Not Jon Stewart's fault - he HAS to be funny, and this is a distinctly un-funny subject. Good that Dean was on the show and said his piece.)

[DELUSIONAL]

58. Dean writes: "I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this

issue for general readers."

Probably this is why I got degrees in behavioral sciences.

Learning to read the research and the language of research takes time -- because it is written for peers and not for easy reading.

I've nagged at professionals in Psychology, Animal Behavior, Sociology etc -- that they must write so that the average person can understand what they are saying. They need to share their findings with everyone -- not just each other.

Unfortunately when some decide to write -- they are the ones who should have been censured -- like the idiots who wrote the Bell Curve. (to refresh your memory of this book -- I've included a link below). Peer reviews of this book would have kept it out of respected journals.

Anyway I believe it is a good thing that John Dean has made the effort to learn the language of behavioral science and read the research and then translated this into ordinary English. Hopefully others will now follow his path. I too am looking forward to reading his book -- his other book "worst than WaterGate" was well done and well documented.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271

Racism Resurgent:
How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race

By Jim Naureckas

When the New Republic devoted almost an entire issue (10/31/94) to a debate with the authors of The Bell Curve, editor Andrew Sullivan justified the decision by writing, "The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief."

In fact, the idea that some races are inherently inferior to others is the definition of racism. What the New Republic was saying--along with other media outlets that prominently and respectfully considered the thesis of Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein's book--is that racism is a respectable intellectual position, and has a legitimate place in the national debate on race.

The Bell Curve was accorded attention totally disproportionate to the merits of the book or the novelty of its thesis. The book and its dubious claims set the agenda for discussions on such public affairs programs as Nightline (10/21/94), the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (10/28/94), the McLaughlin Group (10/21/94), Charlie Rose (11/3/94, 11/4/94), Think Tank (10/14/94), PrimeTime Live (10/27/94) and All Things Considered (10/28/94).

[eppur_se_muova]

61. "PSEUDO-conservatives", please. Don't let them choose the language.

The SELF-APPLIED "conservative" label is more duplicity than anything else.

[Gloria]

64. I now call my mother a "23 percenter" to her face every chance I

get.

[faithnotgreed]

66. kicking

[madmusic]

67. Some of Our Best Friends Are Authoritarians

The Nation
(November 7, 1981 issue)

The Reagan Administration has made faint efforts to fake an attitude toward human rights; it has made no effort to implement a policy. Let's look at the record.

§ U.S. representative to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick put forth the theory that authoritarianism is better than totalitarianism. Irving Kristol and other neoconservatives were quick to rally behind this construct. Kirkpatrick claimed that in some places, notably Latin America, the people were not ready for democracy and that authoritarian governments were therefore an understandable, if regrettable, development. Despite right-wing efforts to resuscitate it, the authoritarian-totalitarian dichotomy has, blessedly, been laid to rest. The outrage generated by the description of torture and anti-Semitism in Argentina in Jacobo Timerman's Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number and the Polish workers' courageous struggle for economic and human rights in a "totalitarian" country showed how false the distinction was.

More:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/19811107/derian

[eppur_se_muova]

70. An authoritarian is a totalitarian that hasn't been tested yet.

The test usually involves asking "uncomfortable" questions. Most "authoritarians" fail. Ours is doing so now.

[mmonk]

68. Great book by the way,

but not very comforting.