From Altemeyer's The Authoritarians: Comments on the Tea Party. Read his take on the libertarians.

[backscatter712]

I know, that book's been out for a while, but I'd only recently noticed that Dr. Altemeyer added a chapter titled "Comment on the Tea Party", which you can read here:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf

He does talk about the religious fundamentalists and other authoritarian followers - the Tea Party's full of them, your classic Right Wing Authoritarians (RWAs) that are heavy on the traits of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism. It's certainly good stuff, which Altemeyer has gone over repeatedly, and worth reading.

But what I found truly interesting was his take on the libertarians that are in the Tea Party movement. These are not the typical RWA authoritarian followers. They're actually Social Dominators, the social climbers, high on the SDO scale. They love a law-of-the-jungle environment, and don't mind stomping on those they're climbing over.

The Other Authoritarian Personality

Because the Tea Partiers display so many “classic” signs of authoritarian followers, I think it‟s safe to conclude that a lot of the members have such personalities. 8 But another sizeable group swells the ranks who would seem to have little tendency to follow anyone: libertarians. And while the two contingents may agree on many economic issues, they appear to have fundamentally different views of government and liberty.

According to this rather extreme position, a government that used tax revenues to give a white cane to a blind man would be illegally plundering others. As well, one can think of other “Groups” besides the three listed above, such as “Group One-A: Those who work hard and are not rewarded with the fruits of their toils because of unfairness.”

...

One can hold this view, but it does not overflow with sympathy, generosity, or a sense of justice. When millions of Americans had no health insurance and other millions were being gouged by the big insurance companies, when so many had been laid off because of a recession caused by greedy, deceitful bankers, when the poor stayed poor while the rich got richer through tax cuts enormously favoring them, the “leave things alone” attitude seems morally bankrupt and very selfish. You often see the Gadsden flag at Tea Party rallies; it's the yellow one with the coiled snake in the center. The inscription under the snake does not read, “Don‟t tread on us;” it goes, “Don‟t tread on me.” It‟s an apt symbol for this kind of libertarianism.

If you read postings and comments that argue the Tea Party‟s case on various websites, you will sometimes encounter sentiments like those expressed in the “Three Groups” quote above. Poor people are poor, they say, simply because they are lazy. We should not extend unemployment benefits to the people laid off now because it will just encourage them to watch TV instead of looking for work. The poor people who accepted the banks‟ invitation to buy nice houses for their families at low interest rates were “reaching beyond their class” and deserved to lose them. The rich are rich simply because they worked harder than everybody else, and deserve their wealth. Obama is taking money from those who work hard to buy votes from people demanding hand-outs.

These attitudes come right out of the catechism of the other authoritarian personality that research has discovered, the social dominators. Their defining characteristic is opposition to equality. They believe instead in dominance, both personal (if they can pull it off) and in their group dominating other groups. They endorse using intimidation, threats, and power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. This is the natural order of things, they believe. “It is a mistake to interfere with the "law of the jungle" they argue. Some people were meant to dominate others.” “It‟s a dog eat dog world in which the superior people get to the top.”

Yep. Anyone who's read up on Altemeyer's work knows that Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation are two great tastes that go great together! :scared:

[Timbuk3]

1. K&R

Thanks for the link. I love Altemeyer's work. Now I'm gonna go read it. ;->

[Fumesucker]

2. Yep, double highs (social dominator, right wing authoritarian) are double plus ungood.. n/t

[backscatter712]

3. Indeed. The double-highs are the really scary motherfuckers.

Adolf Hitler was a double-high, as was Joseph Stalin and Dick Cheney...

[Odin2005]

4. I've known this for a long time. it explains the popularity of Ayn Rand with these types.

To them "Liberty" means the freedom to dominate others.

[Meldread]

5. I haven't read the book, but it's impossible to be both an Authoritarian and a Libertarian.

Authoritarianism and Libertarianism are diametrically opposed philosophies in the same way Conservatism and Liberalism exist in opposition to each other. You cannot be both simultaneously. It is possible to be a "moderate" and hold a few Authoritarian views and a few Libertarian views, but strictly speaking if you're being ideologically pure - you can't be both.

This is because Authoritarianism is rooted in collectivism, and Libertarianism is rooted in individualism. Many right wing Libertarians do advocate for some type of "law of the jungle" type of system; the right wing Libertarian may very well believe that he or she will have the ability to become the "alpha dog" in such a system, but it is fundamentally based on individualism. This is in contrast to a right wing Authoritarian who attempts to take control or manipulate a government to directly put power into their own hands.

Like all things, when taken to extremes everything is bad. Collectivism is useful and good when it comes to things such as social justice and caring for the disadvantaged, but it quickly turns evil when it actively begins to suppress individual freedom under the cloak and guise of "the common good." Individualism, which does not take into account human nature, becomes fundamentally flawed and leads to exploitation of the disadvantaged or those incapable (for whatever reason) of defending themselves.

The premise by the author regarding the Tea Party seems to be fundamentally flawed. It ignores many of the root causes of the movement, and attempts to generalize too much. It ends up being silly because you have Tea Party folks who are shouting, "Keep the government out of health care, and keep your hands off my Medicare!" It also ignores the fact that many Tea Party folks love waddling up to the big teat of government and suckling away, so long as they don't have to pay for it. The only uniting factor surrounding the Tea Party appears to be some vague message on taxes, which if you listen closely has many of them wanting government services, but at the same time are angry that they have to pay for them. Nothing is free.

The major root cause of the Tea Party movement is the economic situation, and as it improves the Tea Party will largely begin to burn itself out. The bulk of its members are just average people (who generally tune out politics and public policy) who are looking for a way to vent their frustration, but also find their ignorance being exploited by individuals such as Glen Beck, Fox News, Sarah Palin, and Dick Armey.

[backscatter712]

6. You should read the book. It is quite good.

As he explains, there are two types of authoritarians.

One is what he calls the Right Wing Authoritarians, which exhibit the traits of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism - you see them in Christian fundamentalists and the like - they're looking for a daddy figure, will support him no matter how badly he misbehaves, and will try to force you to support him too.

The other, the "libertarians" - the types who have the Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flags, are the law-of-the-jungle types - the social dominators, which are a different flavor of asshole altogether - they're the social climbers who don't mind kicking other people off the ladder as they're climbing up it, don't believe in equality, don't have a problem with nasty behavior as long as they benefit. They're the types who'll scream and yell at the government for perceived encroachments on their freedom, but don't mind at all if a private corporation does the same thing instead - you work for an old-school coal mine that pays you in company scrip, has no safety rules in the mines, you end up bankrupt and dying of black lung, and he'll be wagging his finger at you, explaining that you entered into a contract with the evil coal mine, you gave them the right to exploit you, so you have no right to complain.

Two different flavors of asshole, who as it turns out, have a few things in common, and are allying together in the Tea Party movement.

[Meldread]

7. I can see how he draws his conclusions.

The Christian Right are definitely authoritarian, but they aren't necessarily looking for a daddy figure - they want to be the daddy. The type that are looking for a daddy figure are those who align with authoritarianism out of fear, this is the Dick Cheney types and those that support him. They are willing to throw away every right they have out of fear of terrorism.

I don't think the Tea Party movement fits the description being made. There are certainly strong libertarian strains within the movement, this cannot be denied, but it is entirely too fractious to be easily labeled. It is, in general, a middle class revolt largely created by the current economic climate. From observing them (ignoring media reports which actively seek to create a 'narrative') it seems to largely be comprised of people who are neophytes to politics. From what I've been able to construct, the Tea Party was originally created as a astroturf movement by conservatives to create opposition to Obama.

They just managed to tap into the discontent felt throughout the country as jobs were lost, wages and benefits were cut, and homes were foreclosed upon... They found people who wanted a way to vent their frustration, then manipulated them with false information. Then they started to lose control over the movement and it began to break apart into various different groups. Now, as the economic situation begins to improve, things are beginning to calm down.

Something may or may not come out of the movement. They are less focused upon social politics and more focused on economic issues, obviously, which is sucking oxygen away from the true and obvious authoritarians in the Republican Party: the Christian Right. That's a good thing in my opinion.

But anyway, more to the point: I find the authors description of authoritarianism and libertarianism too broad. I see it as an attempt to identify authoritarianism and libertarianism with the right, which cannot be done. Authoritarianism and libertarianism can exist on either the right or the left, they are on an entirely separate scale. In the United States libertarianism is often identified with the right, but this was a recent development (the past 60-70 years or so). This is not true elsewhere in the world. In the United States libertarianism is often associated primarily with economic issues, but the reality is that in wider libertarian thought there is a great deal of disagreement over economic philosophy. Why? Because the debate centers around what grants the individual the most freedom possible.

Is an individual more empowered in a situation as you describe (completely deregulated economy in which private business has ultimate free reign), or a regulated market economy in which workers and consumers are protected? Which is worse, an oppressive government or an oppressive business? Is there, in the end, a difference? These are all debates that are held across the left - right libertarian divide.

The irony, I think, is that many I observe in the Tea Party seem to straddle that divide in some type of weird uncertainty. As I said in my previous posting, many of them seem to love to suckle from the big government teat so long as someone else pays for it. The vast bulk of them (from what I've observed) are not right leaning libertarians even if they cloak themselves in their tax rhetoric. They -STILL- want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Education, etc. All of these things would be abolished if a right leaning libertarian were to have their way, such as Ron Paul. From what I've observed, they want these programs to continue, even expand, they just don't want to pay for them.

The Tea Party also seems to be labeled libertarian because there seems to be a large distrust of all institutions running throughout the movement. That is certainly true, but distrust of institutions does not make an individual libertarian - you can be authoritarian and not trust our nations institutions. There are many people here on DU who don't trust our nations institutions, but I wouldn't label them as libertarian: They see the government as corrupted by lobbyists, distrust corporations which they view as greedy, etc.

Another irony is that the Tea Party hates large private institutions (such as the banks) as much as many on the left. The only difference is that everyone arrived at the same conclusion through different methods. This is where the Tea Party really begins to part with the right wing Libertarians that you'd generally find in the Libertarian Party, who view privatization as an ideal and have a great deal of faith and trust in such institutions to do the right thing.

However, the Tea Party's distrust and hatred of private institutions and government stems largely from frustration based in the economic system. This is where the left and the Tea Party part ways - the left has philosophical differences with giant corporations, whereas the Tea Party has this sort-of unfocused rage and frustration which they are directing everywhere. It would seem, to me, that they understand intuitively that they are a problem, but not how or why.

Anyway, I've gone off on a ramble. I've actually spoken to multiple Tea Party folks, and from my own personal experiences with them they tend to be frustrated individuals who are being manipulated and misled. There are many exceptions, of course, as should be expected from such a fractious movement. However, generally speaking I've found that many of them can be summed up like this: "Tell the government to keep its dirty hands off medicare!" That's not meant as an insult, but to illustrate the level of understanding of most Tea Party folks I encountered when it came to the government - they actually had a tendency to like government programs.