Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

When John Dean announced his new book, Conservatives Without Conscience, on the TV news program Countdown with Keith Olbermann Monday night (transcript), I experienced A Big Jell: a sense of everything coming together to make conservative behavior comprehensible^*.

Thesis. Dean’s thesis (as presented in the book’s preface excerpt) is that modern conservative behavior is explained by “the growing presence of conservative authoritarianism”:

Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of American government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studies reveal, however, that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral.

Resonance. This finding resonates with Dean as he assesses its role in Watergate, about which he has unique historical perspective: “authoritarian thinking was the principal force behind almost everything that went wrong with Nixon’s presidency.”

This finding resonates with me because, as much as I’d like to hem and haw that conservatism correlates with authoritarianism but isn’t defined by it, I can’t think of a single hardline conservative person I know who isn’t authoritarian in outlook and behavior.

OMG. It’s not an insult to identify authoritarian thinking in someone, just a hard-to-miss observation: anyone’s behavior reveals whether he or she “favors unquestioning obedience to authority,” or else says “Hell, no” to the unquestioning part, or else is in an OMG transition from one point of view to the other.

(My earlier post, Why I became a liberal Christian, briefly recounts my own OMG transition from a conservative worldview to my current one.)

These days I swing anti-authoritarian. As a yute, I was extraordinarily compliant. But as a grownup, I think this is a vital part of being grown up: Always question authority. Is the authority sensible? Is it informed? Is it honorable? Is it just? Is its worldview internally consistent? Do its words and deeds cohere? If not, then no freakin’ sale.

Community. Then, what I thought was safety and responsibility — always complying with authority — I now realize is horribly dangerous. Obedience is not praiseworthy of itself; it must be discerning, it must be wise.

Now I’ve learned that the only sustainable wisdom is consensus wisdom. It is the priceless distillate of sweat, study, careful thinking, and apprehending the still, small communiques from the holy — averaged out over filtered through the hearts and minds of many people, over many years.

In contrast, the so-called wisdom of the “chosen few” — often characterized by secrecy and exclusivity and exercise of might, often led by a handful of authoritarian leaders who tolerate no dissent — is almost always shot through with bullshit.

So how do we make common cause again? How do we spread the viral realization that what we as humans have in common far outweighs the ways in which we differ? And that we should focus our time, talent, and treasure on the in common?

And that unquestioning obedience to unsound authority always leads to grief?

I believe God gives us conscience for a reason. It must never be switched off and checked at the door.

2006-08-23 update: Glenn provides a thorough review of Conservatives Without Conscience, going into significant detail and well worth reading for further understanding.

2007-03-06 update: Today Glenn diagnoses Ann Coulter’s behavior (who recently called John Edwards “a faggot”) in the context of the larger conservative movement. This column was triggered by a conservative pundit’s observation of Coulter that “she’s very popular among conservatives.” (See Salon, March 6, 2007: The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity.)

As when I wrote this original entry, the groupthink behavior under discussion is otherwise incomprehensible to me, so for me Glenn’s explanatory opinions help build a framework for understanding the pathology. (I’d rather understand it than demonize it, which I guess outs me as a liberal right there.)

2007-03-19 update: Dean’s primary undergirding scientific research for his observations and conclusions about authoritarianism is that of Bob Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba, as he carefully credits in his foreward. I see that Altemeyer has taken the unusual step of publishing his own summary of his decades of research as a free online book, The Authoritarians.

I don’t think I’ve ever written down the basis of my religiopolitical conversion, at least not in succinct form …

My conservative worldview came to an end in 1994. Why? I enrolled in seminary and began studying scripture. My transforming realization:

• The primary goal of conservatism is to preserve the status quo
  (e.g., ensure rich stay rich, poor stay poor, and powerful stay in power)

• A primary goal of God in scripture is to turn the status quo upside down
  (a Bible theme start to finish, stated most famously by Jesus as “The last shall be first, and the first last”)

These goals represent opposite destinations. Hence, I infer that the conservative road and the kingdom road don’t ever converge.

Soon thereafter I had my own Damascus Road experience, wherein I was confronted head on, I believe, by the Holy Spirit, who said (paraphrasing):

It is not for nothing I am called “the liberating Spirit.”
Liberating people — setting them free — is what I do.

It is not for nothing that the root verb for what I do, to liberate,
is also the root verb of the word liberal.

You therefore know where my heart is.

And I have been a liberal Christian ever since.

Nothing is ever as simple as labels imply, conservative and liberal included. However:

• Night, while not always dark, tends toward darkness.
• Day, while not always sunny, tends toward light.

Look for trends in the cloud of variables.

Are night and day meaningless labels? Or reasonable (if imperfect) descriptions of trends?

Similarly, I assert that

• Conservatism, while not always destructive, tends toward destructive outcomes
  in part because of its adherents’ tendency to believe that ends justify means, a belief that invites immoral behavior. [I wrote about this phenomenon in ^EJM.] I see nearly every outcome emanating from the last six years of conservative stranglehold in the U.S. as supporting this assertion.

• Liberalism, while not always constructive, tends toward constructive outcomes
  in part because the verb to liberate often explicitly informs and undergirds its adherents’ motives

Conservative and liberal, while indeed labels and therefore imperfect, I think do reasonably describe trends.

So. Is this revelation true across the board, equally applicable for everyone? I’m not certain.

Does it shape every aspect of my thinking? To the uttermost.

2006-07-01 update: I’m pulling the first two comments to this entry into its body because I think they’re an important illustration of the (mis)understanding of conservative adherents.

Commenter Phinster writes:

Phinster: Brother, co[n]servatism seeks not to preserve the status quo, but to cultivate the individual’s spirit and allow each to actualize their own God given potential. Conservativism means (con-with) (serv)to be servant to your fellow man. Man’s purpose is to actualize their own perfect creation in our Creator’s own image.

To which I reply:

Mike: Phinster, I understand the idealism of your assertions, as I am an idealist myself, but the dictionary disagrees with you:

con·ser·va·tism n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. …

Building an argument for conservatism on your definition, which is roughly the opposite of what the word means, doesn’t work very well; it brings to mind Jesus’ warning about the foolishness of “building one’s house on sand.”

Conservative thought’s valuing of the individual isn’t as God values individuals; it instead extols individualism, which sets one individual against the other. [This tendency manifests collectively as “us vs. them,” a stance that characterizes Bush’s America yet is antithetical to the Gospel.] Hence in practice conservatism offers very little “serving with” and quite a lot of “ruling with (others like me)” and its corresponding “ruling over (others not like me).”

I agree that actualizing our potential as bearers of the Imago Dei is indeed our highest calling. But conservatism as I’ve witnessed it is not built to get us there.

2006-07-13, 22 update:
Further related thinking in new entry, On selective respect for authoritay. In it, I think about John Dean’s new book, Conservatives Without Conscience.

Dean divides conservatives into “the good, the bad, and the evil.” Then he explains the bad and the evil for the possible benefit of the good. I applaud this, and want to draw this kind of distinction, too, instead of lumping all together. But I’m not yet able: all I can do is divide conservatives into “the punch, the turd, and the radioactive bowl.” I’m sure the punch is delicious, but its proximity to the [turd and the depleted uranium] makes me no longer thirsty.

“If we Americans are split into two meaningful camps, it is not conservative versus liberal. The two camps are these: the politically awake and the hypnotized.”

I hope this is true (on the wonder and warmth of sane conservatives speaking out against Republican political/fiscal/moral insanity):

A tacit distinction between “conservative” and “republican” has already worked its way into the zeitgeist, probably because true conservatives recognize the damage being wrought under their mantle and are rightfully horrified.

I have observed this phenomenon first-hand in microcosm, but hadn’t dared hope it’s entered the Zeitgeist. O frabjous day! Though dimmed by tears of loss and sadness, [maybe] this marks the renewal of a healing peristalsis.

Thanks, Cedwyn.

Thom Hartmann discusses well the differences between conservative vs. liberal perceptions of morality:

[Conservatives] define [morality] first and foremost in terms of personal behavior: What goes on in people’s bedrooms, what drugs others may be taking in their own living rooms, whether a woman should be allowed to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. In their fervor for these issues, many conservatives think they are the only ones concerned about morality in an otherwise decadent society. …

While personal morality is key in the conservative world-view, public morality is the overarching concern of liberals. Some are so passionate about this morality that they’re led to acts of civil disobedience.

Then Thom mentions a most compelling reason for conservative Christians to rethink/expand their understanding of morality, IMO: Jesus, according to the Gospels, indisputably emphasizes public morality:

Perhaps best summarized in Jesus’ description in Matthew 25 of who will (and who won’t) get into heaven, liberal morality asks: “Are the hungry fed? Does everybody have the housing, clothing, and health-care they need? Are those in prison treated humanely? Are we caring for the “strangers” — the less fortunate or less competent among us — in the same way we’d want to be cared for if we fell on hard times?”

Many liberals would say that what people do in [their] private lives is their own business, and that if we hold to the ancient standard that only those among us without sin may cast stones at those with personal failings, we’ll have a more humane and decent society.

It’s not that personal morality isn’t important. It is. But it’s not a useful behavioral emphasis because we’ve all fallen short. Personal morality is a fruit of the Spirit, an ongoing outcome of a changed life; it’s nothing we can effort into place. (As Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Bennett are learning.)

Public morality, OTOH, is a behavioral choice that’s crucial toward effecting a just and sustainable society. That is, if you’re theologically inclined, toward effecting the real Kingdom of God. Hence, it’s the kind of morality Jesus emphasizes we’ll be judged for.

What I observe here in the U.S., to my dismay and revulsion, is a thoroughgoing lack of public morality among loud conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular. There’s no excuse, and there’s no hiding: more and more, by their fruit we recognize them. The time of playing along that black is white, up is down, is drawing to a close.

See also related Farai Chideya encouragement, Avoiding the Rush to Gloat.

2003-10-28 update: Bob Herbert in a New York Times op-ed illustrates present intra-U.S. consequences of this Administration’s lack of public morality quite clearly IMO (also archived at Truthout).

And absolutely square-on to the point: Bill Moyers interviews Union Theological Seminary’s Joseph Hough —

There is a definite intentional move on the part of political leadership in this country … [that] is not at all compatible with the prophetic tradition in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. And that is the obligation on the part of people who believe in God to care for the least and the poorest. That central teaching, that sacred code, I think, is very well summed up in Proverbs [14:31] where the writer of Proverbs says, “Those who oppress the needy insult their maker.”