[excerpts]
"On the strife between ethnic groups in New York City during the 1960s, Glazer and Moynihan (1970) stated that it was best explained in terms of competition over scarce resources (named the “power theory”). This paradigm views the relationships between groups as a function of their competitive positions, suggesting that mutual group threat creates hatred. The "theory of economic interest” emphasizes this as a factor in right-wing extremism (RWE). The theoretical core of this argument derives from the model of rational decision-making.
Our aim was to gain a deeper understanding of personality as an indicator of RWE. Our findings question theories explaining the reemergence of the extreme right as being the result of socio-economic factors. Therefore we believe that social scientists should no longer attempt to explain Right-Wing Extremism as a social-economic phenomenon while simultaneously minimising psychological factors." [end excerpts]
Well Hallelujah! I've been saying that for years now. Hey! They're really nuts! So quit making excuses for them as if it's somehow our "duty" as liberals to find and bestow excuses upon them; granting their behaviour and the positions they take a kind of false equivelence. The "difference" between conservatives and everyone else isn't one of their having equally valid "just different" opinions, ones that the rest of us would have had we have grown up in the same area with similar up-bringings....
No! They're violent, agressive, angry and potentially all extremely cruel people. But they're also people who exude such high levels of self-righteousness that it makes them impervious to ever having any inkling of that fact or of it ever getting through to them.
In fact its that very sureness of purpose and rightness over their own opinions they display that seems to have placed a lot of doubt among the rest of us. We project our own reasoning onto them by assuming that if anyone like us was also that certain of the rightness of what they were doing, then just maybe that means their ideas on how to run a modern highly technological civilization may actually be valid - and that perhaps we should give their fears and fetishes some credence; that maybe their obsessive needs for maintaining certainty, order, and the status quo power structure - whatever the social cost! - may have some merit. We see so many of our aquaintences, and even our loved ones, doing and saying what they do that we have come to think that it's merely part of the human condition. It isn't.
It's a reaction taken by one small slice of man's wider population; one that appears to have been brought about by elements of the sedentary lifestyle we adopted some 10,000 years ago. This split from our natural lifestyle brought us into an environment where the stimuli are now as different for us as zoos are for other animals. We now have srangers living all around us for the first time in our entire evolutionary history; we are subjected to and encouraged to engage in ruthlesss competitivness for goods, but to do it using extremely complicated and/or sophisticated skills and crafts which the very possesion of will now grant each person a widely different relative social value....all where before we lived our entire lives among well-known kinfolk and clan whose egalitarian socio-economic structures made the hoarding of wealth (that is so common today) something that when not physically impossible, as it was for the most part, but when when rare condistions made abundance common it was almost always redistributed willingly (the Potlatch ceremony of the PNW coast tribes exemplified this situation beautifully...just as the way the Potlatch was attacked by the British also exemplified then and now the cruel insanity that had/has overtaken the rest of us).
Y'see... Fear of change (a classic conservative personality trait) simply wasn't an issue back when a new spear-point came along once every 50,000 years or so.
Now however, *constant* technological changes bring social changes that combine with the distrust and hyper-vigilence of strangers and strange ways makes an emotional or "reactionary" behavioural style not only anti-social, but a danger to our continued existence as a species. Nuclear war and global warming are just two serious threats they now either deny or embrace. Yet reason dictates the opposite approach in both cases. And they will continue to behave that way for every new disaster if the solutions to them also threaten their pre-existing beliefs the way capitalism has become so central to their beliefs here....or Islam is in Saudi Arabia.
Science has nothing to do with their rejection of AGW. What they cannot accept is any reassessment about the basic "goodness" of wealth and it's pursuit. They can't reasess it without a collapse of all those things they so self-righteously defended in the past.
So it's either them or us. And "we" are the other 70% of mankind not afflicted with "conservatism" as a predisposition, so....
Subscribe To PEACE DIVIDEND
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Authoritarians
The Authoritarians
"...an easy-ride journey through some very relevant scientific studies done on the authoritarian personality. For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?
Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.
Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us.
Yes, the research shows us that Right-Wing Authoritarians are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank and file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together? Click the link." - Dr. Bob Altemeyer (2006)
"...an easy-ride journey through some very relevant scientific studies done on the authoritarian personality. For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?
Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.
Don’t think for a minute this doesn’t concern you personally. Let me ask you, as we’re passing the time here, how many ordinary people do you think an evil authority would have to order to kill you before he found someone who would, unjustly, out of sheer obedience, just because the authority said to? What sort of person is most likely to follow such an order? What kind of official is most likely to give that order, if it suited his purposes? Look at what experiments tell us.
Yes, the research shows us that Right-Wing Authoritarians are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank and file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together? Click the link." - Dr. Bob Altemeyer (2006)
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
ABSTRACT
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A metaanalysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: - death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09).
The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A metaanalysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: - death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09).
The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
Criminality and Conservatism
Change in the Conservative Personality Equals Change in the Offender with a Resultant Reduction in Recidivism
by Michael D. Parsons and Jennifer G. Parsons\
Abstract
Offenders have many of the characteristics of the conservative personality as defined by Adorno, Collins, Wilson, and Boshier. The characteristics of the conservative personality limit change necessary for rehabilitation. Until that personality is modified, it is very difficult to reduce recidivism. Modification of the conservative personality through education and environment can lead to change in the offender’s behavior.
Is it possible to reduce violence by the criminal offender during incarceration? This paper presents the basis for a model which deals with certain offenders through an educational effort to modify some of their negative characteristics which include violence. The model in this paper is based on the concept of a conservative/authoritarian personality as it is found in offenders. The concept of the authoritarian personality remains important today as evidenced by coverage in current introductory psychology textbooks (Crooks & Stein, 1991; Dworetzky, 1991; Gleitman, 1991). "It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities. It is postulated in this paper that the offender has a conservative personality and, therefore, manifests that violence.
by Michael D. Parsons and Jennifer G. Parsons\
Abstract
Offenders have many of the characteristics of the conservative personality as defined by Adorno, Collins, Wilson, and Boshier. The characteristics of the conservative personality limit change necessary for rehabilitation. Until that personality is modified, it is very difficult to reduce recidivism. Modification of the conservative personality through education and environment can lead to change in the offender’s behavior.
Is it possible to reduce violence by the criminal offender during incarceration? This paper presents the basis for a model which deals with certain offenders through an educational effort to modify some of their negative characteristics which include violence. The model in this paper is based on the concept of a conservative/authoritarian personality as it is found in offenders. The concept of the authoritarian personality remains important today as evidenced by coverage in current introductory psychology textbooks (Crooks & Stein, 1991; Dworetzky, 1991; Gleitman, 1991). "It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities. It is postulated in this paper that the offender has a conservative personality and, therefore, manifests that violence.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
False Promises
Most people over 30 will remember a time when they grudgingly payed their taxes while being told it was necessary to keep Western military power at a level sufficient to keep the Soviet war-machine at bay lest we see our freedoms taken - perhaps in a nuclear flash of energy launched from one of those increasingly stealthy Soviet submarines we were told our money was needed to protect us all from.
We payed, and we kept paying. And we did it - more or less of our own volition - through the application of something we all know better as the ol' carrot and stick technique. Of course the 'carrot' was the US military's promised protection of us from Soviet invasion and/or nuclear destruction. The stick was....well. You get the picture. The stick was the fact that we had to keep paying our taxes or die a horrible death.
But, at least the carrot did come with a little added incentive to try and make up for the drastic downside they offered us - something we liked to call the "Peace Dividend".
Although a suspiciously sparse Wikipedia entry gives credit for popularising the term to G.H.W.Bush and Margaret Thatcher, I'm certain I heard it being promised us quite a bit earlier than that. In any case, a short definition is that it refers to the eventual redirection of the massive flow that our tax dollars had been taking into the military's coffers, and back toward our own use so we could at last begin paying for our childrens education, our health, and all those other science and non-military tech-sectors that, to date, had had to make due with whatever fell from the military-industrial complex's rather opulently furnished and well-stocked banquet table.
All these areas of civil society had been allowed to suffer increasingly poor funding, while the Pentagon and aerospace-arms industries had grown. The MIC and related business and industries had all been expanding by leaps and bounds right from WWll to today. And it had been delivered to them using rhetoric and fear-mongering our politicians had long since learned they could ring like a cow-bell whenever us - their constituents - got too used to the good life, or even just began thinking like citizens of a democratic country, at peace with themselves and the rest of the world.
By always dangling the "peace dividend" just a few more years ahead of our noses, they kept hope alive that maybe after all the years of suffering, the contrast between the years of security spending and the soon-to-be-realized peace dividend would surely seem even all that much sweeter.
Well. Not surprisingly, neither Reagan or Dubya Sr. ever delivered on it. But President Bill Clinton's term in office saw such a remarkable period of economic growth that with the surplus he managed to set up during his term in office, the payout of the peace dividend seemed like it was probably a sure thing waiting just around the corner....finally!
But alas! Throughout Clinton's term there were dark forces at work.....many of whom had undoubtedly begun a search for ways of maintaining their fiefdoms years before the Cold War had ended. The largest and most powerful sector of the American economy had long since become entirely dependent on the government teat. As such, they could afford to have smart men being paid very well to foresee events like that; this so they could take pro active steps to see to it the status quo would continue as such in perpetuity.
Indeed, one of Reagan's more hawkish acolytes, a Mr. Dick Cheney, then recently out of politics himself and back working his extensive connections and contacts in the U.S. arms industry, had been tapped by persons as yet unknown to come up with an idea on how to put a stop to the looming catastrophe (as they saw it) now that the Cold War had finally come to an end. Especially given that the whispers for that long hoped for Peace Dividend had grown to an audible murmur -- one that the always-nervous politicians would certainly hear and perhaps see as their winning ticket in the upcoming election cycle.
So Cheney took up the challenge, along with an Jewish-American, dual-citizenship Isreali, far-right Likud friendly Zionist by the name of Paul Wolfowitz.
And these two apparently did come up with a white paper - the details of which we are still unsure of. History has only been able to tell us that other members of the GOP leadership decided the contents of it were too hawkish for the more dainty sensibilities of the population of this particular democratic republic. That must have been one extraordinary paper considering who we're talking about as having judged it so extreme they felt it neccesary to have the contents deep-sixed and kept away from prying eyes forever.
But alas! That wasn't really the end of it in any case, because it wasn't long before Cheney and Wolfowitz got together with a more media-savvy fellow traveller by the name of William Kristol. He, along with names like Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby, and a whole host of very conservative hawks we would later come to know collectively as "the neocons", soon set about forming a lovely little gang they - in a moment of patriotic zeal no doubt, decided to call "The Project for the New American Century", or PNAC.
From there they re-tooled their ideas into a variety of shapes and forms until they came up with one they decided to call "Rearming America's Defences". This they promptly sent off to President Bill Clinton, who was then still occupying the Oval Office. Thankfully, he rejected their ideas. And not surprisingly at all, given it's call for things like an immediate increase of 33% to the military budget - this remember, despite it being a time of general peace and prosperity in America with no other superpower in existence to threaten it.
But perhaps more significant in their eyes, it was a time likely to give hope to a populace now daring to think they should actually be rewarded for the time they spent paying up the military for all those years.... and that maybe it was time for the military to return the favor by paying for our health and education in a reciprocal gesture of gratitude. Either that.... or we could simply begin spending our own taxes on our needs and desires rather than continue having it go toward Lockheed-Martin et al the way we had always done things in the past.
But it was all moot regardless.
Clinton was too slow...or perhaps just unwilling like the rest of them. And upon the, err.., election of King Dubya, Cheney, Wolf-boy, and a whole retinue of empire-builders over at PNAC moved out of their think-tank closets and into some of the most important and powerful positions there were at the White House, the Pentagon, and elsewhere throughout Washington.
As for the 'Rearming America's Defenses' document? Well. "So what?" if it contained dozens of hair-brain suggestions like, say, attacking another nation pre-emptively - an action any idiot could plainly see was a clear violation of treaties the US had signed, not to mention international law. "So what? I'm sure Bush said to himself. It's only Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I'm sure nobody will really care once the PNAC-promised 'cake-walk' victory is over and I'm looking like the hero that I'm sure God wants me to be".
Yeah. So-fucking-what indeed.
We payed, and we kept paying. And we did it - more or less of our own volition - through the application of something we all know better as the ol' carrot and stick technique. Of course the 'carrot' was the US military's promised protection of us from Soviet invasion and/or nuclear destruction. The stick was....well. You get the picture. The stick was the fact that we had to keep paying our taxes or die a horrible death.
But, at least the carrot did come with a little added incentive to try and make up for the drastic downside they offered us - something we liked to call the "Peace Dividend".
Although a suspiciously sparse Wikipedia entry gives credit for popularising the term to G.H.W.Bush and Margaret Thatcher, I'm certain I heard it being promised us quite a bit earlier than that. In any case, a short definition is that it refers to the eventual redirection of the massive flow that our tax dollars had been taking into the military's coffers, and back toward our own use so we could at last begin paying for our childrens education, our health, and all those other science and non-military tech-sectors that, to date, had had to make due with whatever fell from the military-industrial complex's rather opulently furnished and well-stocked banquet table.
All these areas of civil society had been allowed to suffer increasingly poor funding, while the Pentagon and aerospace-arms industries had grown. The MIC and related business and industries had all been expanding by leaps and bounds right from WWll to today. And it had been delivered to them using rhetoric and fear-mongering our politicians had long since learned they could ring like a cow-bell whenever us - their constituents - got too used to the good life, or even just began thinking like citizens of a democratic country, at peace with themselves and the rest of the world.
By always dangling the "peace dividend" just a few more years ahead of our noses, they kept hope alive that maybe after all the years of suffering, the contrast between the years of security spending and the soon-to-be-realized peace dividend would surely seem even all that much sweeter.
Well. Not surprisingly, neither Reagan or Dubya Sr. ever delivered on it. But President Bill Clinton's term in office saw such a remarkable period of economic growth that with the surplus he managed to set up during his term in office, the payout of the peace dividend seemed like it was probably a sure thing waiting just around the corner....finally!
But alas! Throughout Clinton's term there were dark forces at work.....many of whom had undoubtedly begun a search for ways of maintaining their fiefdoms years before the Cold War had ended. The largest and most powerful sector of the American economy had long since become entirely dependent on the government teat. As such, they could afford to have smart men being paid very well to foresee events like that; this so they could take pro active steps to see to it the status quo would continue as such in perpetuity.
Indeed, one of Reagan's more hawkish acolytes, a Mr. Dick Cheney, then recently out of politics himself and back working his extensive connections and contacts in the U.S. arms industry, had been tapped by persons as yet unknown to come up with an idea on how to put a stop to the looming catastrophe (as they saw it) now that the Cold War had finally come to an end. Especially given that the whispers for that long hoped for Peace Dividend had grown to an audible murmur -- one that the always-nervous politicians would certainly hear and perhaps see as their winning ticket in the upcoming election cycle.
So Cheney took up the challenge, along with an Jewish-American, dual-citizenship Isreali, far-right Likud friendly Zionist by the name of Paul Wolfowitz.
And these two apparently did come up with a white paper - the details of which we are still unsure of. History has only been able to tell us that other members of the GOP leadership decided the contents of it were too hawkish for the more dainty sensibilities of the population of this particular democratic republic. That must have been one extraordinary paper considering who we're talking about as having judged it so extreme they felt it neccesary to have the contents deep-sixed and kept away from prying eyes forever.
But alas! That wasn't really the end of it in any case, because it wasn't long before Cheney and Wolfowitz got together with a more media-savvy fellow traveller by the name of William Kristol. He, along with names like Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby, and a whole host of very conservative hawks we would later come to know collectively as "the neocons", soon set about forming a lovely little gang they - in a moment of patriotic zeal no doubt, decided to call "The Project for the New American Century", or PNAC.
From there they re-tooled their ideas into a variety of shapes and forms until they came up with one they decided to call "Rearming America's Defences". This they promptly sent off to President Bill Clinton, who was then still occupying the Oval Office. Thankfully, he rejected their ideas. And not surprisingly at all, given it's call for things like an immediate increase of 33% to the military budget - this remember, despite it being a time of general peace and prosperity in America with no other superpower in existence to threaten it.
But perhaps more significant in their eyes, it was a time likely to give hope to a populace now daring to think they should actually be rewarded for the time they spent paying up the military for all those years.... and that maybe it was time for the military to return the favor by paying for our health and education in a reciprocal gesture of gratitude. Either that.... or we could simply begin spending our own taxes on our needs and desires rather than continue having it go toward Lockheed-Martin et al the way we had always done things in the past.
But it was all moot regardless.
Clinton was too slow...or perhaps just unwilling like the rest of them. And upon the, err.., election of King Dubya, Cheney, Wolf-boy, and a whole retinue of empire-builders over at PNAC moved out of their think-tank closets and into some of the most important and powerful positions there were at the White House, the Pentagon, and elsewhere throughout Washington.
As for the 'Rearming America's Defenses' document? Well. "So what?" if it contained dozens of hair-brain suggestions like, say, attacking another nation pre-emptively - an action any idiot could plainly see was a clear violation of treaties the US had signed, not to mention international law. "So what? I'm sure Bush said to himself. It's only Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I'm sure nobody will really care once the PNAC-promised 'cake-walk' victory is over and I'm looking like the hero that I'm sure God wants me to be".
Yeah. So-fucking-what indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)