Ben approvingly posted a link to a review of a book called Conservatives Without Conscience recently.
Well, the review is full of typical conservative pretense and doublespeak, such as:
The RWA survey teems with other such statements, many of almost irredeemable silliness. Take, for example, “God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed.” Well, who could disagree with that? If God’s laws are by definition perfectly good, then by modus ponens one should follow them whether God exists or not. The statement is as self-evidently true as “All unicorns are horses.” Curiously, however, Altemeyer finds that left-wingers tend to disagree with the statement. One may conclude, therefore, that leftist ideology tends to incapacitate logic—an important result, perhaps worthy of further research, but not the one Altemeyer was going for.
Does the author really think he's made a point, or is he just scoring with his expected audience, just as he accuses Dean of doing? Well, of course, the answer could not be more obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by rabid conservative ideology.
Posted by Alan Hogue at July 19, 2006 11:21 PMI thought that paragraph was incoherent, myself.
Any opinion on the rest of the review? Personally, I find someone who claims to have looked for left-wing authoritarians and been unable to find them especially risable.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at July 20, 2006 05:22 AMWell this is from Webster:
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
Hm, okay, you could definitely include Maoists and Stalinists here. But how about people who believe:
“those with intolerant or bigoted views shouldn’t be allowed to express them in public” or “God condemns anyone who is judgmental or intolerant of people who have different religions or lifestyles.”
It's arguable, I suppose. All this misses the larger and more difficult claim that conservatives are far more often authoritarian. What do you think of that claim, Ben?
But when you get down to it this review is so full of precious rhetorical sleight of hand that I can't take any representation he makes of this book seriously. For all I know the book is really garbage, but I wouldn't take AB's word for that.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at July 20, 2006 10:41 AMWhat do you think of that claim, Ben?
The problem with claims about authoritarianism is that it's hard to find anyone within the American tradition who seriously argues for such a thing. Outside of a few minor characters in American history (some embittered Federalists after losses to Jefferson, the far right wing of slavery apologists in the 1850s, Stalinist and Maoist fringes during different parts of the 20th century), nobody seriously and explicitly argues for authoritarianism. As a result, we're reduced to placing each other on some spectrum of authoritarianism and making slippery-slope arguments.
Take a current issue like gay marriage: it's easy to see opponents as traditionalist or populist, but could they be described as authoritarian more credibly than supporters? I certainly don't think so, and that's not due to sympathy with their position. Which side is more authoritarian about free market/welfare state issues like government-funded healthcare or pensions? I'm not sure the label makes sense -- or perhaps it only applies with regard to specific arguments that usually have a counterbalancing "authoritarian" argument on the other side.
Can you think of some current issues in which one side or another is making explicitly authoritarian claims? Smoking bans, gun control, drug laws, search-and-seizure, Kelo, what to publish about the WoT, immigration: these are pretty clearly authoritarian discussions, but with a couple of exceptions, support for the authoritarian side is depressingly bipartisan.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at July 20, 2006 12:40 PMthese are pretty clearly authoritarian discussions, but with a couple of exceptions, support for the authoritarian side is depressingly bipartisan.
Ah, good point.
Taking the term very literally it does seem, however, that support for vastly expanding executive power and perhaps undermining competing powers has been on the whole from the conservative side. Would you consider that a fair statement?
Posted by: Alan Hogue at July 20, 2006 01:53 PMMy initial reaction is yes -- things like "signing statements" give me the heebie-jeebies. However, expansion of the executive branch has been going on so long I feel like recent history may be blinding me similar efforts by liberals in the past (e.g. Roosevelt's "court packing").
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at July 20, 2006 02:15 PM