Authoritarian Culture
The common predicate of American politics assumes rational interactions towards a greater good. In practice, in critical ways, as a chronic condition, this predicate is utterly false. A significant minority of Americans — nobody knows exactly how many, but the psychologist Robert Altemeyer estimates around 25% — crave authoritarian order over facts. Indeed, Altemeyer's studies repeatedly show that this minority, for all intents and purposes, completely disregards facts, logical arguments, and internal contradictions in their own positions. So when the authoritarian minority swings into action, as in recent, violent demonstrations against health care reform at town hall meetings, it should not get any sort of hearing, let alone a respectful one, nor should its Republican puppet-masters, because neither have anything of value to say.
Indeed, the idea of "compromise" with authoritarians has no content; it cannot have, because the authoritarians present no rational alternatives. "Compromise," in this context, does not mean compromise at all, but a surrender of some sort. Nor would a surrender to even the greatest possible extent satisfy the authoritarians' anger. Nothing can, because what they reject is the very idea of rational politics.
When the authoritarians team up with a much larger, partly overlapping group of abysmally ignorant Americans, because of the sheer numbers involved politicians, the media, and otherwise intelligent people get suckered into taking them seriously. But this country can't be run on the principle of the lowest common denominator. Those who cannot participate in a rational debate — howsoever many there may be — should be explicitly disregarded. They are a national disgrace. And a joke.
To be honest, I also wonder whether they should be allowed to vote...
Posted by George Kenney on August 9, 2009 12:25 PM 
« The Incredible Tenacity of the Ruling Class | Main | Late August EP Podcast Schedule »
Comments
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w105.html
Posted by: Anon. | August 9, 2009 3:25 PM
If one cannot compromise with authoritarians (definitely true), then how can one reach "bipartisan consensus" with politicians who depend upon authoritarians for votes and who proclaim their fealty to the authoritarian's irrational views?
I fear we are again the victims of a grand bait and switch con. A man elected to bring change and hope not only compromises with those who oppose any hint of change, he compromises before a negotiation begins.
[It's more than a little interesting that Frank Rich asks in today's NYT whether we've been punked by Obama. I think if we get a bait and switch on the public option that a lot of Obama supporters will turn overtly against him. g.]
Posted by: Charles D
|
August 9, 2009 4:16 PM
The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War
The Myth of the Grand Chessboard: Geopolitics and Imperial Folie de Grandeur
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14672
Posted by: Sam | August 11, 2009 4:58 PM
Whatever happened to shunning? You know, where ignoring irrational behaviour was sufficient to put an end to it?
Oh, that's right, the shunned bought the media.
Posted by: Benedict@Large | August 14, 2009 7:42 PM