Obedience and the Rise of Authoritarianism (1 Viewer)

[ICON211]

Democracy is a left wing principle.

Authoritarianism (monarchy, dictatorships) is a right wing principle.

Was this statement approved by the Disinformation Governance Board?

 

[dozer]

Was this statement approved by the Disinformation Governance Board?

I can’t imagine anyone questioning what I wrote.

 

[roadkill1292]

People who lean authoritarian are making a yuge error in judgement, both morally and strategically.

 

[jon_mx]

Just to make sure everyone's on the same page about the threat of authoritarianism.

Trump Voter Authoritarian Research

A new book by a psychology professor and a former lawyer in the Nixon White House argues that Trump has tapped into a current of authoritarianism in the American electorate, one that’s bubbled just below the surface for years. In “Authoritarian Nightmare,” Bob Altemeyer and John W. Dean marshal data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters.

The U.S. is backsliding into autocracy under Trump, scholars warn

They also find shockingly high levels of anti-democratic beliefs and prejudicial attitudes among Trump backers, especially those who support the president strongly. And regardless of what happens in 2020, the authors say, Trump supporters will be a potent pro-authoritarian voting bloc in the years to come.

Altemeyer and Dean define authoritarianism as what happens “when followers submit too much to the authorities in their lives.” They measure it using a tool Altemeyer developed in the early 1980s, called the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale.

The “right-wing” label refers not to left and right political leanings as they’re popularly understood today, they write, but rather to a more legalistic sense of “lawful, proper, and correct.” It’s used to identify authoritarian tendencies among people of any political persuasion — supporters of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union, for instance, would have scored high on the scale despite having decidedly leftist economic and political views. The scale remains o

Trump Voter Authoritarian Research

A new book by a psychology professor and a former lawyer in the Nixon White House argues that Trump has tapped into a current of authoritarianism in the American electorate, one that’s bubbled just below the surface for years. In “Authoritarian Nightmare,” Bob Altemeyer and John W. Dean marshal data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters.

The U.S. is backsliding into autocracy under Trump, scholars warn

They also find shockingly high levels of anti-democratic beliefs and prejudicial attitudes among Trump backers, especially those who support the president strongly. And regardless of what happens in 2020, the authors say, Trump supporters will be a potent pro-authoritarian voting bloc in the years to come.

Altemeyer and Dean define authoritarianism as what happens “when followers submit too much to the authorities in their lives.” They measure it using a tool Altemeyer developed in the early 1980s, called the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale.

The “right-wing” label refers not to left and right political leanings as they’re popularly understood today, they write, but rather to a more legalistic sense of “lawful, proper, and correct.” It’s used to identify authoritarian tendencies among people of any political persuasion — supporters of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union, for instance, would have scored high on the scale despite having decidedly leftist economic and political views. The scale remains one of the most widely used measures of authoritarianism to this day.

Altemeyer’s scale measures

ne of the most widely used measures of authoritarianism to this day.

Altemeyer’s scale measures respondents’ agreement or disagreement with 20 statements, such as: “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us” and “It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds.”

For each statement, a respondent can select an answer on a sliding scale ranging from 1 (total disagreement) to 9 (total agreement). The final score on the 20-question survey ranges from 20 (total opposition to authoritarianism) to 180 (total support).

The authors enlisted the help of the Monmouth University Polling Institute to pose these questions to 990 American voters in fall 2019. They asked participants to answer the questions on the RWA scale, as well as some separate measures of authoritarian beliefs and prejudice toward minority groups.

They found a striking linear relationship between support for Trump and an authoritarian mind-set: The stronger a person supported Trump, the higher he or she scored on the RWA scale. People saying they strongly disapproved of Trump, for instance, had an average RWA score of 54. Those indicating complete support of the president, on the other hand, had an average score of 119, more than twice as authoritarian as Trump opponents.

Many fervent Trump supporters, Altemeyer and Dean write, “are submissive, fearful, and longing for a mighty leader who will protect them from life’s threats. They divide the world into friend and foe, with the latter greatly outnumbering the former.”

Trump’s personal authoritarian bona fides are well-established, with experts across numerous academic fields warning that his attacks on basic democratic principles present a clear danger to the American political system. But his beliefs and actions are toothless without the support of millions of followers.

“Donald Trump only has the power to flaunt American institutions, treaties, and laws because he has a large, dedicated base who will believe whatever he says and do whatever he wants,” Altemeyer and Dean explain.

Other researchers have reached similar conclusions using very different methods. Vanderbilt political scientist Larry Bartels, for instance, recently used YouGov survey data to find that many Republican voters hold strong authoritarian and anti-democratic beliefs, with racism being a key driver of those attitudes. Researchers have also consistently found that separate measures of authoritarian belief, such as a short survey of attitudes toward child-rearing, are reliable predictors of Trump support.

Not all of the president’s supporters fall into the “authoritarian” category, however. Monmouth’s polling director Patrick Murray, who administered the survey, recently wrote that about 23 percent of strong Trump supporters scored in the middle or bottom of the authoritarian scales used in the survey. Moderate Trump supporters, meanwhile, are split roughly 50/50 between “high” and “moderate to low” on the scales.

Many, however, express extremely authoritarian viewpoints. Roughly half of Trump supporters, for instance, agreed with the 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,” which Altemeyer and Dean characterize as “practically a Nazi cheer.”

Among people who disapproved of Trump, just 12 percent agreed with that statement.

“Trump’s supporters are much more inclined to stomp out the people they dislike than Trump’s opponents are,” Altemeyer said in an email. “This reflects the authoritarian aggression that is a central part of the RWA personality.”

One common criticism of the RWA scale is that it could simply be a proxy for generic conservative or religious beliefs, such as respect for tradition or a deference to religious authority. Murray tested this idea by running the scale without questions touching on religious identity and sexual norms. He found the different versions of the scale produced findings that were nearly identical to the original 20-question battery, suggesting the scale is measuring a distinct psychological attribute that can’t be explained away by religiosity or political ideology.

Contemporary discussions on authoritarian backsliding in the United States tend to focus on Trump and his allies in Congress. But Altemeyer and Dean’s work is a reminder that his followers will remain a potent force in American politics for years to come.

“Even if Donald Trump disappeared tomorrow,” they write, “the millions of people who made him president would be ready to make someone else similar president instead.”

It is kind of funny that educated people use the RWA scale as a trusted measure of support for authoritarianism.  There are only 22 statements/questions in the survey, and they are slanted towards measuring ones social moral views, with any show of support for traditional Christian values is deemed authoritarian.  Example statements which you are suppose to rate your agreement with include:

Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.

Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

 Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly. 

I think is beyond stupid that highly educated people can view such a survey as a measure of support for authoritarianism.   They have simply redefine "support for authoritarianism" to mean how much one supports traditional values.  The social science academia may collectively correlate that those who hold traditional values to support for authoritarianism, but 200 years of US history hasn't born that out.  On the flip side, societies based on Marxist ideologies who strip away traditional families values has a perfect record of leading to authoritarian rule.  

 

[Captain Cranks]

It is kind of funny that educated people use the RWA scale as a trusted measure of support for authoritarianism.  There are only 22 statements/questions in the survey, and they are slanted towards measuring ones social moral views, with any show of support for traditional Christian values is deemed authoritarian.  Example statements which you are suppose to rate your agreement with include:

Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.

Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

 Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly. 

I think is beyond stupid that highly educated people can view such a survey as a measure of support for authoritarianism.   They have simply redefine "support for authoritarianism" to mean how much one supports traditional values.  The social science academia may collectively correlate that those who hold traditional values to support for authoritarianism, but 200 years of US history hasn't born that out.  On the flip side, societies based on Marxist ideologies who strip away traditional families values has a perfect record of leading to authoritarian rule.  

In that same article that you just quoted:

"One common criticism of the RWA scale is that it could simply be a proxy for generic conservative or religious beliefs, such as respect for tradition or a deference to religious authority. Murray tested this idea by running the scale without questions touching on religious identity and sexual norms. He found the different versions of the scale produced findings that were nearly identical to the original 20-question battery, suggesting the scale is measuring a distinct psychological attribute that can’t be explained away by religiosity or political ideology."

 

[jon_mx]

In that same article that you just quoted:

"One common criticism of the RWA scale is that it could simply be a proxy for generic conservative or religious beliefs, such as respect for tradition or a deference to religious authority. Murray tested this idea by running the scale without questions touching on religious identity and sexual norms. He found the different versions of the scale produced findings that were nearly identical to the original 20-question battery, suggesting the scale is measuring a distinct psychological attribute that can’t be explained away by religiosity or political ideology."

And I would love to see those new questions.  I have serious doubts when seeing how grossly flawed and slanted the first survey was that the survey was 'fixed'..  I would bet my life savings that what is being measure is support for traditional conservative values a d not authoritarianism.  I could easily write a survey where the trigger words would trap leftists into supporting authoritarian ideas.  

 

[Captain Cranks]

And I would love to see those new questions.  I have serious doubts when seeing how grossly flawed and slanted the first survey was that the survey was 'fixed'..  I would bet my life savings that what is being measure is support for traditional conservative values a d not authoritarianism.  I could easily write a survey where the trigger words would trap leftists into supporting authoritarian ideas.  

I think you need to slow down a bit and read what's before you. I say this only after watching you a) completely miss something in the original article that would have addressed your first concern and now b) mistakenly thinking the questions were replaced with new questions.  The article clearly states that questions related to religious identity and sexual norms were eliminated from the scale; not replaced with new ones. 

 

[cockroach]

The failure of say the Iraq war was we fought it to spread Democracy to the region. 

Man, I remember the days when those on the right believed and regurgitated this kind of MSM propaganda.  Those freedom loving republicans were so quick to defend the Patriot act and the need for a Homeland security dept, because well, how could you oppose bills with names like that! 

 

[jon_mx]

I think you need to slow down a bit and read what's before you. I say this only after watching you a) completely miss something in the original article that would have addressed your first concern and now b) mistakenly thinking the questions were replaced with new questions.  The article clearly states that questions related to religious identity and sexual norms were eliminated from the scale; not replaced with new ones. 

Here is a link to the survey.   There is maybe two questions out the bunch that might pass mustard for a meaningful response and those are still loaded with bias against specific beliefs  The entire survey is trash with respect to measuring generic support for authoritarianism. 

 

[roadkill1292]

Have been hearing more about accelerationism and thinking about the threads and posts about “civil war”. Not a fan of these concepts. The same way I’m not a fan of authoritarianism.

I want the country to avoid these trends. That’s mainly why I post in here. Prior to 2015, I didn’t really “do” politics. Big fan of democracy, the Constitution, and history. Not politics per se. But it seems like the threats to the democracy are increasing, so I’ll do my part here to rail against these ideas.

I hope people will look around, see the warning signs, and fight for the democracy. Happy Independence Day.

This was a post that made me think a little. It's no secret that I spend a lot of time exhorting for better democracy (apologies to anyone who's sick of it) but my wish for better democracy has made me increasingly skeptical about the quality of our constitutional structure.

I'd like for us to have a constitution that supports the greatest democratic system in history. Right now, however, it seems like its rigidity is setting us up for a crash instead of moving us forward.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Here is a link to the survey.   There is maybe two questions out the bunch that might pass mustard for a meaningful response and those are still loaded with bias against specific beliefs  The entire survey is trash with respect to measuring generic support for authoritarianism. 

I prefer my questions to pass the ketchup. 

Which two would you say pass muster?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Being characterized as "not being able to have adult conversations" most people would take offense to and consider it personal.  His whole post was targeted at blaming me.  It is funny how you think it is a personal attack telling someone they are full of crap who just accused one of not being able to hold an adult conversation.  It would be fun to know how many hit the report button on me, but not on Karma.  

This was a direct tie in to a post by pinkham.  That last part of the post was about the people in general who are saying those things, not that I was accusing you of saying all  those things specifically.   That's why I used the words "the people who are complaining about.... "   

Feel free to hit the report button if you felt like my post was that out of line and that much of a personal attack at you.   

 

[KarmaPolice]

It’s unbelievable that any of you report anyone.  What is wrong with you guys? If you don’t like a poster, put them on ignore.  
 

If you are pro-choice, expect that a significant number of people truly believe you support murder.  Sorry if that offends you but why report someone for saying how they truly feel?  This isn’t a delusional idea - it’s a scientifically sound idea

If you espouse ridiculous conspiracy theories about vaccines, expect that a significant number of people will find that offensive and call you out.  The idea that vaccines are deadly is unscientific.  Why report them for that?

I have 2x, once was silly and I admit that, once was laughing at a post about my family struggling with something to do with covid.  Both the same poster.   

Regardless, I would guess that the report button would be hit a lot less if the ignore feature worked better and it would hide everybody's posts, even when others quote them.  I would also guess most of the reports are not because of what you describe above and more personal shots, and generalizations like "dems are evil" or "Trump supporters are ignorant".  Stuff like that.  

 

[shader]

I have 2x, once was silly and I admit that, once was laughing at a post about my family struggling with something to do with covid.  Both the same poster.   

Regardless, I would guess that the report button would be hit a lot less if the ignore feature worked better and it would hide everybody's posts, even when others quote them.  I would also guess most of the reports are not because of what you describe above and more personal shots, and generalizations like "dems are evil" or "Trump supporters are ignorant".  Stuff like that.  

Very fair points.  I was a bit over the top with my post. There are certainly reasons to report, but I’d imagine it would be a very rare occurrence as it’s been with you. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Very fair points.  I was a bit over the top with my post. There are certainly reasons to report, but I’d imagine it would be a very rare occurrence as it’s been with you. 

I can't confirm, but I would guess that it's not a rare occurrence for some people.    Maybe I am wrong, but there aren't that many of us around here anymore and if Jon is getting reported as much as he and the moderator say they are, IMO that means it's probably a handful of people doing the reporting.  

 

[jon_mx]

This was a direct tie in to a post by pinkham.  That last part of the post was about the people in general who are saying those things, not that I was accusing you of saying all  those things specifically.   That's why I used the words "the people who are complaining about.... "   

Feel free to hit the report button if you felt like my post was that out of line and that much of a personal attack at you.   

I generally don't hit the report button.  It did not bother me, I was just responding to someone who claimed otherwise.   

 

[dkp993]

I prefer my questions to pass the ketchup. 

Which two would you say pass muster?

If it is mustard we may have a serious issue then….
 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/804866-impending-mustard-shortage-what-on-earth-are-we-going-to-do/

 

[cockroach]

It’s unbelievable that any of you report anyone.  What is wrong with you guys? If you don’t like a poster, put them on ignore. 

In the past the mods have asked that users report posts that "cross the line" as they "can't read everything".  I suspect some people are eager to help out there.  Especially if they've been given a forced vacation they felt was arbitrary. 

 

[BladeRunner]

In the past the mods have asked that users report posts that "cross the line" as they "can't read everything".  I suspect some people are eager to help out there.  Especially if they've been given a forced vacation they felt was arbitrary. 

The problem is that the guys doing the reporting are actually the ones violating the rules. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

In the past the mods have asked that users report posts that "cross the line" as they "can't read everything".  I suspect some people are eager to help out there.  Especially if they've been given a forced vacation they felt was arbitrary. 

The problem is that the guys doing the reporting are actually the ones violating the rules. 

 

[Prinefan]

Okay Evelyn.  

Hey jon_mx (and the moderator who just suspended me).  My "Evelyn" post was a reference to Charlie's mom on Two & a Half Men, because in her mind the world revolves around her.  It had NOTHING to do with one gender or another.  Thank you both for my suspension.

 

[BladeRunner]

Hey jon_mx (and the moderator who just suspended me).  My "Evelyn" post was a reference to Charlie's mom on Two & a Half Men, because in her mind the world revolves around her.  It had NOTHING to do with one gender or another.  Thank you both for my suspension.

How are you able to post if you're suspended?

 

[GoBirds]

How are you able to post if you're suspended?

That side seems to get away with having many aliases, been that way since the start. The far Left talking points and posting style make it pretty obvious. 

 

[Prinefan]

How are you able to post if you're suspended?

1 day gig.

 

[Prinefan]

That side seems to get away with having many aliases, been that way since the start. The far Left talking points and posting style make it pretty obvious. 

I don't, but thanks for your vote of confidence in my technical skills.

 

[GoBirds]

1 day gig.

Ah, special treatment again….good for you. 

 

[Prinefan]

Now figure out what I even did to deserve that "special treatment".

 

[jon_mx]

Hey jon_mx (and the moderator who just suspended me).  My "Evelyn" post was a reference to Charlie's mom on Two & a Half Men, because in her mind the world revolves around her.  It had NOTHING to do with one gender or another.  Thank you both for my suspension.

I did not report you.  

 

[Prinefan]

I did not report you.  

It's cool man.  Think I know who did.  Someone who took advantage of misunderstanding my post to bump me.

 

[jon_mx]

1 day gig.

California and New York are criminalizing misgendering of people.  New York considers it harassment subject to $125,000 in penalties.   You are lucky you are not subject to some of the silly rules your comrades are pushing. 

 

[jon_mx]

It's cool man.  Think I know who did.  Someone who took advantage of misunderstanding my post to bump me.

I have watched many episodes of 2 and a half men and in fairness to that misunderstanding, that reference would have never clicked.  Not that it matters, I just don 't get why you would believe that is a reference people would get unless that is a thing in your area.  

 

[Prinefan]

I have watched many episodes of 2 and a half men and in fairness to that misunderstanding, that reference would have never clicked.  Not that it matters, I just don 't get why you would believe that is a reference people would get unless that is a thing in your area.  

No prob man.  Let's move on.  

 

[FairWarning]

I can't confirm, but I would guess that it's not a rare occurrence for some people.    Maybe I am wrong, but there aren't that many of us around here anymore and if Jon is getting reported as much as he and the moderator say they are, IMO that means it's probably a handful of people doing the reporting.  

I used to mod at another forum a long time ago.  It was always the loudmouths who would get reported, they were harmless IMO unless it was personal.   The ones you had to keep an eye on were the ones seeking out personal info privately.