Conservatives Without Conscience

by John W. Dean

  What does this have to do with authoritarianism? Everything, for there is little doubt in my mind that Bush and Cheney, in the same situation, would not budge; rather, they would spin the facts as they always have, and move forward with their agenda. The president and vice president, it appears, believe the lesson of Watergate was not to stay within the law, but rather not to get caught. And if you do get caught, claim that the president can do whatever he thinks necessary in the name of national security. Bush and Cheney have also insulated and isolated themselves so that when they break the law—which they have done repeatedly—they have already built their defense. To protect themselves, they have structured their White House as La Cosa Nostra might have recommended, and surrounded themselves with men who owe their careers to their bosses. All of the key staff people close to Bush and Cheney have very long relationships with them. These have been mutually beneficial relationships. Stated differently, Bush and Cheney are protected by staff who will take a bullet for them. That, I believe, is precisely what Scooter Libby is doing for Dick Cheney regarding the Valerie Plame leak, and if he goes down, he knows that Cheney will take care of him, unlike Haldeman and Ehrlichman, who were on their own when Nixon cut them loose (and they turned on Nixon). Scooter Libby is now gainfully employed by the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, and according to the Washington Post, “[H]is salary is on par with the going rate for the deep thinkers—presumably at least as much as his $160,000 White House gig—and that, if he wants, he’ll probably still have time to do some consulting or work on a second novel.”[100]

  Bush and Cheney are protected as well by loyal supporters (ranks of right-wing authoritarian followers). When those few individuals out in the departments and agencies who have been distressed by the White House policy on torture or electronic surveillance of Americans have leaked information about such activities, the political damage has been minimal. The White House takes the hit, and then claims, “Hell, yes, we’re protecting Americans from terrorists.” Many of Nixon’s abuses of power were motivated by a similar desire to “protect Americans from communists.” Nixon, for all his faults, had more of a conscience than Bush and Cheney. They cannot think of a mistake they have made since coming into office, and in doing so display self-righteousness far beyond Nixon’s. Bush and Cheney are Double High authoritarians, far above Nixon’s league.

  What has driven this book is the realization that our government has become largely authoritarian. It is run by an array of authoritarian personalities, leaders who display all those traits I have listed—dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating, and bullying; some are hedonistic, most are vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheaters, prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, and two-faced. Because of our system of government, these dominators are still confronted with any number of obstacles, fortunately. Yet authoritarians seek to remove those complications whenever they can. They are able to do so because the growth of contemporary conservatism has generated countless millions of authoritarian followers, people who will not question such actions. How, then, can authoritarianism be checked?

  Not easily. Bob Altemeyer’s work reveals that only a few right-wing authoritarians who become aware of their conduct deal with it. They stop trusting those who are not to be trusted; they put away their prejudice; they drop their mean-spirited, narrow-minded intolerance; and stop trying to bully people. They realize their inconsistencies and contradictory beliefs, and start thinking critically; they learn to deal with the fear that has driven them to find comfort in authority figures that never really deliver, who would rather keep them fearful. They find true conservatism, which respects the rule of law. They find their consciences. Unfortunately, this is a very small number of individuals; they are the exception and not the rule.

  “Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds,” Altemeyer told me. He added, “They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of ‘old-time religion’ on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going to go away.”

  Research, however, reveals there is a solid majority of Americans who are not right-wing authoritarians, that there are countless millions of liberals, moderates, and conservatives with consciences, people who shudder at the prospect of giving away our hard-earned democratic principles, and who cherish our liberties. These are individuals who question their leaders and their policies, and that is as it should be. Democracy is not a spectator sport that can be simply observed. To the contrary, it is difficult and demanding, and its very survival depends on active participation. Take it for granted, and the authoritarians, who have already taken control, will take American democracy where no freedom-loving person would want it to go. But time has run out, and the next two or three national election cycles will define America in the twenty-first century, for better or worse.

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  Acknowledgments are always a pleasure to write, not because they are done at the end of the project; rather, because they provide an opportunity to call attention to those whose assistance has, in an author’s view, significantly added to the undertaking. This work began with my trusted and able agent, Lydia Wills, who placed it in the good hands of Rick Kot at Viking, whose experience and professionalism are found on every page. Thus, that which works and reads well, credit Rick; that which does not, please blame me. In addition, others at Viking who deserve credit for their contributions include: Alessandra Lusardi (assistant editor), Sharon Gonzalez (production editor), Francesca Belanger (designer), Grace Veras (production manager), Paul Buckley (art director), Hal Fessenden (foreign rights), and Viking publisher Clare Ferraro.

  A special thanks to Sarah Shoenfeld, who did some early research for me at the National Archives and, when my hard drive crashed at the end of my writing, provided her sharp eyes and pencil to help me tidy up the manuscript. And to political scientists Jerry Goldman and Ken Janda of Northwestern University, whose graphic view of conservatism I have borrowed from their seminal textbook, The Challenge of Democracy, along with polling data that Ken Janda provided me. Also thanks to my readers Stanley Kutler and David Dorsen, friends who permit me to impose on their valuable time and who will tell me of errors they might spot, but who are not responsible for those I have not found.

  Researching this book provided something of an epiphany. I am not trained in the social sciences, but I realized when reading studies relating to conservatism and authoritarianism undertaken by social scientists that I had found important information which was unknown to the general public. Professor John Jost of New York University helped me grasp the work he and his colleagues have undertaken in their massive study of conservatism, and he kindly provided me additional reading material to better follow the work of social and political psychology. John Jost’s work led me to the studies of Bob Altemeyer, who, in turn, went beyond the call of duty to assist me in realizing the relationship of contemporary conservatism and authoritarianism.

  The attention that I have given Bob Altemeyer’s work in these pages is directly related to its importance, for it is not possible to fully address contemporary conservatism without dealing with the increased role of authoritarianism—they are, in fact, inseparable. If this book accomplishes anything, it is my hope that it will raise awareness of this fact and lead to further analysis and information for the general reader. Given Bob Altemeyer’s fine mind, quick wit,
and vast knowledge, not to mention his skill as a writer, I have encouraged him to do a book about authoritarians for the general reader. I truly hope he does so. His professional peers already know and respect his prodigious work, and they are aware of the implications of the growing authoritarianism in government. His findings are too important to not be widely understood by all involved with the political process. No less than the future of democratic government might be at stake.

  Finally, I must acknowledge the man who first encouraged this project: Senator Barry M. Goldwater. I have no way of knowing how he would feel about what I have found and reported but I thank him for starting me off. I do know, however, that conservatives could surely use his conscience today.

  APPENDICES

  APPENDIX A

  James Burnham’s Analysis of Conservatism

  The following table summarizes James Burnham’s analysis of conservatism as he found it in the late 1950s, at the outset of the modern conservative movement. It paraphrases and quotes Burnham’s material, adding necessary explanations from his more complete descriptions as appropriate. (While I have no question that Burnham can speak for the founders of modern conservatism regarding conservative thinking, liberals may find his analysis of their point of view less than complete.) My summary is based on Burnham’s Congress and the American Tradition, and principally drawing.

  The Conservative Syndrome The Liberal Syndrome

  1. Conservatives believe that government involves a non-rational factor. Without allowance for magic, luck, or divine favor, there is no convincing explanation for why one government works better than another. There is no rational explanation for why one person should submit to the rule of another’s absent habit, tradition, or faith. But without such submission, government dissolves or relies on force, which is nonrational. The conservative distrusts abstract political ideology as a principle or formula for political life. 1. Liberals have a general confidence in the ability of the human mind to comprehend through rational science problems of government and society, and they often trust in a particular ideology as a key to a successful government.

  2. Conservatives believe that human nature is essentially corrupt, or evil, and is limited in its potential; therefore, conservatives do not believe in utopian or ultimate solutions to major social problems. 2. Liberals believe that most human weaknesses and errors are the result of weak social structure or inadequate education, for human potential, if not infinite, has no discernible a priori limitations; therefore, it is not unrealistic for humans to work toward an ideal society in which problems such as war, poverty, and suffering do not exist.

  3. Conservatives respect tradition, established institutions, and conventional modes of conduct. They are reluctant to initiate quick or deep changes in traditional ways, and seek to restrict or slow the pace of changes that have become unavoidable or morally imperative. 3. Liberals do not believe tradition alone justifies favoring an institution or mode of conduct; and they are willing to accept quick, drastic, and extensive social changes based on rational and utilitarian grounds.

  4. Conservatives believe in a diffusion of “sovereignty” (used by Burnham to mean “governmental power”) and a still wider diffusion of power, thus honoring the “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” envisioned by the Constitution. 4. Liberals think that diffusion of power may be useful against “reactionary forces” but are not much troubled by most power’s being in the hands of beneficial social entities (the common man, the people, workers, and farmers) and will waive concerns about power altogether for certain ideological goals (full employment, racial equality, social welfare, or peace).

  5. Conservatives reject unrestricted plebiscitary (direct election by all the people) democracy in favor of representative government in which a number of indirect institutions mediate between the people and those in charge. 5. Liberals tend to approve of plebiscitary democracy, seeking forms of government that express the will of the majority as directly and intimately as possible (e.g., direct popular elections for president, direct primaries, initiative and recall, popular referendums, election of judges, extension of suffrage, and the like).

  6. Conservatives believe in “states’ rights,” or the retention by each state of an effective share of the federal government’s sovereignty, because this diffuses power. 6. Liberals see “states’ rights” as either unimportant (an anachronism) or inefficient, for it leads to reactionary policies like pro-segregation, anti-labor, and anti-internationalist measures.

  7. Conservatives believe in the autonomy of the various branches of the federal government, and oppose encroachment or usurpation by any of them upon the other branches. 7. Liberals think that strict separation of the branches of government hinders government’s ability to solve major problems.

  8. Conservatives believe the public should support limiting government powers. 8. Liberals think the public should support greater government power to accomplish progressive goals.

  9. Conservatives feel that the American constitutional system embodies principles of clear and permanent value. 9. Liberals hold that the Constitution is a living document, with its meaning dependent on time and circumstances.

  10. Conservatives want decentralization and localization of government. 10. Liberals think that decentralization and localization can hinder solutions to modern problems.

  11. Conservatives believe private, profit-making enterprises are the most just and effective means for economic operation and development. 11. Liberals are critical of private economic enterprise, and believe in government control of private activities, if not some measure of government ownership. They find private enterprises are frequently opposed to the interests of the people and the nation, and that, in many cases, the government can do a better job than private enterprise.

  12. Conservatives hold that the private life of the individual, as opposed to the destiny of the nation or of society, should be the focus of metaphysical, moral, and practical interest. 12. Liberals feel that an expanding sphere of government involvement—in social and cultural life as well as in the economy—results in the best mode of life for people. Thus, expansion of government activity aids in attainment of a good life.

  13. Conservatives favor Congress over the executive branch of government. 13. Liberals favor the executive branch, with its administrative bureaucracy, over Congress.

  While the majority of the “syndromes” set forth by Burnham have remained constant during the past half century, in a surprising number of instances conservatives and liberals have changed places (the positions described in numbers 7, 8, 12, and 13), and in others their differences are not as significant as when Burnham catalogued them (the positions described in numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5).

  APPENDIX B

  Right-Wing Authoritarian Survey

  The Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale[*]

  Note: In including this scale with Bob Altemeyer’s permission, I agreed not to include the full procedure for scoring. In one of our exchanges he told me that “because people tend to believe their own psychological test scores far, far more than they should, my profession discourages letting people know what they have scored on a test.” He also noted that “when people know they are answering an authoritarianism measure, that can affect how they respond—which is another reason for treating individual scores with a grain of salt.” Nonetheless, a reader can get a good sense of where he or she might fall in the world of RWAs from a review of the following questions. This scale is one of several developed by Altemeyer. His current scale has just twenty questions, and he has found it as effective as this thirty-two-question scale.

  1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protesters are usually just “loudmouths” showing off their ignorance.

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

  3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new w
ays and sinfulness that are ruining us.

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

  8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

  9. Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.

  10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.

  11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.

  12. The “old-fashioned ways’” and “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.

  13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.

  14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil and take us back to our true path.

  15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”