Leo Strauss, Authoritarianism, Personality Defects
[Brent recently pointed out that I haven't posted anything political in a while. I think he was thanking me for that, but it actally inspired me to write about politics again. Sorry, Brent.]
I often think of voting Republican as indicative of some kind of personality defect. I say that in jest, but it turns out that there is actual quantitative evidence to support this conclusion:
In an interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, former Nixon counsel John Dean explained a largely unknown 50 year academic study. The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.
That guy is a self-proclaimed fan of Barry Goldwater, and he’s saying this. Transcript and video of the interview here. The data seem to suggest that conservatives are more easily manipulated than other people. Who would have thought?
I’ve also been reading about Leo Strauss (after watching this BBC documentary) who was a professor at the University of Chicago in the 50′s and 60′s. Seems as though he had a large impact on the Bush adminsitration and advisors who say things like this:
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
The Standard offered a fairly weak defense of Strauss and dismissal of his alleged negative influence a couple of years ago. It may be the case that Strauss wasn’t that influential, but it sounds like he was an antidemocratic conservative elitist who thought it was a good idea to cynically manipulate media and religion in order scare the masses into building an international empire. Tell me that’s not what the Bush administration has tried to do.
Damn.
brent
13 Jul 06 at 10:54 am
you know this doesn’t surprise me at all. Im not dogging republicans by saying this, at least im not trying to. However, regardless of how voting tendencies manifest themselves, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see distinct commonalities amongst each faction’s body politique. It also doesn’t take rocket science to realise that from one degree to another republican presidents all have there authoritative dogma in common.
Bringing my thoughts back to Tufte as im recently fond of doing; we see the mechanism(the actual institute of government), we see the function(the carrying out of things governmental) and we see the two intermittant variables (donkey, elephant). We as a nation have seen the two outcomes of each paradigm. My question is, “is it really the two intermittant variable changing the outcomes or the interaction between the two intermittant variables with third party variables(media/propganda/information) that is at the root of all functions. when you get that answer then the office of commander in chief ceases to be an office that is kept in check via checks and balances. This being the case the whole smoke and mirrors leads to a slippery slope.
shawn
13 Jul 06 at 11:01 am
oh, i meant, “damn, he’s back to politics”. oh well, ‘GO KINKY’!
brent
13 Jul 06 at 12:34 pm
“The data seem to suggest that conservatives are more easily manipulated than other people. Who would have thought?” I wouldn’t have thought that — I mean if conservatives are so easily manipulated why didn’t John Kerry manipulate them into voting for him? “Tell me that’s not what the Bush administration has tried to do.” Okay, that’s not what the Bush administration has tried to do, nor is it something Leo Strauss ever advocated. But here’s the irony — you claim that Strauss said people need myths, and yet here you are propagating a myth, the myth of Straussian influence. If you really believe the myth then your false claim about Strauss is confirmed — people need their myths; but if you advance it knowing that it is false, then you are deceiving others — people need their myths. Take a look in the mirror — it won’t be Leo Strauss staring back at you — it will be you.
Robert Johnson
15 Jul 06 at 9:37 am
Ummmm, maybe Kerry didn’t rely on manipulation to get votes? I could be wrong about that, admittedly. If Kerry were more cynical about democracy and less ethical about electioneering he might be president, no?
And I don’t give a shit about myths. I care about evidence, which is why I posted about the research study. It supports Strauss’ ideas, which are disturbingly similar to things that Bush administration volk are known to say.
banksean
15 Jul 06 at 4:31 pm
hey wait a minute, didn’t you (robert johnson) make a deal with the devil at the crossroads? Isn’t your existence (and therefore your arguement) mythical? Are you then trying to disprove your own existence? if so, then i think your point is lost on me…sorry.
shawn
17 Jul 06 at 7:13 am