whitnebrat wrote:
In response to JoyV and her response to Nickolai:
<<right wing authoritarians>> You could be right wing or you could be authoritarian or you could be neither. But you can't be both. {In my responses I will take every reference to 'right wing authoritarians to say right wing as it is the only way I can answer your assertions.}
Right wing conservatives want smaller government. Authoritarian rule needs a strong central authority i.e. government. If Trump and his followers wanted conformity and intolerance; why would we cheer his political incorrectness. It is not the right wingers who go to the extreme of making rules on what Halloween costumes are acceptable to wear based on the identity group you belong to. There is conformity and intolerance gone to the ridiculous. How is that diversity?
===> From Wikipedia:
"Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion,[clarification needed] to achieve it."
Sorry, but the preferred definition of 'right wing authoritarian' differs from your definition. Most right-wingers that I know fall into this definition.<===
<<"Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity.">>
Right wing conservatives want smaller government. Authoritarian rule needs a strong central authority i.e. government. If Trump and his followers wanted conformity and intolerance; why would we cheer his political incorrectness. It is not the right wingers who go to the extreme of making rules on what Halloween costumes are acceptable to wear based on the identity group you belong to. There is conformity and intolerance gone to the ridiculous. How is that diversity?
===> According to the accepted definition (see above), the quote from Nikki is correct. Social correctness is a must, and it must conform to the ideology of whatever group controls the government. The push for abortion being outlawed and the pushback against gay rights is an example of this.<===
<<"In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favor of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviors of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities.">>
You are describing socialist rule. Who are political dissidents? Everyone may dissent in many ways, and often do. As for constraining ethnic minorities; our constitution does not distinguish people by group identities.
===>Social control is a requirement according to the right wing philosophy. "My way or the highway." Dissent is not welcomed. Voter suppression is a classic example of this requirement.<===
<<"These constraints might include restrictions on immigration,">> Of course there must be some restrictions. But since we legally allow millions to come in each year; the restrictions are far from harsh.
===> This is at odds with what the immigration policy of this president happens to be. He would obviously prefer to limit immigration to white European stock.<===
<<"limits on free speech and association">> And just who is it who pushes for political correctness? Who is it who holds violent "protests" to prevent people from speaking? And who is it who used the IRS to targets associations of people whose politics were not approved?
===>Who limited their campaign events and appearances to only supporters of the campaign or presidency? Most of the "protests" that you refer to were non-violent until one side or the other started it … mostly from the right.<===
<<"It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference.">> That sentence is a good example of meaningless jargon. If it had science sounding terms in it it would be called technobabble. But as is, it is doublespeak.
===> Made sense to me. Most of the right wing would prefer to see a white, Protestant, capitalistic state without minorities or differing views mucking up the reality. <===
<<"Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority,">> Again. It sounds like both socialism and fascism. Both are characteristics of the far left. Do you consider the ranchers we have been cheering to have been obedient to authority? <<"moral absolutism">> I see that trait in both the extreme right and the extreme left.
===>True, it does sound like that. But limiting it to the far left is to put blinders on. If the ranchers that you refer to are lefties, think again. They're as conservative as they come.<===
<<"racial and ethnic prejudice and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants.">> Only the first is seen in both the right and left. Though only institutionalized by the left. Right wingers don't have dissidents as there is too much dissent in the normal course of interaction to identify any particular dissent as being abnormal.
===> Tell that to the LGBTQ population or the pro-abortion folks. As for dissent on the right wing, all you have to do is look at the battle in Congress over immigration. If that's lack of dissent, I'd love to see the real thing.<===
<<"In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manner">> Obedience? Not really. Good manners and neatness; of course. Is it suppose to be good to teach your children to be slobs and rude? But one of the important things you did not mention was taking responsibility. That is encouraged not by merely telling the children what is good or bad/right or wrong/. It is practiced in youth groups like 4H and FFA. Go sit in on a meeting and you will see that the kids elect their own officers and run their own meetings. Adults do not dictate what the meetings will cover, or how they are run. Adults are there as resources, not authorities.
===>"Children should be seen and not heard.""Spare the rod and spoil the child." This teaches obedience to authority and creates children afraid to dissent. The FFA & 4H reflect the values of the parents, and while the meetings themselves are as you say, the indirect pressure from parents once they get home is what defines the culture in the organizations, and the larger society.<===
If you had ever listened to those who praised Trump for being strong, you would have noticed it wasn't to impose conformity on the American people; but to deal strongly with other nations in representing the American people.
===>Then going to the anti-abortion convention today and speaking in favor of their cause isn't trying to impose conformity on the country? Removing safety regulations and workers rights in the business sector isn't imposing conformity on the country? <===
Supporting the rule of law outlined in our constitution is not about destroying "radical new ways". In fact, since our constitution was written specifically to impose restrictions government power not restrictions on the citizenry; anyone wanting authoritarian rule would marginalize our constitution by saying things like, it is a living document to justify making laws counter to it.
===> The "rule of law" is whatever the party in power defines it to be. Sometimes it's progressive and other times it's regressive. But you must admit that there are sections of the Constitution that need modification … such as the Electoral College. The definition of a 'living document' was rejected by Scalia and Alito, and they were wanting to go back to a strict interpretation of the document as written. That doesn't work, since it isn't still 1787. Times change, the citizenry changes, and while the basics are needed, the interpretations must change with the values expressed by the majority of the population. Otherwise you have an authoritarian regime that is stuck in the past and won't move.
In response to JoyV and her response to Nickolai: ... (
show quote)
From Conservative Myths
Most people are clueless as to the common theme of all conservative ideology. This includes, unfortunately, many very well educated people, even so-called "experts" in the field of sociology, psychology, economics and politics. It is not liberty, or small government, or strong military, or low taxes. Liberals also believe in these same things. There are few liberals who do not want the maximum amount of liberty that the "common good" can withstand, or a larger government than is necessary to operate a huge, complex and powerful state, or a military that is less strong than needed for defense of our county and to assist our allies in times of need, or taxes that are any higher than necessary for the operation of that very large governmental entity and its full responsibilities.
Then what is the common theme? To many, including some very erudite conservatives, there is none. They like to believe that conservatism carefully ponders each issue, turning it this way and that to examine its characteristics and qualities, or lack thereof, before making a reasoned judgment and staking a position. Balderdash! The definition of conservative is one who "conserves" traditional beliefs, customs and institutions. Well, one of the longest-running institutions and traditions in human history is the Dominator Hierarchy (DH). Behind every conservative position, on every issue, lurks its support for the maintenance of one or more of the strands of the Dominator Hierarchy.
The Dominator Hierarchy is a socioeconomic ranking system, a continuum or scale, based upon innate and relatively arbitrary individual characteristics, that advantages those with higher ranking and disadvantages, and actually dominates, those people or social groups with lower ranking... including all animals and the rest of the planetary biosphere, which are at the lowest rank. The rewards are substantial: greater socioeconomic privilege, better opportunity and higher self-esteem, advantages which can be parlayed into climbing higher on the scale. Yet this system is also oppressive, exploitative, unjust, undemocratic, un-American, and contrary to some of the basic principles of every religious system. It seemingly endures forever (so far) because it very effectively manipulates the primal emotions of fear, greed and prejudice... and because so many people find it extremely helpful to their own sense of self-worth and that of their clan or "in-group."
The whole Dominator Hierarchy is comprised of at least nine separate strands of hierarchical domination. Everyone is familiar with these categories, but may never have thought of them as a hierarchy of individual worth. Any particular individual can rank relatively high on one strand and rather low on another. So the Dominator Hierarchy is itself a complex system with many working parts leading to great ignorance and confusion, as well as broad acceptance of its hidden-in-plain-sight control and influence in our cultures. The primary categories are:
1. A gender hierarchy (male above female, cisgender above transgender)
2. A skin tone hierarchy (lighter skin generally valued higher)
3. A wealth hierarchy (the richer the better)
4. A beauty hierarchy (beauty above lesser beauty)
5. A language hierarchy (local language is privileged)
6. A religious hierarchy (the local religion is dominant)
7. A sexual orientation hierarchy (hetero over anything different)
8. An ability hierarchy (physically or mentally abled over less abled)
and, of course, the biggest and saddest of all,
9. The matricidal anthropocentric hierarchy of man over nature.
These nine ways in which the overall Dominator Hierarchy is deployed are so intertwined within our culture that they just seem to blend in. This is why the Dominator Hiearachy as a system of oppression, prejudice and injustice is so well camouflaged that even experts don't recognize it. It's just culture. But no it's not... just culture. It's a sickness, a cancer embedded in culture, a malignancy that another part of culture's body - an agent of health and goodness, liberalism - has been fighting against for millennia. Orienting ourselves to how this back-and-forth struggle has been waged over human history is the key to perceiving the Dominator Hierarchy lurking right under our noses, and still getting away with harming individuals, communities, nations, the human family and the precious planet.
Racism, misogyny and sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, bullying, religious intolerance, subjugating, discriminating against, shaming or unkindness toward someone for things they cannot control... all of these arise from the Dominator Hierarchy and serve to perpetuate it. Just with this assembly of bad behavior we have created an amoral mess. Then stir in the overpowering advantage and privilege of wealth. Finally, ladle in a big batch of humanity's self-assumed right of "dominion" over the Earth and everything that stands on it, and you have a recipe for, well, the End Times, but before that a whole lot of pain and anguish and sin and misery.