Conservatives Without Conscience: Chapter 2

In Chapter 2 of John Dean’s book, Conservatives Without Conscience, we are introduced to the body of knowledge available in the social sciences regarding human behavior. Much of what is written only appears in academic writings; Dean urges these writers to get their stuff out of academia and into the mainstream. I agree. Talking to other academics is pretty much the same kind of echo chamber that can exist in the blogsphere. If no one knows about this stuff, what good is it?

Dean became acquainted with social psychologist Stanley Milgram after writing Blind Ambition, his book about Watergate. Milgram’s classic experiments show that 65% of ordinary people were willing to shock others, simply because an authority figure had told them to do so.

The last half century, the understanding of authoritarianism has been expanded by many, including social psychologist and researcher Bob Altemeyer. One such paper, referenced by Dean, is available here. It is Altemeyer’s research that Dean relies on extensively for this chapter. (For other references, see this Daily Kos diary.) From Altemeyer’s research comes the RWA (right-wing authoritarian) scale.

In Dean’s conversations with Altemeyer, Altemeyer goes to great lengths to explain the distinction between a right-wing authoritarian and a political conservative:

So when I use “right-wing” in right-wing authoritarianism, I do not mean the submission necessarily goes to a politically “right-wing” leader or government, but that it goes to established authorities in one’s life. I am proposing a psychological (not political) meaning of right-wing, in the sense that submission goes to the psychologically accepted “proper,” “legitimate” authority. That’s the conceptualization.

Now it turns out that in North America persons who score highly on my measure of authoritarianism tend to favor right-wing political parties and have “conservative” economic philosophies and religious sentiments. This is an empirical finding, not something that conceptually has to be, that was conceptually assumed or preordained. So my statement about authoritarians being political conservatives is a statement of what turns out to be true according to the studies that have been done.

A survey by Markus Kemmelmeier published in the April 2004 Journal of Social Psychology entitled “Authoritarianism and Candidate Support in the U.S. Presidential Elections of 1996 and 2000” employed the RWA scale. It showed it to be quite good in predicting voter patterns for Republican candidates and confirms Altmeyer’s findings that those who score high are both Republican and conservative.

About the RWAs Dean has this to say:

It is authoritarian followers who filled churches across the United States on “Justice Sunday” to lobby for right-wing judges in federal courts; who can be seen on C-Span seated at dinner tables, after paying ten times the cost of their meals, to listen to Bill Frist or Karl Rove give a speech at the Federalist Society; who are the well-scrubbed young people who join college Republican clubs, whose parents or grandparents are delegates at GOP presidential conventions. By and large these Americans have never been troubled by the execution of a prisoner, and there has never been a war in which the United States engaged that they did not support. If they work inside the Beltway, you can recognize them by the American flag pins on their suit lapels or dresses, and you can be relatively certain they are carrying a copy of the U.S. Constitution in their pocket or pocketbook.

Altemeyer’s RWA scale was constructed “to capture the psychology of the submissive crowd.” Social dominance theory and the social dominance orientation scale (SDO) were developed by Felicia Pratto and Jim Sidanius (abstract). Altemeyer used their work to test for other traits, and found that a few people scored high on both the RWA and SDO scales; these he calls the Double Highs. SDOs tend to be mostly male, do not believe in equality, have little moral restraint, and believe that the ends justify the means.

The Double Highs are the ones to watch out for: “they see the world with themselves in charge:”

Ordinary social dominators and ordinary authoritarian followers both tend to be highly prejudiced against ethnic and racial minorities. Double Highs, however, possess “extra-extra unfair” natures, and they can be ranked as the most racially prejudiced of all groups… Double Highs tend to be Christian fundamentalists… “They may think of themselves as being religious and they go to church more than most people do, but they believe in lying, cheating, and manipulating much more than the rest of the congregation does,” Altemeyer’s research shows.

While RWAs and SDOs set aside their consciences, it is believed that this third group – the ones most likely to become leaders in the right-wing movement – have no conscience at all.

Not given to hyperbole in his scholarly work, Altemeyer has nevertheless repeatedly likened the traits of Double Highs to those of Hitler, and to those who are “most likely to mobilize and lead extremist ring-wing movements” in the United States.

Armed with his understanding of the psychology behind their behaviors, Dean created a comparison of conservatives with a conscience and conservatives without.

Dean seem earnest in trying to explain that he is concerned about the nature of the group that has taken over the use of the term “conservative” and corrupted it beyond recognition. I have often said that each group is defined by its most vocal minority. The neo-cons have made a lot of noise over the last 25 years and, as the result, many who have come of age during that time have no real idea of what conservatism is or how it differs from what we have been experiencing. That is a shame. On its own, conservatism has the ability to appeal to many. The perversion of it – appealing to our basest instincts and the exploitation of same – is unnecessary except to those who want absolute control.