Chapter 3 of John Dean’s book is entitled “Authoritarian Conservatism.” Dean says that authoritarian conservatism has been around since America was founded, and our founding fathers were concerned about the vulnerability of a republic:
… they knew that “many republics in history, such as the Roman republic, had been replaced by despots,” political scientist Jay Shafritz of the University of Pittsburgh pointed out. … The vehicle that despotism rides is authoritarianism, and we have been fortunate that authoritarianism, until recently, existed only at the fringes of our government.
The first prominent authoritarian conservative was Alexander Hamilton. The ideology of authoritarian conservatism can be traced to Joseph de Maistre, a French nobleman with a rather dark view of the world. Conservative scholar Peter Viereck divides early authoritarian conservatism into two schools: that of Edmund Burke – the moderate brand – and that of Maistre – the reactionary brand. Dean says it is the neo-Maisterean brand that is today on the rise.
Authoritarian conservatism is comprised of two factions: neoconservatives and social conservatives, the former being a small group of SDOs, the latter being a larger, mostly Christian group who are RWAs. (For definitions of SDOs and RWAs, see this post.) Neocons became visible during the Reagan administration and have been focusing of late on foreign policy. Philip Gold, himself a conservative as well as a former Marine, described neocon foreign policy wonks:
a new aristocracy of aggression that combines 19th-century Prussian pigheadedness with a most un-Prussian inability to read a man or a ledger book, and a near total lack of military – let alone combat – experience.
Dean says that little recognition has been give to the authoritarians who launched social conservatism. He believes that this group includes J. Edgar Hoover, Spiro T. Agnew, Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich. Weyrich was instrumental in bringing the religious right into what Dean calls “the great army of authoritarian followers.” Along with Richard Viguerie and Howard Phillips, he convinced Jerry Falwell to lead an organization they named the “Moral Majority,” which was the beginning of the modern religious right. The men had taken notice of the evangelical support of Jimmy Carter and how such support had propelled him into office. Evangelicals became disenchanted with Carter, however, due to his progressive views. They turned their attention to getting someone into office who better reflected their traditional moral values. Evangelicals were a significant in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981.
[I remember meeting NY Congresswoman Shirley Chisolm in 1981, shortly after Reagan took office. The Moral Majority was everywhere at that time. She said that they had something on everyone in Congress and that there was the smell of fear in the air. She also said that the Moral Majority wanted to move quickly, as they were not guaranteed anything beyond four years, the length of Reagan’s term.]
Evangelicals comprise the core of the religious right, and have become “the filter through which all Republicans must pass,” according to Dean. Evangelical religion historian Mark Noll acknowledges the authoritarian nature of evangelicals, and notes its incompatibly with politics due to the “rigidity of its beliefs.” Dean cites other Christians and evangelicals who believe that the religious right has gone too far, including Cal Thomas, former president Jimmy Carter, former senator John Danforth.
Christian conservatives take not only their religious beliefs into the political arena, but also their authoritarianism. Their primary tool: fear. The biggest fearmonger, according to Dean, is right in our back yards: Pat Robertson, a double high. But spreading fear is not enough. This group has set its sights on taking over the federal judiciary as a way to accomplish their agenda. If, for some reason, the courts rule against them, they believe they have the right to ignore the law; in other words, act as you believe the law should be, not as it is.
Dean concludes this chapter:
The self-righteousness of authoritarians, especially Double Highs like [Chuck] Colson and Robertson, has become so pronounced that at times it seems as if they believe themselves actually to be speaking ex cathedra. Their contention that the president of the United States is not bound by rulings of the Supreme Court, or, for that matter, by the laws of Congress, when these rulings or laws relate to the functions of the presidency has gained increasing currency with authoritarian conservatives, both leaders and followers.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 