On Whose Authority?

Just an appetizer before the main meal: in all the discussions and reporting on the high price of health care and oil products, why is it that we rarely hear that record profits in those industries might be a factor?

And a question, before I forget: if all time zones converge at the North Pole, what time is it on the North Pole?

Now to the main course:

In an interview with Dianne Rehm recently, John Dean spoke about his most recent book. It included the idea of an ‘authoritarian personality’, which has apparently been researched for a number of years but hasn’t been included in a diagnostic manual. Not having researched authoritarian personalities I can only give a reaction to some things that Mr. Dean said.

He said that about twenty-five percent of the population can be labeled as having an authoritarian personality. But I suppose it’s only natural that a larger percentage be at the top of business, government, and religion; that type of personality would gravitate toward such positions. However – and this is where it would benefit me to look into the research and get familiar with the traits – it would make sense that people with authoritarian personality would carry some common problems. If it can be, or is, outlined what those problems are we might want to take them seriously so that the problems can be anticipated and thwarted before affecting too many people, or we could use the knowledge to balance out the population of leaders to include other types of personalities and dilute the problematic effect.

My guess is that one of the strong traits of authoritarian personalities is in the way power is perceived, acquired, and exercised. It is probably a very important feature. Unless there is some method of putting the brakes on it, when you pair competition – a quintessential feature of capitalism – with the acquisition of power there is a strong possibility of the misuse and abuse of power. Exhibit A: the Bush administration.

Mr. Dean stated that “not all leaders have authoritarian personalities, but all people with authoritarian personalities are conservative”. I would have to review the research to believe this, but for the moment, since he claims to have reviewed it, we will believe him until evidence says otherwise. Hm. I suppose I also need to know a definition of ‘authoritarian’ before proceeding with the thought. Maybe a later essay. However, just a cursory glance with such blessed ignorance makes it look like Mr. Dean is right. The conservative element in American politics and religion in the last quarter century does seem to ride on the shoulders of authoritarian types.

He also said that authoritarian personalities seem to be of two types: leaders and followers. The leaders don’t like to be told what to do or how to do it, and expect their agenda to be carried out. The followers tend to make themselves subservient to the authoritarian leaders and pass on the agenda with little personal reflection on it. In a beneficent system this would result in a strong, clean rule that is good for most everybody. In a power-abusing system this results in hegemony, secrecy, cronyism, and blind adherence to policy. I imagine it would be necessary to forcibly remove any dissent from this type of system in order to keep it from crumbling in the face of truth and abuse. Exhibit B: the Bush administration.

The sad part: this research has been going on for years and I’ve never heard about it before. All the while power is being abused right in front of us by authoritarian types. If someone like me, a GDL, has to hear about it years afterward only on independent, seditiously liberal community radio, how in the world is the information going to get into the mainstream to become common knowledge, so that it can be used to curb the abuse?

Maybe I could write a blog, and everybody who reads it Googles ‘authoritarian personality’, writes their own blog about it, and emails it to everyone they know. Then those people could Google, write, and mail. It could go viral. Wouldn’t that would be a hoot!