Tracking the Growth of American Authoritarianism

“Can There Really Be Fascist People In A Democracy?”
Libertarians are stealthily taking over America.

Since the 1971 Powell Memo, America has moved closer and closer to Fascism.

 

Government by the Party, for the Party, and of the Party – Part 1b, The Double High House of Delay

Twenty years after the Republican take over of the House, it was time for Gingrich to leave and let the next aggressive authoritarian take over and continue the transformation of the House to support a single party system. According to John Dean, Paul Weyrich had this to say about the former Speaker of the House, “Newt Gingrich is the first conservative I have ever known who knows how to use power.” John then concluded with, “In fact, there was someone else Weyrich would come to know who used power even more aggressively and ruthlessly than Gingrich: Tom Delay.”

Tom Delay - Wikipedia
Tom Delay – Served: 1984-2006, 1994-2006 as Majority Whip/Leader
Family Background
From Wikipedia, “DeLay has declined to comment on reports in The New Yorker that he is estranged from much of his family, including his mother and one of his brothers. DeLay has not spoken to his younger brother, Randy, a Houston lobbyist, since 1996, when a complaint to the House Ethics Committee prompted Tom DeLay to cut his brother off in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
From New York Times June, 1999, “My father was a wildcatter typecast straight out of the movie ‘Giant’. He was a boisterous, domineering alcoholic. We were not exactly an ideal family.” He went on to say, “I was a real jerk when I got elected. Me, me, me. My job was my religion and I was mistreating my wife and daughter.”
Authoritarian Traits –
“By the time we finish this poker game, there may not be a federal government left, which would suit me just fine.”
John Dean writes, “Tom Delay’s Double High authoritarian personality offers an almost textbook example of the four defining elements of a social dominator: the tendency to dominate; opposition to equality; desire for personal power; and amorality. … Delay, in a pattern followed by many Double High authoritarians, became a born-again Christian in 1984.”
From The Two Faces of Tom Delay, “his actions have been corrupt, illegal and unethical. “
According to John Dean, “Delay’s opposition to equality is less conspicuous, but it is certainly evident in the Texas redistricting plan he brokered ….”. Relative to District 23, 5 justices agreed that the Voting Rights Act had been violated.
From Chris Shays, “If it wasn’t illegal to do it, even if it was clearly wrong and unethical, and in some cases it was even illegal, they still did it. There are a lot of people who cozied up to Tom because he had so much say in their lives as a legislator and they’re going to be hurt by it.”
Relative to Tom Delay’s control of K-Street lobbyists and getting a liberal, Dave McCurdy, fired from the Electronic Industries Association lobby, John Dean wrote, “Extortion is not something that registers easily with a Double High authoritarian who is busy manipulating the world.”
Infamous Deeds
According Robert Kuttner’s America is a One-Party State, “The United States could become a nation in which the dominant party rules for a prolonged period, marginalizes a token opposition and is extremely difficult to dislodge because democracy itself is rigged. This would be unprecedented in U.S. history.” Under the section titled Legislative Dictatorship, Kuttner stated, “Political scientists used to describe America’s Congress as a de facto four-party system. There were national Democrats, mostly liberals; “Dixiecrats,” who often voted with Republicans (Congressional Quarterly called this the conservative coalition and tabulated its frequent wins); conservative Republicans; and moderate-to-liberal “gypsy moth” Republicans, who selectively voted with Democrats.” The following is also from Kuttner’s analysis.
Extreme Centralization – “The power to write legislation has been centralized in the House Republican leadership. Concretely, that means DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, working with the House Committee on Rules. (Hastert is seen in some quarters as a figurehead, but his man Palmer is as powerful as DeLay.) Drastic revisions to bills approved by committee are characteristically added by the leadership, often late in the evening. Under the House rules, 48 hours are supposed to elapse before floor action. But in 2003, the leadership, 57 percent of the time, wrote rules declaring bills to be “emergency” measures, allowing then to be considered with as little as 30 minutes notice. On several measures, members literally did not know what they were voting for.”
No Amendments – “DeLay has used the rules process both to write new legislation that circumvents the hearing process and to all but eliminate floor amendments for Republicans and Democrats alike. The Rules Committee, controlled by the Republican leadership, writes a rule specifying the terms of debate for every bill that reaches the House floor. When Democrats controlled the House, Republicans complained bitterly when the occasional bill did not allow for open floor amendments. In 1995, Republicans pledged reform. Gerald Solomon, the new Republican chairman of the committee, explicitly promised that at least 70 percent of bills would come to the floor with rules permitting amendments. Instead, the proportion of bills prohibiting amendments has steadily increased, from 56 percent during the 104th Congress (1995-97) to 76 percent in 2003. This comparison actually understates the shift, because virtually all major bills now come to the floor with rules prohibiting amendments.”
One-Party Conferences – The Senate still allows floor amendments, but Senate-passed bills must go to conference with the House. Democratic House and Senate conferees are increasingly barred from attending conference committees, unless they are known turncoats. On the Medicare bill, liberal Democratic Senate conferees Tom Daschle and Jay Rockefeller were excluded. The more malleable Democrats John Breaux and Max Baucus, however, were allowed in. [See Matthew Yglesias, “Bad Max,” page 11.] All four House Democratic conferees were excluded. Republican House and Senate conferees work out their intraparty differences, work their respective caucuses and send the (nonamendable) bill back to each house for a quick up-or-down vote. On the Medicare bill, members had one day to study a measure of more than 1,000 pages, much of it written from scratch in conference.
No Legislative Hearings – “Before the DeLay revolution, drafting new legislation in conference committee was almost unknown. But under DeLay, major provisions of the Medicare bill sprang fully grown from a conference committee. Republicans got a conference to include a weakened media-concentration standard that had been explicitly voted down by each house separately. Though both chambers had voted to block an administration measure watering down overtime-pay protections for workers, the provision was tacked onto a must-pass bill in conference. The official summary of House procedures, written by the (Republican-appointed) House parliamentarian and updated in June 2003, notes: ‘The House conferees are strictly limited in their consideration to matters in disagreement between the two Houses. Consequently, they may not strike out or amend any portion of the bill that was not amended by the other House. Furthermore, they may not insert new matter that is not germane to or that is beyond the scope of the differences between the two Houses.’ Like the rights guaranteed in the Soviet constitution, these rules are routinely waived.”
Appropriation Bill Abuses – “Appropriations bills are must-pass affairs, otherwise the government eventually shuts down. Traditionally, substantive legislation is enacted in the usual way, then the appropriations process approves all or part of the funding. There has long been modest abuse in the form of earmarked money for pet pork-barrel projects and substantive riders being tacked onto appropriations bills. But since Gingrich, a lot of substantive bill drafting has been centralized in House leadership task forces appointed by the majority leader. And under DeLay, Appropriations subcommittee chairs must now be approved by the leadership, as well as by the Appropriations chairman.

“…DeLay has made the railroading systematic.

“To enforce party discipline, the DeLay operation has also perfected a technique known as ‘catch and release.’ On close pending votes, the House Republican Whip Organization, with dozens of regional whips, will target, say, the 20 to 30 Republican members known to oppose the legislation. When the leadership gets a final head count and determines just how many votes are needed, some will be reeled in and others let off the hook and given permission to vote ‘no.’

“In short, some of these maneuvers had embryonic antecedents, but under DeLay differences in degree have mutated into an alarming difference in kind. Wright’s regime lasted just one congressional session. It ended unceremoniously when a minor ethics breach (Wright’s bulk sales of his book) was bootstrapped into a major scandal by a Republican back-bencher named Gingrich, leading to Wright’s resignation and his replacement by the far less partisan Tom Foley, and then to the Democrats’ loss of the House in 1994. DeLay’s regime shows every sign of going on and on and on — with abuses of which the Democrats never dreamed.”

John Dean, while referencing the Wall Street Journal, concluded with, “at the end of 2005 there were a staggering 13,998 earmarked expenses, costing $27.3 billion. When the Republicans took control [of the House] in 1995 there were only 1,439 earmarked items. Needless to say, there is nothing conservative in these fiscal actions but there is much that is authoritarian about the wanton spending by these Republicans.”
According to John Ydstie, “Tom DeLay was elected Majority Whip by his Republican colleagues after they took control in 1994. Almost immediately, he launched a program seeing to it that the Republicans stayed in power. It was called the ‘K Street Project’ …. The goal was to make K Street a Republican bastion so that the money contributed by K Street’s rich political action committees flowed only to Republicans.”
In September 2004, The Economist, “by gerrymandering to cram Democrats into a smaller number of super-safe seats … while spreading Republicans into a larger number of ‘designer districts which they win by 55-60%,” the Republicans have created a permanent majority and re-election rate of 99% which “North Korea might be proud of ….”
The One-vote Victory – From Juliet Eilperin, “Time and again, on high-profile bills involving Medicare, education and other programs, Hastert and his lieutenants [Tom Delay, Roy Blunt and other GOP leaders] have calibrated the likely yeas and nays to the thinnest margin possible, enabling them to push legislation as much to their liking as they can in a narrowly divided and bitterly partisan House.”

Posted in Authoritarianism   |   Tagged   |   2 Comments   |  

Government by the Party, for the Party, and of the Party – Part 2, The Frist Mini-House Senate

According to John Dean, the Senate “is not yet an authoritarian body,” however, “This is not to say there is no authoritarianism in the Senate.” The Republicans are anxious “to extend their power in the Senate in a fashion similar to what they have in the House.” John points out that they “are oblivious to the fact that by doing so they would make the Senate into a mini-House of Representatives, thereby fundamentally changing the interaction between the inherently cautious Senate and the more impulsive House.”

The Senate’s transformation has been less dramatic than the House’s. One area of change is protection of minority views by preventing tyranny of the majority the filibuster. According to John Dean, “The first recorded occasion when a minority senator used extended debate to defeat a proposal was in 1790.” During the early 1800s, this “lengthy debate” technique became “something of a common procedure.” By 1856, the Senate formalized the procedure in the Senate’s rules. At FindLaw.com, John wrote this history summary:

In 1917, during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule permitting a “cloture vote” by a two-thirds supermajority of its members to end a filibuster.

Yet the Senate did not invoke cloture even once from 1927 until the early 1960s; each of its members wanted to keep the filibuster right himself, and thus did not want to impose a cloture vote on another member. In 1939, Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of a heroic use of the filibuster in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” only decreased the public image of the cloture vote.

In the mid-1950s and early 1960s, however, it was the filibuster that became the villain. A few Southern Senators used it to prevent the passage of laws assuring African Americans the basic rights of education, the vote, decent housing and public facilities to which they were entitled.

Indeed, Southern Democrats tied up the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act with a seventy-four day filibuster, with newspapers and television covering the bigoted Southern intransigence. That was enough to outrage Americans everywhere, and change public attitudes about the filibuster.

With this public attitude change came another change to the Senate’s rules. According to the above FindLaw article, Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield introduced the “two-track” system: “The Senate is generally a collegial body – doing much of its business, of necessity, by ‘unanimous consent.’ Under Mansfield’s ‘two track’ system, the Senate agreed, by unanimous consent, to spend its mornings on the matter being filibustered, and the afternoon on other business.”

This “minority veto” requires a two-thirds supermajority, which the Republicans don’t currently have, to override it. Since the Senate is becoming more authoritarian as former members of the House move to the Senate, they are resorting to cheating through a parliamentary trick referred to as the “nuclear option.” The result would replace the supermajority with a simple majority, bring an end to the minority veto and the Senate would become a mini-House run by a few authoritarians.

For more on the filibuster, refer to The Filibuster, by Professors Catherine Fisk and Erwin Chemerinsky

Senator Bill Frist Bill Frist – Served: 1994 to 2008, Majority leader since 2003
Family Background
In 1968, Dr. Thomas F. Frist Sr. (father), Jack C. Massey and Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr. (brother) formed their own hospital management company – Hospital Corporation of America, today known simply as HCA. HCA is composed of locally managed facilities that include approximately 191 hospitals and 82 outpatient surgery centers in 23 states, England and Switzerland.
Thomas Frist, Jr. – 451st richest person in the world. Came out of retirement to help revive the company during a lengthy Medicare-fraud investigation.
Thomas Fearn Frist Sr. is widely recognized as the father of the modern for-profit hospital system.
Authoritarian Traits
From John Dean, “Frist is Richard Nixon with Bill Clinton’s brains, and Nixon was no mental slouch. Frist is without question a social dominator [authoritarian] … No one describes Bill Frist’s dominating personality better than Frist himself in his first book, Transplant: A Heart Surgeon’s Account of the Life-and-Death Dramas of the New Medicine.” In his book, Bill wrote that he could “hardly help but be a demanding little tyrant. … I ruled not just over my family but over my friends – or should I say subjects – who always opted to come to my house.”
Under the trait of “manipulating to succeed” and “justifying his own conduct,” John Dean provided the following quote from Frist’s book relative to a medical project using cats and their hearts, “Desperate, obsessed with my work, I visited various animal shelters in the Boston suburbs, collecting cats, taking them home, treating them as pets for a few days, then carting them off to the lab to die in the interest of science ….”
Infamous Deeds
Led the Senate to the brink of destroying the minority veto (filibustering) with the nuclear option.
On June 13, 2005, Frist sold his shares in HCA. This was just before HCA reported its earnings for the second quarter would not meet analyst expectations. The stock then dropped about 15 percent.
Here is what he said on Terri Schiavo, “There seems to be insufficient information to conclude that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. I don’t see any justification in removing hydration and nutrition.” However, an autopsy showed that Terri was not only blind but her brain had atrophied to about half its expected size.
From The Seattle Times, “Opposition to McCain and Graham was led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the National Security Council staff and White House lobbyists. Frist ultimately voted for the amendment.”

Posted in Authoritarianism   |   Tagged   |   Leave a comment   |  

Government by the Party, for the Party, and of the Party – Part 3, The Cheney Executive Branch

In this fourth in a series of four, I start with a few quotes from John Dean about Dick Cheney, which John backs up with other details in his book, Conservatives without Conscience:

Cheney is an authoritarian dominator.

Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in American History.

Unlike prior vice presidents, Cheney and his people have often taken the lead on issues, with the White House Staff falling in line.

Bad judgement is Dick Cheney’s trademark.

The issue of Dick Cheney’s judgement must be raised because he is the catalyst, architect, and chief proponent of Bush’s authoritarian policies. In fact, Cheney’s authoritarian vice presidency has simply swallowed the presidency, and Cheney sought to take the office way beyond even Nixon’s imperial presidency ….

Rather than vetoing legislation …, the White House (read: Cheney and his staff) issues a brief [signing] statement giving its interpretation of the new law as it relates to presidential powers.

Cheney is the mind of this presidency, with Bush as its salesman.

Frightening Americans … has become a standard ploy for Bush, Cheney, and their surrogates. [Fear: Its Political Uses and Abuses Vice President Al Gore: Keynote address, Webcast – start @12:23]

Cheney is surely proof of the Peter Principle.

Cheney’s career reveals that it is marked by upward mobility and downward performance.

Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney

Family Background
Cheney’s father, Richard Herbert Cheney a registered Democrat, worked as a soil conservation agent for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Dick Cheney has a brother, Bob, and a sister, Susan.
Dick met his future wife, Lynne Vincent, in high school at the age of 14. They were married in 1964 and now have two adult daughters, Elizabeth and Mary, and four grandchildren.
Authoritarian Traits
From John Dean, “the vice president is a classic Double High.”
From John Dean, “Cheney, it appears, knows how to manipulate the president like a puppet, and handles his oversized ego by making him believe ideas or decisions are his own when, in fact, they are Cheney’s.”
From John Dean, “Among the most troubling of the authoritarian and radical tactics being employed by Bush and Cheney are their politics of fear.”
Josh Marshall, wrote a piece in the Washington Monthly called, “Vice Grip: Dick Cheney is a man of principles. Disastrous Principles.” In this piece, he stated:

  • “… they have an extreme assurance in their own judgment about what is best for the country and how to achieve it [dominating]. “
  • “If there are other groups (shareholders, voters, congressional committees) who agree with you, fine, you use them [exploitive, manipulative].”
  • “Not since the Whiz Kids of the Kennedy-Johnson years has Washington been led by men of such insular self-assurance [highly self-righteous].”
Infamous Deeds
From John Dean, “It was not George Bush who came up with the idea of imposing blanket secrecy on the executive branch when he and Cheney took over.  It was not George Bush who conceived of the horrible – and in some cases actually evil – policies that typify this authoritarian presidency, such as detaining “enemy combatants” with no due process and contrary to international law.  It was not George Bush who had the idea of using torture during interrogations, and removing restraints on the National Security Agency from collecting intelligence on Americans.  These were the policies developed by Cheney and his staff, and sold to the president, and then imposed on many who subsequently objected to this authoritarian lawlessness.  It was Dick Cheney and his mentor [read bully duo], Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who convinced Bush to go to war in Iraq ….”
From John Dean, ” … the best thing Cheney did for Haliburton as Chairman and CEO was to step down and help them get no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq and federal help with their asbestos claims liability.”
Back in 1974, Dick Cheney, Antonin Scalia and Rumsfeld convinced President Ford to veto a bill that would have strengthened the 1966 Freedom of Information Act.
He still refuses to lift the veil of secrecy on his White House Energy Task Force and he may have lied to Congress in the process.
From USA Today, “Vice President Dick Cheney has lobbied Republican senators to allow an exemption [to the use of torture] for those [terrorists] held by the CIA ….”

John Dean had the following to say at the end of his book about the top office holders in our government:

Nixon for all his faults, had more of a conscience than Bush and Cheney. They cannot think of a mistake they have made since coming into office, and in doing so display self-righteousness far beyond Nixon’s. Bush and Cheney are Double High authoritarians, far above Nixon’s league.

What has driven Mr. Dean’s book is the realization that our government has become largely authoritarian. It is run by an array of authoritarian personalities – leaders who display all those traits I have listed – dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating and bullying; some are hedonistic, most are vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheaters, prejudiced, mean spirited, militant, nationalistic and two-faced.

They are able to do so because the growth of contemporary conservatism has generated countless millions of authoritarian followers ….

John goes on to quote Bob Altemeyer on the right-wing authoritarian followers that have helped elect the above leaders:

Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. … And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going away.

John Dean then concludes with, “… time has run out, and the next two or three national election cycles will define America in the twenty-first century … ”

In Failed Single Party Nations of the Past – Where Are We Going Now?, I summarized the conversion of another nation into a single party state of social dominators that was enabled by the “masses” of the right-wing authoritarian followers.

Posted in Authoritarianism   |   Tagged   |   1 Comment   |  

“Can There Really Be Fascist People In A Democracy?” – John Dean Exposes The Authoritarians that Are Leading the Way

(2013 follow-up posting.)

In Power and Absolute Power – What Concerns Me Most, I expressed my concerns about political power being concentrated into one party, either Democrats or Republicans, “… what is taking us back to the really good ole days is that the Republican conservatives are being controlled by the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who want to replace our democracy with a theocracy.” According to the CIA’s The World Factbook, the only Theocratic Republic currently in existence is Iran. Why would citizens in the U. S. want to emulate this?

In Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice – No, Not This Time, I pointed out how this power is being used to continue the “massacre of our constitution” started by Cheney and Rumsfeld under President Ford and continued with Cheney and Rumsfeld under President Bush. I concluded that article with, “As all this indicates, history is repeating itself. And as it was with President Nixon then, it’s time now for President Bush and the bully duo to go.” In Unitary Presidency, Dysfunctional Congress and Judicial Petitions – Is It Too Late to Stop the Redacting of the Constitution?, I continued the description of this massacre and gradual transition to a new form of government, “How much more of this abuse can our system of government take? Has the damage to our rule of law reached the point of no return? Will the rule of opinion dominate our future?”

A confirmation of this attack is the recent ruling by the U.S. District Court in Detroit that, “the National Security Agency’s program to wiretap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution”

In Failed Single Party Nations of the Past – Where Are We Going Now?, I summarized a chapter from an old college political science text about what contributed to the creation of Nazi Germany, “This is some of what happened in Germany and Italy before and during WWII. Could it happen here? Maybe, maybe not. Is there a way to judge if it is or isn’t happening? Maybe, maybe not.”

I have now learned that, based on empirical research data generated since WWII, the answer, according to Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarian Specter is, “I’m afraid so.” Professor Altemeyer’s work and the work of many since 1950 and the fall of Nazi Germany, is referenced extensively by John W. Dean in his latest book, CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE. Chapter 2 of Mr. Dean’s book deals with psychological aspects of “obedience to authority” and the “thinking and behavior of authoritarian personalities.”

Most of his information on obedience to authority comes from the work of Stanley Milgram. Milgram’s work started in 1961 and the results were published in 1974 under the title of “Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

According to John Dean, “this experiment was designed to test … the willingness of those administering electrical shocks to obey the authority figure.” The result of the experiment was that 65 percent of the ‘teachers’ instructed by an authority figure to shock an unseen ‘student’ for incorrect responses were willing to apply up to a 450 volt shock while ignoring their conscience. In reality no one was hurt, but the ‘teacher’ applying the shock could hear the faked screams of the ‘student’ and would still do as they were instructed.

Ten years before Milgram’s work on obedience without a conscience, a study, The Authoritarian Personality, was started at the University of California in Berkeley. Since that study (which has it’s critics) was completed, the understanding of authoritarianism has been extensively updated and validated with empirical data.

The primary contributor to this refinement is Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba. According to John Dean, Professor Altemeyer “not only confirmed the flaws in the methodology and findings of The Authoritarian Personality, but he set this field of study on new footings, by clarifying the study of authoritarian followers.” Professor Altemeyer has been researching and publishing on the spectrum of authoritarianism since 1981. He has written three books and numerous articles for various professional journals.

According to John Dean, Profession Altemeyer has identified three types of authoritarians: The Followers, The Leaders and the Double Highs. The professor has developed psychological tests to identify individuals as either part of a “submissive crowd” or as a social dominator. Those who score high on both tests he calls double highs.

The Followers, as characterized by Altemeyer in John Dean’s book:

  • are “especially submissive to established authority
  • show “general aggressiveness” toward others when such behavior “is perceived to be sanctioned” by established authorities
  • are highly compliant with “social conventions” endorsed by society and established authorities

The Leaders are characterized in Dean’s book as scoring high on Altemeyer’s social dominance orientation (SDO) test in:

  • dominance
  • economic conservatism
  • belief in inequality
  • amorality
  • meaness

Here is a more complete list of the “key definition traits” for authoritarian Leaders and Followers from John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience:

Authoritarian Personality Traits
Social Dominators Followers
typically men men and women
dominating* submissive to authority*
opposes equality* aggressive on behalf of authority*
desirous of personal power* respectful of those with power
iconoclastic conventional*
amoral* moralistic
manipulative trust untrustworthy authorities
exploitive uncritical toward chosen authority
takes advantage of “suckers,”
tells other what they want to hear
gullible,
moderate to little education
fear-mongering prone to panic easily
specializes in creating false images to sell self inconsistent and contradictory
may or may not be religious highly religious
knowingly cheats to win highly self-righteous but little self-awareness
intimidating and bullying bullying
vengeful severely punitive
pitiless intolerant, narrow-minded
highly prejudiced against race, women, and homosexuals prejudiced against women, homosexuals, and anyone of a different religion
mean-spirited mean-spirited
nationalistic demands loyalty and returns it
militant strict disciplinarian, dogmatic
dishonest hypocritical
faintly hedonistic zealous


* – Denotes those authoritarian Leader and Follower traits that Double High authoritarians always score high on. Those (and there are some according to John Dean) who score high on more of both sets of traits than just these, “are likely to be the particularly alarming Double Highs.

There is one last trait that is common to most psychologically aggressive authoritarian types that I did not list above. (Keep in mind that authoritarian is a psychological term not a political one.) Until I read John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience I did not understand, as well as I do now, what brought me to doing this blog and creating the posts referenced above. I have always felt more concern for power shifting to the right than when it shifts to the left, and now I know why. Anyone who takes Professor Altemeyer’s psychological authoritarian surveys and scores high as a Follower, Leader, or Double High, usually turns out to also be politically and economically a conservative Republican. This is why Altemeyer refers to one of his surveys the right-wing auhoritarian scale.

I think the authoritarian Followers are of least concern. Take away their enemies and they lose focus. The real problem is with the authoritarian Leaders who keep the fear and manipulation going. So, who are these Leaders that we need to get out of public office before they turn this country upside-down? I will be providing that information in a later postings (Part 1a, Part 1b, Part 2, Part 3). If you are now too worried to wait, I suggest you purchase and read Conservatives Without Conscience.

Can This Authoritarian Future Be Stopped?
The future is coming

(2013 follow-up posting.)

Posted in Authoritarianism   |   Tagged , , ,   |   9 Comments   |  

August 2006, WAWG Index – Up Another 8%

In this eleventh survey of the web, the WAWG Index group average was up by 8 percent from July 2006. Of the fourteen traits tracked, 9 were down slightly, 5 were up, and 0 were unchanged. The cumulative change for the index is up 64 percent and at a new high.

The only continuous downtrend of “media control” that was up 48.6 percent last month is up another 114%. As with last month’s results, this trait was the biggest gainer for the month. See Concentration of media ownership.

The largest drop for the month was 28 percent for “corporate power gains.”

Posted in WAWG Index   |   Leave a comment   |  

IRS Determines 58 Federal Law Violations during 2004 Campaign – Were Some by Christianists?

In February 2006, the IRS published the results of their review of reported violations of the Revenue Act of 1954 by organizations, including churches, whose tax exempt status prohibits their participation in or intervening in “(including the publicizing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for political office.” The 1954 act was amended in 1987 to clarify that this prohibition applies to activities “in opposition to,” as well as in favor of, any candidate for public office.

The IRS’s executive summary put it this way:

Although charities are precluded from intervening in political campaigns, the IRS has seen growth in the number and variety of allegations of such behavior by section 501(c)(3) organizations during election cycles. This increase in allegations, coupled with the dramatic increases in money spent during political campaigns, has raised concerns about whether prohibited funding and activity are emerging in section 501(c)(3) organizations.

If left unaddressed, the potential for charities, including churches, being used as arms of political campaigns and parties will erode the public’s confidence in these institutions.

In this study, the IRS examined 132 organizations (less than half of these were churches). In preparation for reviewing these organizations, 22 were dropped. Of the remaining 110 cases, 82 reviews have been “determined:”

  • For three cases, the IRS proposed revocation of tax exempt status
  • For 55 cases, prohibited campaign activity has occurred, however, revocation was not proposed. Each case also included a warning “that the organization risks possible revocation of tax-exempt status should it become involved in political activities in the future,” see details below.
  • For 5 cases, other non-political violations were found.
  • For 18 cases, no violation of the prohibition on political campaigns was found.

The violations found for the 55 cases above include:

  • Charities, including churches, distributing diverse printed materials that encouraged their members to vote for a preferred candidate (24 alleged; 9 determined),
  • Religious leaders using the pulpit to endorse or oppose a particular candidate (19 alleged; 12 determined),
  • Charities, including churches, criticizing or supporting a candidate on their website or through links to another website (15 alleged; 7 determined),
  • Charities, including churches, disseminating improper voter guides or candidate ratings (14 alleged; 4 determined),
  • Charities, including churches, placing signs on their property that show they support a particular candidate (12 alleged; 9 determined),
  • Charities, including churches, giving improperly preferential treatment to certain candidates by permitting them to speak at functions (11 alleged; 9 determined), and
  • Charities, including churches, making cash contributions to a candidate’s political campaign (7 alleged; 5 determined).

IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson, summarized the situation this way, “While the vast majority of charities, including churches, did not engage in politicking, our examinations substantiated a disturbing amount of political intervention in the 2004 electoral cycle.”

In conclusion, the IRS determinations confirm an undue, illegal and growing influence of Christianists on our political process.

Posted in Church/State Unification   |   Tagged   |   1 Comment   |  

Unitary Presidency, Dysfunctional Congress and Judicial Petitions – Is It to Late to Stop the Redacting of the Constitution?

This blog began over concerns about where the political powers of this country are taking us. As this blog has grown, my concern grew further as I learned how the two political parties had become more polarized over the last 40 years. Now this polarization and concentration of power is threatening our trilateral form of government. Our constitution is under attack from within by both citizens and politicians. What follows are just the latest attacks on our constitution by those who have only personal beliefs and don’t need facts. I have included references to related postings on this blog and other more recent material.

The most recent example of these believers trying to manipulate the judiciary is brought to us by the Harris County Republican Party. After failing to get a Texas Republican judge to rule in their favor and remove Tom Delay’s name from the ballot for Congressional District 22, they have posted a web petition. They hope to influence a three judge panel reviewing an appeal to the lower court’s ruling by using the collective opinion of this web poll. Never mind what the law says, what counts are the beliefs of polarized voters.

Here’s how the editor for the Houston Chronicle put it, “The credibility of American justice rests on judges’ impartiality, both real and perceived. Attempts to influence the outcome — whether through petitions or briefs filed by elected officials seeking partisan advantage — only damage that credibility.”

In a past article, I summarized another example on the attack of our judiciary by polarized power-crazed believers with no understanding of the law. (The word believers is used here in the general sense, not a religious sense.) Since then Justice O’Connor has warned us of the threat of a dictatorship.

The abuse by the Executive Branch and the bullies behind the President of the legislative branch has been going on since President Bush signed the first “law” to come across his desk. He has added more “signing statements” to Congressional laws than all the presidents that came before him. The total number of presidential signing statements of all previous presidents is 322. President Bush issued at least 435 in his first term.

This practice has become so abusive that Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is preparing a bill that will allow Congress to sue the President. In addition a blue-ribbon task force from the American Bar Association has declared, “Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers”

As for the dysfunctional legislative branch, I first wrote about its sad state last year, where I said, “Like the attack on the federal judiciary, our basic federalist form of government is under threat from ideologues and their impact on the Supreme Court, the Congress, and our two party system.” Since then, Congressman Duke Cunningham resigned after admitting to accepting $2.4 million to influence our laws and The Delay Principle has trumped national security.

How much more of this abuse can our system of government take? Has the damage to our rule of law reached the point of no return? Will the rule of opinion dominate our future? If it’s not too late, are the elections in November our last chance to push the pendulum back before we all loose our heads, or at least before we are imprisoned for disagreeing with the opinions of those in power.

Posted in Authoritarianism   |   Tagged   |   3 Comments   |  

Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice … No, Not This Time

As I have written previously in this blog, I was deceived by another president forty years ago. I watched the man I supported, and worked for, become further corrupted by both the power that comes with being President of the United states and the influence of those he brought with him. What I didn’t know then was that two of the men President Nixon brought with him (who are now back in The White House) learned skills from him which they have mastered since and are using today to manipulate how our government works.

Presidents Nixon and Bush, hired both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Rumsfeld started out as an advisor to the former president and Dick Cheney was Rumsfeld’s assistant. While Nixon was still in charge of The White House these two bullies were kept on a short leash. However, after President Nixon was forced to resign on August 9, 1974, they saw their chance under President Gerald Ford to initiate a ‘massacre’ on our constitution.

By late 1975, Rumsfeld and Cheney, in what is called the “Halloween massacre,” not only got themselves promoted to Secretary of Defense and White House Chief of Staff, respectively, they also had George H. W. Bush appointed as CIA Director. For more detail on the history of the bully duo and their efforts to undermine our political system, read The Long March of Dick Cheney from the History News Network.

Well, my statements here and those I referenced above are one set of opinions of the Nixon Era. What about the opinions of someone who was there. Someone who was also part of the federal government and had a front row seat on this attack from the former president and bully duo.

Back in 1974, Barbara Jordan, a Texas Congresswoman and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, had this to say, “My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

In a recent article on a commencement speech given by Barbara Jordan, Max Sherman observed, “Her eloquent warning reminds us that the preservation of fundamental liberties requires the commitment of knowledgeable citizens, the respect of government and the vigilance of patriots.”

Max Sherman’s article on Barbara Jordan’s view of the Nixon Era are applicable today and include:

Jordan’s message at Howard (University) was a dramatic warning that Americans could “stand on the edge of repression and tyranny and never know it.” The erosion of civil liberties, she declared, was not happening all at once, but one step at a time under the guise of law and order, national security and the invocation of executive privilege.

Although Thomas Jefferson had foreseen a natural tendency for liberty to yield and government to gain ground, Jordan recognized that modern technology had given new meaning to Jefferson’s warning. “In addition to the continuing reality of smashed doors and actual physical invasion of private homes,” she warned, “we know that government has more sophisticated and more invidious tools — electronic tools.”

But it was not the new technology that alarmed Barbara Jordan; it was the Nixon administration’s “shocking pattern of disregard for constitutional principles and due process of law.” She cited threats to freedom of the press, politicization of federal investigative agencies and suspension of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in the name of national security. Dismissing the claim that the president has the authority to circumvent or suspend the Bill of Rights, she described government as “a potent, omnipresent teacher for good or ill.” If the government becomes a law-breaker, she continued, “it breeds contempt for law and invites man to become a law in and of himself.”

Although Barbara Jordan may not have anticipated the magnitude of today’s federal encroachments on individual liberties, she did anticipate their recurrence. “Freedom is the fluid, intangible condition of our society,” she declared. “It thrives in some periods, and it is beset in other periods.”

As all this indicates, history is repeating itself. And as it was with President Nixon then, it’s time now for President Bush and the bully duo to go.

I’m so ashamed of him and can’t believe he has no sense of how he appears to the world or that he is only The Decider because Cheney told him he was. The Christianists may have been the force that got this president in the White House, but it’s the bully duo that has brought this country to its lowest point, probably ever, in its 230 year history.

Posted in Disdain of Educated & Artists, Human Rights Abuse, Obsession with National Security, Rampant Cronyism/Corruption   |   2 Comments   |  

CO2 Emissions – Who Are the Worst Emitters, In The World?

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides official energy statistics from the U. S. Government. The statistics include sources of energy, international comparisons, CO2 emissions and much more.

Energy Consumption by Source, 1635-2000 (Quadrillion Btu)

Energy Consumption by Source, 1635-2000 (Quadrillion Btu)

Click on the image to see a full size view. (Related report)

Their World Energy Overview: 1993-2003 report and other other EIA data were used for this posting.

Here are some general quotes from that report:

Between 1993 and 2003, the world’s total output of primary energy — petroleum, natural gas, coal, and electric power (hydro, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste)–increased at an average annual rate of 1.8 percent.

The United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Canada were the world’s five largest producers of energy in 2003, supplying 49.2 percent of the world’s total energy.

The United States, China, Russia, Japan, and Germany were the world’s five largest consumers of primary energy in 2003, accounting for 49.8 percent of world energy consumption.

For world consumption, the report stated:

In 2003, the United States consumed 20.0 million barrels per day of petroleum–25 percent of world consumption.

In 2003, the United States, which was the leading consumer of dry natural gas at 22.4 trillion cubic feet, and Russia, which ranked second at 15.3 trillion cubic feet, together accounted for 39 percent of world consumption.

China was also the largest consumer of coal in 2003, using 1.5 billion short tons, followed by the United States, which consumed 1.1 billion short tons, India, Germany , and Russia.

All of this consumption means more CO2:

Total world carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and coal, and the flaring of natural gas increased from 21.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 1993 to 25.2 billion metric tons in 2003, or by 17.1 percent.

In 2003, the consumption of petroleum was the world’s primary source of carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels, accounting for 42 percent of the total.

Coal ranked second as a source of carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels in 2003, accounting for 37 percent of the total.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and flaring of natural gas accounted for the remaining 21 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels in 2003.

Now for some charts on petroleum consumption and CO2 emissions from the EIA data.

The first chart shows consumption of petroleum and the corresponding CO2 emissions from that consumption. It shows these two data sets for both the U. S. and the world. The red and blue lines represent the U. S. and the light brown and yellow represent the world.


U.S. Petroleum consumption/CO2 emissions

Click on the image to see a full size view.

As you can see, U. S. CO2 emissions and petroleum consumption have not increased at the same rate as the rest of the world. This may be due to the advanced stable state of our economy and that much of the rest of the world is rapidly catching up with our way of life. There is no doubt that man’s consumption of petroleum products is increasing rapidly and accelerating while growing economies try to reach their stable state. Of course, there is a matching increase in CO2 due to chemical reactions of our consumption.

The table below summarizes the changes for the four data sets tracked in the chart above. The percentages indicate the growth from 1980 to 2003.

Area CO2 Emissions (%) Petroleum Consumption (%)
U. S. 11.1 17.5
World 37.4 48.7

The charts below represent two views of what has been happening to CO2 emissions since 1980. They both show CO2 emissions by geographical area: US – United States, RNA – Rest of North America, C&SA – Central and South America, WE – Western Europe, EE – Eastern Europe (Note this time frame includes the 1991 dissolution of the USSR), ME – Middle East, AF – Africa, CH – China, IN – India, JP – Japan, SK – South Korea, RA&O – Rest of Asia and Oceania.

The next chart shows the CO2 emissions added to the atmosphere in absolute values. They are stacked to show the world total. The fastest emissions growth is in Asia. The only area showing a decrease is EE. It appears that the economies of the former USSR are not ‘progressing’ in line with the rest of the eastern hemisphere. Other more developed areas seem to have relatively stable growth in emissions.


Absolute CO2 Emissions by regions of the world.

Click on the image to see a full size view.

The chart below displays the same data as the previous one only with each geographical area shown as a percentage of the total emissions. While the emissions from the U. S. have dropped slightly relative to the rest of the world, Asia, the top 5 geographical areas in the chart, has increased it’s share from 19 percent to about 33 percent.


Relative CO2 Emissions by regions of the world.

Click on the image to see a full size view.

I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions about the worst CO2 emitter. But there is no doubt that man is producing lots of CO2 and with the oceans and atmosphere getting warmer – there is some correlation.

Posted in Environment   |   Leave a comment   |  

July 2006, WAWG Index – Up Another 14%

In this tenth survey of the web, the WAWG Index group average was up by 14.1 percent from June 2006. Of the fourteen items tracked, 1 was down, 13 were up, and 0 were unchanged. The cumulative change for the index is up 56 percent and matches the previous high from last February.

The only continuous downtrend of “media control” finally ended. It was up 48.6 percent this month, but overall is still down. See Who Owns the Media.

The largest increase for July was 48.6 percent for “media control.” The only drop for the month was 4.7 percent for “avid militarism.”

Posted in WAWG Index   |   Leave a comment   |