Jump to content

U S Elections: Authoritarians, Populists, and Socialists, Oh My!


Ormond

Recommended Posts

The old thread is on page 21 so I guess someone has to start a new one.

I have been out of town for two days and want to comment on something the old thread passed by, the link to the article that lokisnow claimed "demolished" the idea that Trump's followers are authoritarians.

I think that article did no such thing -- largely because no one single bit of research completely "demolishes" a theory or proposition in science (including psychology and political science), it just is another bit of evidence one way or the other.

As a psychologist, I would also really dispute the idea that using the child-rearing measure of authoritarianism as one's ONLY measure of the same while using three different measures of "populism" is at all fair. The political scientists stole the idea of authoritarianism from us psychologists, and although psychologists expect the child-rearing stuff to be correlated with authoritarianism, it's far from the whole thing and NOT accepted as the "best measurement" of it outside of political science, as these authors imply.

In fact, the aspect they call "American identity", which they put under populism, would surely be seen as being as or more highly correlated with authoritarianism by psychologists as the child-rearing questions are. 

Here's a link to a statement by Bob Altemeyer, the psychologist who founded modern research on authoritarianism by developing a psychometrically sound scale for it. Note that he wouldn't be surprised at all by the finding that Cruz's supporters are also "authoritarian" -- he would agree and think most Cruz supporters will shift to Trump if and when Cruz drops out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/2/1494504/-A-word-from-Dr-Bob-Altemeyer-on-Donald-Trump-and-Authoritarian-Followers


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish Stan the Man would stop giving us Aussies a bad name. As for the Donald, I like the suggestion I saw in the comments section of a local article that Trump is more like Silvio Berlusconi than Hitler - with a mixture of wealth, narcissism and populism, not to mention a penchant for a succession of attractive younger woman. Trump's not stupid but I don't see any evidence that he actually stands for much other than a desire to be at the ultimate centre of attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

I really wish Stan the Man would stop giving us Aussies a bad name. As for the Donald, I like the suggestion I saw in the comments section of a local article that Trump is more like Silvio Berlusconi than Hitler - with a mixture of wealth, narcissism and populism, not to mention a penchant for a succession of attractive younger woman. Trump's not stupid but I don't see any evidence that he actually stands for much other than a desire to be at the ultimate centre of attention.

We already have a bad name. We elected Gillard in 2010 and Abbott in 2013. I hope we don't repeat the mistake by electing Shorten this time around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish Stan the Man would stop giving us Aussies a bad name. As for the Donald, I like the suggestion I saw in the comments section of a local article that Trump is more like Silvio Berlusconi than Hitler - with a mixture of wealth, narcissism and populism, not to mention a penchant for a succession of attractive younger woman. Trump's not stupid but I don't see any evidence that he actually stands for much other than a desire to be at the ultimate centre of attention.

His penchant for blaming outsiders, desiring violence and acting belligerent somewhat belie this. Berlusconi is a good comparison for why the US political system didn't take him seriously, but his politics are right out of authoritarian playbooks. Cries to a bygone age, moral superiority, hatred and violence towards the Other, appeal to strength and simplistic policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is almost surreal.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-party-still-decides/ar-AAgHAck?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

Americans speak and think in the language of democracy, and so these arguments will find an audience, including among party leaders and delegates themselves.

But they cut against the deeper wisdom of the American political tradition. The less-than-democratic side of party nominations is a virtue of our system, not a flaw, and it has often been a necessary check on the passions (Trumpian or otherwise) that mass democracy constantly threatens to unleash.

That check has weakened with the decline of machines, bosses and smoke-filled rooms. But in many ways it remains very much in force — confronting would-be demagogues with complicated ballot requirements, insisting that a potential Coriolanus or a Sulla count delegates in Guam and South Dakota, asking men who aspire to awesome power to submit to the veto of state chairmen and local newspapers, the town meeting and the caucus hall.

 

If the republican party actually follows this guys advice, then the riots should be awesome.  As in full mobilization of the national guard awesome.

I can't tell if this is some sort of bizarre parody I'm missing or if he's serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...