They harbor numerous double standards and hypocrisies.
They are hostile toward so many minorities they seem to be equal-opportunity bigots, yet they are generally unaware of their prejudices.
They see the world as a dangerous place, with society teetering on the brink of self-destruction from evil and violence, and when their fear conflates with their self-righteousness, they appoint themselves guardians of public morality, or God’s Designated Hitters.
They think of themselves as far more moral and upstanding than others—a self-deception aided by their religiosity (many are “born again”) and their ability to “evaporate guilt” (such as by going to confession).
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. According to Bob Altemeyer,
Authoritarian followers, in all probability, trusted President Bush’s justifications for invading Iraq—when all those who had been in Iraq searching for weapons of mass destruction said there was no evidence they existed. The High RWAs were likely the Americans who told pollsters they believed such weapons had been found after the invasion, when none had been found. They were probably the ones who accepted without pause the administration’s revised claim that the war had been necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Because of their high levels of dogmatism, most of them will probably never realize that this war was unjustified, an enormous error with horrendous costs. They will find someone else to blame for the war’s costs other than themselves and the leaders they follow. Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the president said it was necessary “for freedom.” And authoritarian followers formed the rock core of the millions who marched to the polls in November 2004, often at the instruction of their church, and reelected George Bush.
While the term “social dominance orientation” (SDO) may sound like academic jargon, it is highly descriptive of the personalities of many who run social and political situations and organizations—the leaders who insist on running the show. The word “social,” of course, refers to the general organization of society; “dominance” relates to control or command over other people; and “orientation,” as used here, means their inclination or disposition. These are people who seize every opportunity to lead, and who enjoy having power over others.
Altemeyer explained that his “RWA scale has never been a good measure of authoritarian dominance; it was constructed more to capture the psychology of the submissive crowd.”[20] It was Felicia Pratto of the University of Connecticut and Jim Sidanius of the University of California, Los Angeles, who developed social dominance theory, and a social dominance orientation scale. Building on their work, Altemeyer cross tested for other traits as well, research that revealed the so-called Double Highs, those few who score high on both the RWA and SDO scales. First, a look at the social dominators.
For a half century, the study of authoritarian personalities focused primarily on followers, on understanding how such large numbers of people were taken in by Hitler and Mussolini. It was only a decade ago, and largely by accident that social dominance orientation theory was discovered to be such a powerful tool to study authoritarian leaders. According to the Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, the SDO scale measures not only dominance but economic conservatism and another hallmark of the ideology, belief in inequality.[21] The social dominance scale focuses on questions relating to equality. For example, it seeks agreement or disagreement with statements like the following: “Some people are just more worthy than others”; “this country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people were”; “to get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others”; and “all humans should be treated equally.” The SDO scale even asked to what extent people being tested agreed or disagreed with the very concept of equality. Social dominance orientation suggests an underlying personality that is “characterized by…traits of being hard, tough, ruthless, and unfeeling toward others, as opposed to compassionate, generous, caring, and altruistic.” (For a complete sample of the SDO survey see Appendix C.)
A person with a social dominator/leader personality has a worldview that is related to but different from that of a right-wing authoritarian/follower. Authoritarian leaders see the world as a competitive jungle in which the fittest survive; authoritarian followers see the world as dangerous and threatening.[22] Men are more typically social dominator types. Testing shows that social dominators believe equality is “a sucker word in which only fools believe.” Dominators see themselves as realists, maintaining that “complete equality is probably impossible; that natural forces inevitably govern the worth of individuals; and that people should have to earn their place in society.”[23] Employing other tests on social dominators, Altemeyer found that
[h]igh SDOs tend to agree with statements such as, “Do you enjoy having the power to hurt people when they anger or disappoint you?” “If you have power in a situation, you should use it however you have to, to get your way,” and “I will do my best to destroy anyone who deliberately blocks my plans and goals”; while disagreeing with “It is much better to be loved than feared,” and “Would it bother you if other people thought you were mean and pitiless?”
Equality, Altemeyer explained, “is antithetical to dominance, and social dominators want to dominate.”[24] In an e-mail, he added that one of the more telling findings regarding social dominators is their responses to his equality scale, which reveal that their typical arguments against greater equality are a cover for much baser, selfish motivations.
Dominators are prepared to “proceed with relatively little moral restraint,” for they agree with statements like “There really is no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’; it all boils down to what you can get away with,” and “basically, people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for your own benefit.” They disagree with statements like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and never do anything unfair to someone else,” and “Since so many members of minority groups end up in our jails, we should take strong steps to make sure prejudice plays no role in their treatment by the legal system.”[25] Other social scientists have similarly found that high-scoring social dominators are “potentially ruthless in their pursuit or maintenance of their desires” and they do not believe that their “actions should never cause harm to others.” And dominators believe “that the end does justify the means.”[26] Today it is recognized that such authoritarian dominators are attracted to “status-inequality-enforcing occupations,” like prosecuting attorney or a job in law enforcement, and that they are “over-represented in positions of political power.”[27]
20.
Bob Altemeyer, “The Other ‘Authoritarian Personality.’” In John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius,
23.
Bob Altemeyer, “Highly Dominating, Highly Authoritarian Personalities,”
26.
Marc Stewart Wilson, “Social Dominance and Ethical Ideology: The End Justifies the Means?,”