Conservatives Without Conscience

“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,” Altemeyer told me. He added, “They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. The problem is that these authoritarian followers are much more active than the rest of the country. They have the mentality of ‘old-time religion’ on a crusade, and they generously give money, time and effort to the cause. They proselytize; they lick stamps; they put pressure on loved ones; and they revel in being loyal to a cohesive group of like thinkers. 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 to go away.”

Research, however, reveals there is a solid majority of Americans who are not right-wing authoritarians, that there are countless millions of liberals, moderates, and conservatives with consciences, people who shudder at the prospect of giving away our hard-earned democratic principles, and who cherish our liberties. These are individuals who question their leaders and their policies, and that is as it should be. Democracy is not a spectator sport that can be simply observed. To the contrary, it is difficult and demanding, and its very survival depends on active participation. Take it for granted, and the authoritarians, who have already taken control, will take American democracy where no freedom-loving person would want it to go. But time has run out, and the next two or three national election cycles will define America in the twenty-first century, for better or worse.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Acknowledgments are always a pleasure to write, not because they are done at the end of the project; rather, because they provide an opportunity to call attention to those whose assistance has, in an author’s view, significantly added to the undertaking. This work began with my trusted and able agent, Lydia Wills, who placed it in the good hands of Rick Kot at Viking, whose experience and professionalism are found on every page. Thus, that which works and reads well, credit Rick; that which does not, please blame me. In addition, others at Viking who deserve credit for their contributions include: Alessandra Lusardi (assistant editor), Sharon Gonzalez (production editor), Francesca Belanger (designer), Grace Veras (production manager), Paul Buckley (art director), Hal Fessenden (foreign rights), and Viking publisher Clare Ferraro.

A special thanks to Sarah Shoenfeld, who did some early research for me at the National Archives and, when my hard drive crashed at the end of my writing, provided her sharp eyes and pencil to help me tidy up the manuscript. And to political scientists Jerry Goldman and Ken Janda of Northwestern University, whose graphic view of conservatism I have borrowed from their seminal textbook, The Challenge of Democracy, along with polling data that Ken Janda provided me. Also thanks to my readers Stanley Kutler and David Dorsen, friends who permit me to impose on their valuable time and who will tell me of errors they might spot, but who are not responsible for those I have not found.

Researching this book provided something of an epiphany. I am not trained in the social sciences, but I realized when reading studies relating to conservatism and authoritarianism undertaken by social scientists that I had found important information which was unknown to the general public. Professor John Jost of New York University helped me grasp the work he and his colleagues have undertaken in their massive study of conservatism, and he kindly provided me additional reading material to better follow the work of social and political psychology. John Jost’s work led me to the studies of Bob Altemeyer, who, in turn, went beyond the call of duty to assist me in realizing the relationship of contemporary conservatism and authoritarianism.

The attention that I have given Bob Altemeyer’s work in these pages is directly related to its importance, for it is not possible to fully address contemporary conservatism without dealing with the increased role of authoritarianism—they are, in fact, inseparable. If this book accomplishes anything, it is my hope that it will raise awareness of this fact and lead to further analysis and information for the general reader. Given Bob Altemeyer’s fine mind, quick wit, and vast knowledge, not to mention his skill as a writer, I have encouraged him to do a book about authoritarians for the general reader. I truly hope he does so. His professional peers already know and respect his prodigious work, and they are aware of the implications of the growing authoritarianism in government. His findings are too important to not be widely understood by all involved with the political process. No less than the future of democratic government might be at stake.

Finally, I must acknowledge the man who first encouraged this project: Senator Barry M. Goldwater. I have no way of knowing how he would feel about what I have found and reported but I thank him for starting me off. I do know, however, that conservatives could surely use his conscience today.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A James Burnham’s Analysis of Conservatism

The following table summarizes James Burnham’s analysis of conservatism as he found it in the late 1950s, at the outset of the modern conservative movement. It paraphrases and quotes Burnham’s material, adding necessary explanations from his more complete descriptions as appropriate. (While I have no question that Burnham can speak for the founders of modern conservatism regarding conservative thinking, liberals may find his analysis of their point of view less than complete.) My summary is based on Burnham’s Congress and the American Tradition, and principally drawing.

The Conservative Syndrome	The Liberal Syndrome
1. Conservatives believe that government involves a non-rational factor. Without allowance for magic, luck, or divine favor, there is no convincing explanation for why one government works better than another. There is no rational explanation for why one person should submit to the rule of another’s absent habit, tradition, or faith. But without such submission, government dissolves or relies on force, which is nonrational. The conservative distrusts abstract political ideology as a principle or formula for political life.	1. Liberals have a general confidence in the ability of the human mind to comprehend through rational science problems of government and society, and they often trust in a particular ideology as a key to a successful government.
2. Conservatives believe that human nature is essentially corrupt, or evil, and is limited in its potential; therefore, conservatives do not believe in utopian or ultimate solutions to major social problems.	2. Liberals believe that most human weaknesses and errors are the result of weak social structure or inadequate education, for human potential, if not infinite, has no discernible a priori limitations; therefore, it is not unrealistic for humans to work toward an ideal society in which problems such as war, poverty, and suffering do not exist.
3. Conservatives respect tradition, established institutions, and conventional modes of conduct. They are reluctant to initiate quick or deep changes in traditional ways, and seek to restrict or slow the pace of changes that have become unavoidable or morally imperative.	3. Liberals do not believe tradition alone justifies favoring an institution or mode of conduct; and they are willing to accept quick, drastic, and extensive social changes based on rational and utilitarian grounds.
4. Conservatives believe in a diffusion of “sovereignty” (used by Burnham to mean “governmental power”) and a still wider diffusion of power, thus honoring the “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” envisioned by the Constitution.	4. Liberals think that diffusion of power may be useful against “reactionary forces” but are not much troubled by most power’s being in the hands of beneficial social entities (the common man, the people, workers, and farmers) and will waive concerns about power altogether for certain ideological goals (full employment, racial equality, social welfare, or peace).
5. Conservatives reject unrestricted plebiscitary (direct election by all the people) democracy in favor of representative government in which a number of indirect institutions mediate between the people and those in charge.	5. Liberals tend to approve of plebiscitary democracy, seeking forms of government that express the will of the majority as directly and intimately as possible (e.g., direct popular elections for president, direct primaries, initiative and recall, popular referendums, election of judges, extension of suffrage, and the like).
6. Conservatives believe in “states’ rights,” or the retention by each state of an effective share of the federal government’s sovereignty, because this diffuses power.	6. Liberals see “states’ rights” as either unimportant (an anachronism) or inefficient, for it leads to reactionary policies like pro-segregation, anti-labor, and anti-internationalist measures.
7. Conservatives believe in the autonomy of the various branches of the federal government, and oppose encroachment or usurpation by any of them upon the other branches.	7. Liberals think that strict separation of the branches of government hinders government’s ability to solve major problems.
8. Conservatives believe the public should support limiting government powers.	8. Liberals think the public should support greater government power to accomplish progressive goals.
9. Conservatives feel that the American constitutional system embodies principles of clear and permanent value.	9. Liberals hold that the Constitution is a living document, with its meaning dependent on time and circumstances.
10. Conservatives want decentralization and localization of government.	10. Liberals think that decentralization and localization can hinder solutions to modern problems.
11. Conservatives believe private, profit-making enterprises are the most just and effective means for economic operation and development.	11. Liberals are critical of private economic enterprise, and believe in government control of private activities, if not some measure of government ownership. They find private enterprises are frequently opposed to the interests of the people and the nation, and that, in many cases, the government can do a better job than private enterprise.
12. Conservatives hold that the private life of the individual, as opposed to the destiny of the nation or of society, should be the focus of metaphysical, moral, and practical interest.	12. Liberals feel that an expanding sphere of government involvement—in social and cultural life as well as in the economy—results in the best mode of life for people. Thus, expansion of government activity aids in attainment of a good life.
13. Conservatives favor Congress over the executive branch of government.	13. Liberals favor the executive branch, with its administrative bureaucracy, over Congress.