G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Bush, Ahmadinejad and Authoritarianism
By Nat Parry
Created Sep 29 2007 - 10:25am
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad grabbed attention this past week for
his "defiant" posture towards the United Nations over Iran's nuclear program
and his asinine comments at Columbia University on the absence of
homosexuality in his home country.
As usual, any legitimate points Ahmadinejad may have made were lost or
drowned out in the uproar over his more controversial remarks.
But what may be more revealing than what the speeches tell us about him as a
man, or even about the worsening tensions in U.S.-Iran relations, is what
the reaction to his visit says about the state of democratic discourse in
America.
In a replay of the hate-filled hysteria over Iraq's Saddam Hussein that
swept the nation in fall 2002, the U.S. political and media establishment
lashed out without restraint against the Iranian president.
The one-sided condemnations of Ahmadinejad also contrasted with the
uncritical praise for George W. Bush after his UN speech on Sept. 25, urging
the UN to more aggressively promote human rights and oppose authoritarian
regimes around the world.
Inadvertently, however, the confluence of these events served to highlight a
creeping form of authoritarianism in America. The contrasting treatment of
the two world leaders was a case study in what a leading scholar of
authoritarianism, Robert Altemeyer, identifies as "authoritarian submission"
and "authoritarian aggression."
By "authoritarian submission," he means a high degree of submission to the
authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the
society of which one is a member. "Authoritarian aggression" is
characterized by hostility toward people who are perceived to be disapproved
by the established authorities.
Both of these tendencies have been apparent in the past couple of weeks,
especially around Bush's and Ahmadinejad's addresses to the United Nations.
In contrast to the vitriol directed at Ahmadinejad for daring to even step
foot in New York, Bush was essentially given a free pass over his many
hypocritical statements in his address to the General Assembly.
Typical of the coverage of Bush's speech was a report [1] from
Bloomberg.com, which noted without a hint of irony that Bush "challenged the
United Nations to return to its founding principles and take the lead in
opposing repressive regimes and championing the cause of human rights and
freedom around the world."
Bush faulted the UN for the world's deteriorating human rights situation,
saying that its Universal Declaration of Human Rights "is not being upheld."
Bush Abuses Forgotten
Virtually no one in the U.S. media spelled out what the individual rights
were in the 1948 declaration - presumably because Bush had violated so many
of them [2] - nor did the American press corps delve into the conflict
between the UN and the Bush administration over its alleged human rights
abuses.
The fact that the UN and other international organizations have long called
on Bush to adhere to international standards in his prosecution of the "war
on terror" was largely ignored by the U.S. media in its coverage of Bush's
speech.
There was no mention, for instance, of the UN's call [3] in February 2006 to
shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, and either bring the
detainees before a competent tribunal, or release them.
Five independent investigators of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights made this recommendation after an 18-month investigation into the
situation of detainees at that U.S. Naval Base. The recommendation was
endorsed by Secretary General Kofi Annan, who said he hoped the prison camp
would be shut down "as soon as is possible."
A year and a half later, the camp is still fully operational, and hundreds
of suspects continue to languish there without charges, with little hope of
ever being freed.
The U.S. also still maintains an unknown number of secret CIA prisons at
undisclosed places around the world, continues to practice "enhanced
interrogation" techniques that essentially amount to torture, and continues
"extraordinary renditions" in which terror suspects are sent to countries
that are known to practice torture.
This important context disappeared in the U.S. press coverage which
dutifully reported on President Bush slamming the UN for abandoning the
cause of human rights around the world and calling on the international body
to return to its founding principles of promoting freedom and democracy.
Perhaps Bush's hypocrisy was simply too vast for the U.S. media to explain.
Perhaps major U.S. news outlets felt that properly dissecting this level of
double standard would take too much time or space. Maybe they were just
lazy.
But more ominous may be the possibility that the U.S. media and political
establishment are succumbing to a good vs. evil view of the world, in which
America represents all that is good, and those designated as enemies
represent all that is bad.
When contrasted with the unrestrained attacks on the Iranian president, the
lack of critical reporting on Bush's speech is especially glaring. When it
came to Ahmadinejad, virtually anything could be said with little fear of
being asked for factual documentation or being accused of hyperbole or
exaggeration.
'Evil Has Landed'
Typical was a New York Daily News headline the day after Ahmadinejad arrived
in New York: "The Evil Has Landed."
In other media outlets, there were comparisons of Ahmadinejad to Adolf
Hitler, denunciations of him as a "terrorist," and even attacks on Columbia
University for inviting him to speak there. Pundit Greg Gutfeld of Fox News
called the university a "crack house" for granting Ahmadinejad a platform.
Not only did newspapers and pundits criticize Columbia University for
inviting the Iranian president, but some prominent voices even questioned
his right to speak at the United Nations, of which Iran is a dues-paying
member.
As the UN's host nation, the United States is obligated to grant member
states and their representatives diplomatic access to New York and physical
protection. Despite this requirement, some Bush administration officials
depicted their grudging tolerance of Ahmadinejad's trip as a tribute to
America's commitment to freedom of speech.
Other U.S. political figures wouldn't even go that far. In a 60-second radio
ad, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the United
Nations for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak to the international body, and
called instead for his prosecution under international law.
"What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide
Convention," Romney said in the spot, which was run in Iowa, South Carolina
and Florida.
Romney offered no legal rationale for prosecuting Ahmadinejad under the
Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as "acts committed with intent
to destroy, in whole or in part [4], a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group."
Ahmadinejad, who was elected Iran's president in 2005, has not been
implicated in any such mass slaughter, but Romney apparently was referring
to Ahmadinejad's doubts about the Holocaust and his rhetoric about
eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. Supporters of Israel have been
rallying to prosecute him for genocide ever since.
(Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust represents a chapter of European history
that deserves critical scholarship but that nevertheless it wasn't the fault
of Palestinians who were forced from their lands to make room for the
settlement of Jewish survivors. He also says he favors a referendum of
Israelis and Palestinians to determine the future of those lands.)
Although it would be unprecedented to prosecute a world leader for simply
stating offensive and obnoxious opinions, the U.S. Congress and the U.S.
ambassador to the UN have supported such a move.
By a vote of 411-2, the U.S. House of Representatives endorsed the call to
charge Ahmadinejad with genocide, and urged the UN Security Council to take
action. U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton lent his support, too. In his
last month at his UN post, Bolton joined a panel of diplomats and lawyers
calling for Ahmadinejad to be prosecuted for his remarks regarding Israel.
Bolton's call came as Ahmadinejad insulted Israel in late 2006. "Thanks to
people's wishes and God's will," the Iranian president said [5], "the trend
for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God
has promised and what all nations want."
Ad Wars
While few would deny that Ahmadinejad has a tendency to say stupid things
worthy of criticism, what is remarkable about the reaction to his words is
the lack of proportionality when compared to the silence that follows
President Bush making remarks that are equally foolish.
Plus, Bush not only designates entire nations as "evil," he backs up his
rhetoric with coercive military threats, an intimidating arsenal of weapons
including nuclear bombs, and military action, such as the invasion of Iraq
launched under the false pretense of eliminating Iraq's WMD and leading to
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
That was the point that an anti-Bush group called World Can't Wait tried to
make in a full-page ad on the back cover of New York's free daily Metro on
Sept. 21. The ad [6] showed Bush's face within a nuclear mushroom cloud and
pointed out that the United States is the only country that has ever used
nuclear weapons.
It also referred to criticism of the U.S. by the UN's International Atomic
Energy Agency, which condemned attempts by the Bush administration to
falsify information on Iran's nuclear program. The Metro newspaper refused
the ad, calling it "too inflammatory."
On Sept. 25, the day of Bush's address to the UN, World Can't Wait attempted
to run another ad in Metro warning of the possibility of a U.S. attack on
Iran. The ad said, "One million dead in Iraq. Afghanistan gone to hell. Now
Bush zeroes in on Iran!"
The ad [7], which referred to Bush as "belligerent," was rejected for the
back cover explicitly on the basis of its content, says World Can't Wait.
The row over the World Can't Wait ads coincided with the more publicized
controversy over a MoveOn ad in the New York Times, criticizing Gen. David
Petraeus with the juvenile pun on his name, "General Betray Us."
After coming under intense political pressure from the Right, the New York
Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote on Sept. 23 that the ad "appeared to
have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq
and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an
opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to
defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest,
including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to
a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal
media.'"
Hoyt said the Times should not have published the ad because it amounted to
"an attack of a personal nature" on Petraeus. Yet, the following day, the
Times ran an ad that was clearly a personal attack on Ahmadinejad.
The full-page ad was sponsored by a pro-Bush, pro-war advocacy group called
Freedomswatch.org. Under the headline "Ahmadinejad Is a Terrorist," the ad
denounced Columbia University for allowing the Iranian president to give a
speech.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our nation and the freedoms
we value," the ad read. "He has supported attacks on our soldiers and our
allies. He should be treated as the terrorist that he is." [NYT, Sept. 24,
2007]
Forced Expulsion
But the Times' backpedaling over the MoveOn ad - and its pandering to
conservatives in running the Freedomswatch ad - was not enough to satisfy
Republican politicians who sensed they had the antiwar movement on the run.
First, the Republicans pushed through a bipartisan Senate resolution
expressing "full support" for Petraeus and condemning MoveOn for its attempt
to "impugn the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members
of the United States Armed Forces."
The House of Representatives followed suit, taking the denunciation a step
further by condemning the advocacy group "in the strongest possible terms."
The House resolution passed by a vote of 341-79.
The stampede against MoveOn appeared to have few limits. Republican
presidential candidate John McCain even called [8] for MoveOn to be "thrown
out of this country."
Since MoveOn has over three million members, the Arizona senator's comment -
taken literally - could be interpreted as seeking the expulsion of one
percent of the U.S. population because of their political views.
While some may dismiss McCain's remarks as empty bluster or a desperate
attempt to inject some life into his flagging presidential campaign, history
tells us that the United States has deported people based on their politics
before. During the Red Scare of 1919-1920, the government expelled hundreds
suspected of radical political views.
McCain's remarks were especially dangerous in today's combustible political
climate. Right-wing groups such as the Gathering of Eagles and the Free
Republic have long been a presence at antiwar marches, but lately have
become increasingly aggressive in countering what they consider to be
domestic enemies of America.
At a Sept. 15 antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C., counter-protesters
wore t-shirts that read "fighting the insurgency at home" as they hurled
insults at antiwar demonstrators. At times, the confrontation escalated into
physical altercations between the opposing groups.
In this tense environment, a call from a major presidential candidate to
expel MoveOn for its unpopular political views might well have justified
harsh public criticism of McCain. But the senator's comments passed largely
unnoticed, especially when contrasted with the furors over the MoveOn ad and
Ahmadinejad's speeches in New York.
[For more details on the rise of repression in the United States, see
Consortiumnews.com's "George W. Bush's Thug Nation [9]" or our new book,
Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush [10].]
Authoritarian Specter
But this double standard is at the crux of authoritarianism.
As explained by Robert Altemeyer, who has spent much of his career as a
psychologist studying right-wing authoritarianism, the phenomenon is
characterized by a high degree of submission to the authorities who are
perceived to be legitimate, and a general aggressiveness toward those
perceived to be targeted for abuse by the established authorities.
Altemeyer sees the foundation of authoritarianism as a basic personality
trait within the individuals who make up a nation.
His definition of the authoritarian personality, developed over years of
testing and experimentation based on the scientific method, consists of
three attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian
aggression, and conventionalism - a high degree of devotion to the social
conventions which are perceived to be sanctioned by society and its
established authorities. [See Robert Altemeyer, Right-Wing Authoritarianism]
By "attitudinal clusters" he means "orientations to respond in the same
general way toward certain classes of stimuli (namely, established
authorities, targets for sanctioned aggression, and social conventions)."
He further identifies one of the defining characteristics of authoritarians
as their belief "that established authorities have an inherent right to
decide for themselves what they may do," which may include breaking the laws
that they make for the rest of society.
While granting substantial leeway to established authorities, authoritarians
generally reject the idea that regular people should develop their own ideas
of what is moral and immoral, because the laws and social conventions have
already been laid out.
Most of these tendencies can be seen in America today and have risen to new
heights over the past couple of weeks with events such as the MoveOn
controversy and the vitriol surrounding Ahmadinejad's visit to New York when
compared to the free pass given to President Bush over his hypocrisy.
For years, Altemeyer has warned that based on his empirical research into
the authoritarian personality, it is apparent that many ordinary people
living in advanced democracies are psychologically disposed to embrace
antidemocratic, fascist policies.
Because of this disposition, Altemeyer concludes that "a potential for the
acceptance of right-wing totalitarian rule exists in . the United States."
[See Robert Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter]
This threat can be exacerbated by a national crisis or emergency. In such a
circumstance, Altemeyer notes, the fearful mood of a populace "can create a
climate of public opinion that promotes totalitarian movements." This state
of mind "can intimidate politicians, journalists and religious leaders who
might otherwise oppose repression."
With the authoritarian foundations laid by the Bush administration and to a
degree legitimized and legalized by the U.S. Congress - including
elimination of habeas corpus rights, warrantless wiretaps, and military
commissions run by the Executive Branch - it may not be long before this
authoritarian specter becomes a reality.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Nat Parry
Created Sep 29 2007 - 10:25am
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad grabbed attention this past week for
his "defiant" posture towards the United Nations over Iran's nuclear program
and his asinine comments at Columbia University on the absence of
homosexuality in his home country.
As usual, any legitimate points Ahmadinejad may have made were lost or
drowned out in the uproar over his more controversial remarks.
But what may be more revealing than what the speeches tell us about him as a
man, or even about the worsening tensions in U.S.-Iran relations, is what
the reaction to his visit says about the state of democratic discourse in
America.
In a replay of the hate-filled hysteria over Iraq's Saddam Hussein that
swept the nation in fall 2002, the U.S. political and media establishment
lashed out without restraint against the Iranian president.
The one-sided condemnations of Ahmadinejad also contrasted with the
uncritical praise for George W. Bush after his UN speech on Sept. 25, urging
the UN to more aggressively promote human rights and oppose authoritarian
regimes around the world.
Inadvertently, however, the confluence of these events served to highlight a
creeping form of authoritarianism in America. The contrasting treatment of
the two world leaders was a case study in what a leading scholar of
authoritarianism, Robert Altemeyer, identifies as "authoritarian submission"
and "authoritarian aggression."
By "authoritarian submission," he means a high degree of submission to the
authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the
society of which one is a member. "Authoritarian aggression" is
characterized by hostility toward people who are perceived to be disapproved
by the established authorities.
Both of these tendencies have been apparent in the past couple of weeks,
especially around Bush's and Ahmadinejad's addresses to the United Nations.
In contrast to the vitriol directed at Ahmadinejad for daring to even step
foot in New York, Bush was essentially given a free pass over his many
hypocritical statements in his address to the General Assembly.
Typical of the coverage of Bush's speech was a report [1] from
Bloomberg.com, which noted without a hint of irony that Bush "challenged the
United Nations to return to its founding principles and take the lead in
opposing repressive regimes and championing the cause of human rights and
freedom around the world."
Bush faulted the UN for the world's deteriorating human rights situation,
saying that its Universal Declaration of Human Rights "is not being upheld."
Bush Abuses Forgotten
Virtually no one in the U.S. media spelled out what the individual rights
were in the 1948 declaration - presumably because Bush had violated so many
of them [2] - nor did the American press corps delve into the conflict
between the UN and the Bush administration over its alleged human rights
abuses.
The fact that the UN and other international organizations have long called
on Bush to adhere to international standards in his prosecution of the "war
on terror" was largely ignored by the U.S. media in its coverage of Bush's
speech.
There was no mention, for instance, of the UN's call [3] in February 2006 to
shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, and either bring the
detainees before a competent tribunal, or release them.
Five independent investigators of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights made this recommendation after an 18-month investigation into the
situation of detainees at that U.S. Naval Base. The recommendation was
endorsed by Secretary General Kofi Annan, who said he hoped the prison camp
would be shut down "as soon as is possible."
A year and a half later, the camp is still fully operational, and hundreds
of suspects continue to languish there without charges, with little hope of
ever being freed.
The U.S. also still maintains an unknown number of secret CIA prisons at
undisclosed places around the world, continues to practice "enhanced
interrogation" techniques that essentially amount to torture, and continues
"extraordinary renditions" in which terror suspects are sent to countries
that are known to practice torture.
This important context disappeared in the U.S. press coverage which
dutifully reported on President Bush slamming the UN for abandoning the
cause of human rights around the world and calling on the international body
to return to its founding principles of promoting freedom and democracy.
Perhaps Bush's hypocrisy was simply too vast for the U.S. media to explain.
Perhaps major U.S. news outlets felt that properly dissecting this level of
double standard would take too much time or space. Maybe they were just
lazy.
But more ominous may be the possibility that the U.S. media and political
establishment are succumbing to a good vs. evil view of the world, in which
America represents all that is good, and those designated as enemies
represent all that is bad.
When contrasted with the unrestrained attacks on the Iranian president, the
lack of critical reporting on Bush's speech is especially glaring. When it
came to Ahmadinejad, virtually anything could be said with little fear of
being asked for factual documentation or being accused of hyperbole or
exaggeration.
'Evil Has Landed'
Typical was a New York Daily News headline the day after Ahmadinejad arrived
in New York: "The Evil Has Landed."
In other media outlets, there were comparisons of Ahmadinejad to Adolf
Hitler, denunciations of him as a "terrorist," and even attacks on Columbia
University for inviting him to speak there. Pundit Greg Gutfeld of Fox News
called the university a "crack house" for granting Ahmadinejad a platform.
Not only did newspapers and pundits criticize Columbia University for
inviting the Iranian president, but some prominent voices even questioned
his right to speak at the United Nations, of which Iran is a dues-paying
member.
As the UN's host nation, the United States is obligated to grant member
states and their representatives diplomatic access to New York and physical
protection. Despite this requirement, some Bush administration officials
depicted their grudging tolerance of Ahmadinejad's trip as a tribute to
America's commitment to freedom of speech.
Other U.S. political figures wouldn't even go that far. In a 60-second radio
ad, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the United
Nations for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak to the international body, and
called instead for his prosecution under international law.
"What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide
Convention," Romney said in the spot, which was run in Iowa, South Carolina
and Florida.
Romney offered no legal rationale for prosecuting Ahmadinejad under the
Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as "acts committed with intent
to destroy, in whole or in part [4], a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group."
Ahmadinejad, who was elected Iran's president in 2005, has not been
implicated in any such mass slaughter, but Romney apparently was referring
to Ahmadinejad's doubts about the Holocaust and his rhetoric about
eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. Supporters of Israel have been
rallying to prosecute him for genocide ever since.
(Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust represents a chapter of European history
that deserves critical scholarship but that nevertheless it wasn't the fault
of Palestinians who were forced from their lands to make room for the
settlement of Jewish survivors. He also says he favors a referendum of
Israelis and Palestinians to determine the future of those lands.)
Although it would be unprecedented to prosecute a world leader for simply
stating offensive and obnoxious opinions, the U.S. Congress and the U.S.
ambassador to the UN have supported such a move.
By a vote of 411-2, the U.S. House of Representatives endorsed the call to
charge Ahmadinejad with genocide, and urged the UN Security Council to take
action. U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton lent his support, too. In his
last month at his UN post, Bolton joined a panel of diplomats and lawyers
calling for Ahmadinejad to be prosecuted for his remarks regarding Israel.
Bolton's call came as Ahmadinejad insulted Israel in late 2006. "Thanks to
people's wishes and God's will," the Iranian president said [5], "the trend
for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God
has promised and what all nations want."
Ad Wars
While few would deny that Ahmadinejad has a tendency to say stupid things
worthy of criticism, what is remarkable about the reaction to his words is
the lack of proportionality when compared to the silence that follows
President Bush making remarks that are equally foolish.
Plus, Bush not only designates entire nations as "evil," he backs up his
rhetoric with coercive military threats, an intimidating arsenal of weapons
including nuclear bombs, and military action, such as the invasion of Iraq
launched under the false pretense of eliminating Iraq's WMD and leading to
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
That was the point that an anti-Bush group called World Can't Wait tried to
make in a full-page ad on the back cover of New York's free daily Metro on
Sept. 21. The ad [6] showed Bush's face within a nuclear mushroom cloud and
pointed out that the United States is the only country that has ever used
nuclear weapons.
It also referred to criticism of the U.S. by the UN's International Atomic
Energy Agency, which condemned attempts by the Bush administration to
falsify information on Iran's nuclear program. The Metro newspaper refused
the ad, calling it "too inflammatory."
On Sept. 25, the day of Bush's address to the UN, World Can't Wait attempted
to run another ad in Metro warning of the possibility of a U.S. attack on
Iran. The ad said, "One million dead in Iraq. Afghanistan gone to hell. Now
Bush zeroes in on Iran!"
The ad [7], which referred to Bush as "belligerent," was rejected for the
back cover explicitly on the basis of its content, says World Can't Wait.
The row over the World Can't Wait ads coincided with the more publicized
controversy over a MoveOn ad in the New York Times, criticizing Gen. David
Petraeus with the juvenile pun on his name, "General Betray Us."
After coming under intense political pressure from the Right, the New York
Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote on Sept. 23 that the ad "appeared to
have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq
and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an
opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to
defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest,
including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to
a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal
media.'"
Hoyt said the Times should not have published the ad because it amounted to
"an attack of a personal nature" on Petraeus. Yet, the following day, the
Times ran an ad that was clearly a personal attack on Ahmadinejad.
The full-page ad was sponsored by a pro-Bush, pro-war advocacy group called
Freedomswatch.org. Under the headline "Ahmadinejad Is a Terrorist," the ad
denounced Columbia University for allowing the Iranian president to give a
speech.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our nation and the freedoms
we value," the ad read. "He has supported attacks on our soldiers and our
allies. He should be treated as the terrorist that he is." [NYT, Sept. 24,
2007]
Forced Expulsion
But the Times' backpedaling over the MoveOn ad - and its pandering to
conservatives in running the Freedomswatch ad - was not enough to satisfy
Republican politicians who sensed they had the antiwar movement on the run.
First, the Republicans pushed through a bipartisan Senate resolution
expressing "full support" for Petraeus and condemning MoveOn for its attempt
to "impugn the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members
of the United States Armed Forces."
The House of Representatives followed suit, taking the denunciation a step
further by condemning the advocacy group "in the strongest possible terms."
The House resolution passed by a vote of 341-79.
The stampede against MoveOn appeared to have few limits. Republican
presidential candidate John McCain even called [8] for MoveOn to be "thrown
out of this country."
Since MoveOn has over three million members, the Arizona senator's comment -
taken literally - could be interpreted as seeking the expulsion of one
percent of the U.S. population because of their political views.
While some may dismiss McCain's remarks as empty bluster or a desperate
attempt to inject some life into his flagging presidential campaign, history
tells us that the United States has deported people based on their politics
before. During the Red Scare of 1919-1920, the government expelled hundreds
suspected of radical political views.
McCain's remarks were especially dangerous in today's combustible political
climate. Right-wing groups such as the Gathering of Eagles and the Free
Republic have long been a presence at antiwar marches, but lately have
become increasingly aggressive in countering what they consider to be
domestic enemies of America.
At a Sept. 15 antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C., counter-protesters
wore t-shirts that read "fighting the insurgency at home" as they hurled
insults at antiwar demonstrators. At times, the confrontation escalated into
physical altercations between the opposing groups.
In this tense environment, a call from a major presidential candidate to
expel MoveOn for its unpopular political views might well have justified
harsh public criticism of McCain. But the senator's comments passed largely
unnoticed, especially when contrasted with the furors over the MoveOn ad and
Ahmadinejad's speeches in New York.
[For more details on the rise of repression in the United States, see
Consortiumnews.com's "George W. Bush's Thug Nation [9]" or our new book,
Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush [10].]
Authoritarian Specter
But this double standard is at the crux of authoritarianism.
As explained by Robert Altemeyer, who has spent much of his career as a
psychologist studying right-wing authoritarianism, the phenomenon is
characterized by a high degree of submission to the authorities who are
perceived to be legitimate, and a general aggressiveness toward those
perceived to be targeted for abuse by the established authorities.
Altemeyer sees the foundation of authoritarianism as a basic personality
trait within the individuals who make up a nation.
His definition of the authoritarian personality, developed over years of
testing and experimentation based on the scientific method, consists of
three attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian
aggression, and conventionalism - a high degree of devotion to the social
conventions which are perceived to be sanctioned by society and its
established authorities. [See Robert Altemeyer, Right-Wing Authoritarianism]
By "attitudinal clusters" he means "orientations to respond in the same
general way toward certain classes of stimuli (namely, established
authorities, targets for sanctioned aggression, and social conventions)."
He further identifies one of the defining characteristics of authoritarians
as their belief "that established authorities have an inherent right to
decide for themselves what they may do," which may include breaking the laws
that they make for the rest of society.
While granting substantial leeway to established authorities, authoritarians
generally reject the idea that regular people should develop their own ideas
of what is moral and immoral, because the laws and social conventions have
already been laid out.
Most of these tendencies can be seen in America today and have risen to new
heights over the past couple of weeks with events such as the MoveOn
controversy and the vitriol surrounding Ahmadinejad's visit to New York when
compared to the free pass given to President Bush over his hypocrisy.
For years, Altemeyer has warned that based on his empirical research into
the authoritarian personality, it is apparent that many ordinary people
living in advanced democracies are psychologically disposed to embrace
antidemocratic, fascist policies.
Because of this disposition, Altemeyer concludes that "a potential for the
acceptance of right-wing totalitarian rule exists in . the United States."
[See Robert Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter]
This threat can be exacerbated by a national crisis or emergency. In such a
circumstance, Altemeyer notes, the fearful mood of a populace "can create a
climate of public opinion that promotes totalitarian movements." This state
of mind "can intimidate politicians, journalists and religious leaders who
might otherwise oppose repression."
With the authoritarian foundations laid by the Bush administration and to a
degree legitimized and legalized by the U.S. Congress - including
elimination of habeas corpus rights, warrantless wiretaps, and military
commissions run by the Executive Branch - it may not be long before this
authoritarian specter becomes a reality.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson