Damek.

As a preface: by linking & quoting the below I am not suggesting that all conservatives I know are brainwashed cultists or that all radical progressives are uncivilized primitives. My intents are non-partisan, though the subject matter isn’t. Particularly, I find the below enlightening with respect to the 30% phenomenon.

First, a review of the book Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean, which:

…contends, and amply documents, that the “conservative” movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers’ devotion to authority and the movement’s own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.

The reviewer lists the book’s two central points as:

First, that what is currently described as the “conservative movement” bears virtually no resemblance to Goldwater’s conservatism, and has nothing to do with restraining government power or preserving historical values. Instead, it has transformed into an authoritarian movement which largely attracts personality types characterized by a desire and need to submit to and follow authority.

Second, because those who submit to authority necessarily relinquish their own conscience (in favor of serving the conscience of their leader and/or their movement), those who are part of this movement are capable of acts which a healthy and normal conscience ought to preclude. They can use torture, break laws, wage unnecessary wars based on false pretenses, and attempt to destroy the reputation of plainly patriotic and honest Americans — provided that they are convinced that doing so advances the interests of the authority they serve and the movement of which they are a part.

As for the first, from what I’ve read about the Goldwater movement, I would disagree slightly; I think the movement had, and perhaps all movements require, cultish personality types and aspects.

Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the premise and the analysis does “feel” correct, or at least useful, illustrating a modern example of a common human weakness. This reflects another excellent piece just posted on DailyKos Science Friday which takes an anthropological view of the 30% phenomenon, laying out what tribalism means and arguing that “the hate group” is an example of said tribalism that has reoccurred throughout human history and is likely to continue to do so.

Comparing the extremist faction of conservatives with the Taliban (nothing that hasn’t been done before, but the anthropological angle is new to me), the author writes:

Although members of either group would intensely dislike the comparison, components in both the Taliban and the neo-conservative religious right utilize similar propaganda tactics to spread a comparable ideology of authoritarian cultism, religious fundamentalism, violence, and hatred.

Sounding familiar to me after the cult-based analysis I’d just read, there’s even more agreement between the two ideas in the final paragraph:

From the standpoint of cultural anthropology, it might be said there is a form of violent tribalism, alternatively called neoconservatism or the religious right, loose in America. So try to keep in mind, when you hear someone from the right parroting talking points that climate change is invalid or that Iraq is going swell, it’s not so much an argument made from ignorance that can be corrected with information: it is a tribal chant.

And a cultish reinforcement, a self-affirmation. Most importantly, it’s something to which we are all susceptible, myself included. It’s the reason that, despite understanding their tactical utility, I am typically put off by things like progressive rallies or radio shows where people parrot slogans, etc. They seem to be more of a mindless chant of group validation than an expression of any thought or intelligence.

Perhaps one reason that politics has become so polarized in the modern world, and not just America, is that 20th century media (radio, television), coupled with the accompanying advertising revolution, thrives so much on superficial identity and sound bites. Does this feed the tribal, group-identity aspects of human nature rather than nurturing a healthy, individual empowerment?

And yet, humans being social creatures, the tribal instinct is not necessarily all bad, and is part of who we are.

Our understanding of human behavior and psychology made great strides in the 20th century, and continues to do so. Yet it has still only scratched the surface, and barely reproduced the insights of ancient thinkers. The real challenge is, can humanity use this understanding to protect ourselves and our future from these phenomena? Our founding citizens gave us a tool, a shield, since they:

were aware of this phenomena, and they crafted documents like the Constitution to sap these dangerous movements of the social inertia they need to gain a foothold.

…it prevents their movement from blossoming into full blown authoritarianism.

Will it continue to work? Or do we all need to start reading up on cult rehabilitation?